Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Upon Further Review

Instant replay has become an accepted part of virtually every sport.  And, frankly, it's a good thing.  The whole point of instant replay is to fix correctable errors.  Even if we're sometimes left sitting there wondering how a certain call can stand when the replay clearly shows it should be overturned or vice versa.  But at least that's better than wondering why a play can't be reviewed (or what the NFL's definition of a catch is that week).

I also agree that instant replay isn't the end-all, be-all.  There are definitely certain things that should still be left to human judgment.  Things like balls and strikes in baseball or penalties in football.  Likewise, instant replay's purpose isn't to interpret the rules.  It's a tool to help officials do their jobs.  It's not meant to replace them.

But even when instant replay is used properly, it sometimes leaves you scratching your head.  The correct call may not always be the "right" one.  Especially if it goes against the whole spirit of the replay rules in the first place.

There are two instances that come to mind regarding the use of replay in baseball, neither of which really makes too much sense to me.  The first was a game late in the regular season between the Reds and Cardinals.  St. Louis had the winning run score from first on Yadier Molina's walk-off double that kept them in the playoff race.  Except the video clearly showed it should've been a ground-rule double, which would've kept the winning run at third.  And the Reds weren't allowed to challenge it!

Apparently it's a rule that a replay request has to be immediate and the Reds took too long to say they wanted to challenge.  The thing that's really stupid about this rule, though, is that they have 30 seconds during the course of the game.  So, for the inconsequential play in the third inning, they have 30 seconds.  But on the final play of the game, it has to be immediate.  Am I the only one who thinks there's something wrong with this picture?  Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Cincinnati manager Bryan Price wasn't happy after the game, and it had nothing to do with the loss.  That wasn't even remotely close to the point.  The Cardinals might've won the game anyway.  It was more about the integrity of the process.  In that situation, replay clearly would've shown that the call on the field was incorrect and the game shouldn't have been over.  Price had a greater point.  He even said in his postgame press conference that the San Francisco Giants had every reason to be upset by that result.  It ultimately didn't, but that could've been the game that cost the Giants a playoff spot.

Price's argument that it was absolutely ridiculous that play couldn't be reviewed is one that was well-taken.  I don't know of a person who didn't agree with him, and I'm sure that will be a topic of discussion at the Winter Meetings.  I wouldn't be surprised to see a rule change put in next season, either.

Another replay rule change I'd like to see put in place involves the tag play at second on stolen base attempts.  We've seen this play called right a number of times throughout the playoffs, one of which led to an inning-long discussion between Ernie Johnson, Ron Darling and Cal Ripken during the Indians-Red Sox series.  I agree with Ernie and Ron.  While technically correct, calling the guy out because he came off the base for a split-second on the slide isn't within the spirit of the rule.

Ever since Major League Baseball instituted instant replay, middle infielders have been taught to keep their tag on any runner attempting to steal second just in case his body comes off the base at any point.  In the Cleveland-Boston game in question, I think it was Francisco Lindor had the base stolen.  He had a great jump, beat the throw by a mile, and got his hand in there.  But because there was a split second between Lindor touching the base with his hand and completing the slide that he wasn't in contact with the base...so they called him out to end the inning.

So, in other words, Lindor did everything right, yet he was out because the umpires in New York had access to 17 different angles of slow motion video that showed he was not on the base for a millisecond on an otherwise picture-perfect stolen base attempt.  How many stolen bases would that have cost Ricky Henderson or Lou Brock if they'd had replay back then?

That's not the intent of the replay rules.  If the throw beats him and he clearly doesn't touch the base or if he overslides the bag or if he goes out of the baseline I have no problem with the runner being called out.  But in situations like the one with Lindor in the Division Series, the runner should be called safe.  Because for all intents and purposes, he is.  I highly doubt they'll make any sort of rule change about this one.  But I hope they do.  At the very least, they should consider it.

While we're on the topic, I always prefer the umpires letting something play out then using replay to correct the situation rather than the other way around.  It's better to call the guy safe then overturn it than to call him out and have everybody stop, only to find out that the original call was wrong and the runners should've kept going.

Who knows?  Maybe this is enough to get Baseball talking about it.  Maybe they'll even tweak the replay rules, which wouldn't be unprecedented (remember when it first started and everyone was getting called out at first when the throw was still in the air?  That got fixed quickly).  After all, it only takes one high-profile play that gets everybody talking to prompt a change (NoVarro Bowman Rule anybody?).

No comments:

Post a Comment