Sunday, June 6, 2010

What do we want? REPLAY! When do we want it? NOW!

By now you've no doubt heard of the umpire who screwed up and cost that guy a perfect game. (I'm leaving out the details not because I don't care but because they don't matter here.) The aftermath was the feel good story of baseball so far this year- guy screws up, guy owns up to his screw-up, affected parties forgive him, all is well.

All that making nice somewhat diffused the furor over the mistake and diverted the attention from the obvious issue- that baseball needs more replay. The argument of purists is that mistakes are part of the game, that the role of the umpire is essential to the integrity of baseball and makes the game what it is.

That's horsecrap. There's no industry out there that accepts mistakes as part of doing business. Umpires do their best to make the right call, but sometimes make a mistake. If there is an immediate way to evaluate the umpire's judgment, why not use it? When that immediate method (replay) is already being used and broadcast to viewers in real time, it displays the flaws and calls into question whether the outcome of the contest is legitimate.

Here's one group of people who deserve replay the most- gamblers. The outcome of the game in question here (the near-perfect game) was not affected by the missed call. But no doubt there are games that either have or will have their outcomes affected by a mistake. If a wager is lost despite visible evidence that it should have been won, it becomes an unfair loss (or a contrary illegitimate win) to the gambler involved.

Tennis has been using the electronic eye system for years. It does not replace but supports the line judges and the chair umpire in their jobs. It works. I've never heard a tennis purist, commentator, or player bemoan the system. They're happy that the calls are being made consistently and fairly for all players.

The technology exists to correct these flaws. There's no reason not to institute it now, in fairness to all. Too bad it's too late for Armando Galarraga (you know, that guy.)

1 comment:

PJ Geraghty said...

I agree. If there's one good thing to come out of this incident, maybe it will be the adoption of some sort of instant replay rule.

One thing I'm not clear on, however...what will be the penalty for a lost appeal? In football, the appealing team loses a timeout if the call is upheld. What will happen in baseball? An artificial "out" seems like the obvious solution, but there's something distasteful about that too.

(But all those screaming that the call should be reversed are dead wrong. As they stand today, the rules require that the call stands. Change the rules, yes, but we can't apply them ex post facto.)