Talking Umpires

I've often been critical of Major League Baseball's changes that are made to "better" the game but actually end up making it worse!  Over the first month of the 2022 season, however, I've noticed one change that I'm very much on board with.  Umpires now announce when a play is under review, the reason why, and the result of the challenge.

When MLB first began using instant replay, that was the one element that was missing.  And it was very glaring.  People could figure out that they were going to replay because the game stopped and they put on headsets, but no one knew what they were actually reviewing, so fans and broadcasters were left to guess.  Then, the result of the play was simply a non-verbal "safe" or "out" signal with no other explanation.

For the most part, doing it that way got the point across.  It was obvious that the play being reviewed was the close one that just happened, and they'd show it enough on the video board in the stadium (or on the broadcast) that people were able to form their opinion based on seeing multiple replays from different angles.  So, no, it wasn't 100 percent necessary for them to add the verbal explanation to it.

However, adding the verbal explanation has brought so much more to it.  Now it's clear to everyone in the stadium that the play's under review and what element of it is being looked at.  The umpires can also make it clear whether a team is challenging or if they're reviewing it on their own.  Then, after the result of the review is announced, whether the team retains their challenge (for being successful) or loses it (for being wrong).

Fans watching at home could get that information from the broadcaster, but the fans in the stadium wouldn't necessarily know without the announcement.  And any extra information you can give the fans is a good thing.

Baseball was also the only sport that didn't have some sort of verbal communication from the official about a replay.  In football, the referee has been mic'ed up for about as long as wireless communication has existed.  And he needs to be.  Imagine trying to figure out penalties and coach's challenges if he wasn't!  As excellent as Mike Pereira and Gene Steratore are, they'd only be able to help out so much in those situations.

Likewise, in hockey, one of the referees has a microphone to announce penalties and replay results.  While it's not as necessary as it is in football, it still enhances the viewing experience.  Hockey has the hand signals and it's obvious who's going to the penalty box, but, with a microphone, the referee can provide any extra details beyond just the basic, necessary information.

Even in basketball, where they still just use the hand signals, what's the first thing one of the officials does after a review?  Go over and tell the broadcasters whatever their decision was!  In the Women's NCAA Tournament, they've taken it a step farther.  There's actually a headset set up for the official to just hop on and explain what's being reviewed, then whatever the result was.

You'd have a hard time finding anyone who doesn't think the official being mic'ed up in any of those sports is a good thing.  Likewise, I doubt there's anyone who thinks getting similar replay announcements in MLB games is a bad thing.  Granted, it hasn't even been a month, but so far, I've heard few, if any, complaints.

In a way, it lends even more credibility to the call.  Everyone in the ballpark knows exactly what's being challenged and why.  As a result, they know what to look for when they watch the replay.  It takes a lot of the guessing out.  Fans may still disagree with the final ruling, but they'll at least know how close the play actually was.  And, if the umpire was wrong, he'll hop on the microphone and say so.

The funny thing is that the only people who were hesitant about this were the umpires themselves.  It wasn't officially implemented until late in Spring Training, and there was some initial reluctance.  But even they quickly came around once they started doing it and saw how much better it made things.

Of course, instant replay in baseball has taken away one element, but that's got nothing to do with umpires getting on the microphone or not.  Once a team challenges a call, that's it.  The runner's either safe or out.  You can't argue or discuss it after the decision is made.  The umpires don't even watch the replay themselves.  The call is made by a different group of umpires at the MLB Replay Center in New York.

Although, those Earl Weaver/Bobby Cox-like arguments being a thing of the past isn't necessarily bad, either.  Managers are far less likely to get ejected if they can't get in an umpire's face about a call he got "wrong."  If you think he's wrong, challenge it.  The video will either prove you right or prove him right.  Either way, you're more likely to stick around until the end of the game when you're literally not allowed to argue the replay decision.

There was a time when we thought we'd never see instant replay come to Major League Baseball.  When it arrived, everyone agreed that it made the game better.  Now they've made replay better, too.  Just by doing something as simple as having the umpire tell everyone what was being challenged and what the final result of the play was.