5.27.2008

Fair Ball: A Fan's Case for No Replays

Inspired by Craigory Schmidt, here we go...

(Executive Summary: MLB should fix the bizarre set-up of ballpark fences/foul poles instead of falling into a trend of adopting replay technology that only adds to the controversy and takes away from the game itself.)

If anyone here watched the Lakers/Spurs Game 4 on TNT just a few minutes ago, the case not only against replay but against this obsession of TV and Radio to nitpick calls speaks for itself. Long story short, the Lakers won by two...the last play involved contact between Derek Fisher (laker) and Brent Barry (Spur) that could have, but was not called a foul.

As the game ended, Doug Collins of the TNT crew spoke of nothing but the non-call. On the LAKERS broadcast, there was little discussion of much else. The post-game on TNT was about nothing but the non-call.

So you'd imagine the Spurs players and coaches would be livid given such a controversial call.

Pop: "If I were the ref, I wouldn't make that call."
Duncan: "They're not going to make that call."
Barry: "No. That isn't going to get called."

So if the OTHER TEAM doesn't even care, where exactly is the controversy? In the fan's minds, that's where...thanks to the laziness of the telecasters, who in lieu of actual analysis, look to stir up the emotions of the still-raw fans. Why? So they'll watch the post-game! Call in and talk about it! Indeed, Lakers fans had already come up with their arsenal of "bad calls" that hurt their team through the game. It's a bunch of garbage that has nothing to do with who won and why. Dissecting a professional game in any sport is hard. It requires a lot of thought, caution and professionalism. Putting a last minute call into question is much easier. (and more sexy, because any boob with an opinion can play this game.)

POINT #1 -- Replay solves nothing. Controversy will always exist because it is easy pickings for analysts.

Evidence: Are there fewer arguments over calls in College Football or NFL these days?

Unfortunately, the discussions of calls are put in dire terms by play-by-play teams, when they often have a loose if not outright incorrect understanding of the rules. The strike zone, for instance, is not a static area...it is a changing shape determined by the stance of the batter. A catch isn't a catch until the ball is successfully transfered out of the glove. Doubtful many fans or announcers could put these concepts to words or practice. That doesn't stop them from trying to make snap judgements about whether a call was right or not (I've never heard an announcer say, "You know, I don't really know that how that rule goes.") NOTE: The great announcers didn't and don't waste much time with this nonsense. They would just say, "That's a close call at first" or similar.

Which leads to point #2:

Point #2: The real issues is no one understands the rules beyond the officials.
Evidence: Did you watch ESPN's saturation coverage of all these "blown" HR calls?

ESPN's Sunday Night Baseball featuring the Mets v. Yankees was the starting point for this current rush to install replay in MLB. A deep fly ball to left tailed out near the foul pole, took a wicked turn off something and went into the crowd. At least 20 replays of this ball were shown in the next hour, with neither announcer noticing the ball actually hit the top of the wall before hitting the corner of the foul pole (which was strangely painted black at the bottom in Yankee Stadium). So the 3rd Base ump called it right as a HR, but asked for backup. The three others thought it was foul, so he changed his call. The Mets won by like 10, but that didn't stop ESPN from acting like this was the biggest mistake in the history of professional officiating.

Would replay have solved this? Maybe. But attention would then only turn to calls at first, plays at the plate, borderline catches, etc. A HR barely getting over the wall or being foul or being a double is really no more or less important than a close third strike call with two outs. So who cares? This solves nothing. ESPN will still focus on stirring up controversy and the replay will solve none of it.

The week following, each SportsCenter featured a BRAND NEW controversial HR call or non-call. The funny thing is, I watched them all and honestly couldn't call 80 percent of them. I don't know the ground rules for those stadiums. Sometimes the wall is in, sometimes not, sometimes the line is on top of the wall, sometimes three inches under, sometimes above the wall.

I know this might sound a bit, uh, logical, but if what you're really after is clear HR calls...FIX THE STUPID WALLS SO THE BOUNDARIES ARE CLEAR. Each stadium -- especially these new ones -- has some jacked up outfield boundaries to give the place personality, while at the same time compromising clarity as to what is or is not in play. Seems to me, you could pretty easily paint a line of yellow atop all walls, and push any structures that are out-of-play further back from the in-play area to prevent this. This is the Big Leagues. It's like if in the NBA you had the shot clock in a different position and a bunch of stairs perched atop the backboard in Phoenix, but then a restaurant behind the glass in NY. It's silly. Push that garbage back 5 feet and this would never come up again. Put a little netting basket along each wall if you like. And as for the foul pole...these calls get made correctly all the time. This one at Yankee Stadium is a direct result of the bizarre wall set-up, where the wall comes in three feet ahead of the foul pole, which is also strangely painted black at the bottom, unlike the rest of it.

Or, we could just waste time and energy instituting a new replay system that will only lead to more nitpicking of calls and ultimately slow the game down to a bareknuckled crawl...all to feed the addiction of the ESPN generation, which will spend days and days arguing about whether a play was called correctly or not -- yet never actually understanding the rules they are so adamently debating. This is not a solution to anything...just ask the NFL, or watch a College Football game with the ESPN crew and honestly tell me replay has helped the game.

6 comments:

Joe Block said...

As a play-by-play broadcaster, I've had trouble deciphering fair/foul or close plays from the booth. Umpires often have much better views, but not always. Sometimes they are obscured by players, or, often, poorly marked boundaries.

The yellow home run line instituted about 15 years ago has helped, but differentiating whether a ball caromed off a screened image of a In-and-Out logo at the top of the wall vs. in-and-out of an empty, light-colored seat in the first row, just inches above, is next to impossible in real time.

Crediting Joe Morgan (which few do): He was flummoxed that the passion for replay was fueled by home run gaffes. He stressed there are more close plays in baseball -- and ones that decide games -- than simply home runs. Consider fair/foul down the lines (hence six umpires in the postseason) or ruling an intentional drop on infield line drives to mislead runners and start a double play. The former would be aided by replay, sure. The latter is pure judgment.

So is the strike zone.

Even K-zone and other technologies don't always get it right. And what fan can't remember a game where their team got jobbed on a strike call or non-call?

This blog is clearly named "90% Mental" because of one of Yogi Berra's famous lines, but I prefer to use the title as a euphemism for baseball fans who believe replay would help the game.

somebodytogobackintimewith said...

The discussion does reek of argument du jour, thanks in no small part to ESPN fanning the flames. So all this discussion is probably for naught.

Having said that, Hud: Although it's a moot point because I'm not in favor of IR for 'subjective' calls, I guarantee the Spurs have things to say to the league office they aren't going to share with the media.

Their public stance is an indication of their professionalism - and understanding the game was lost in the 47:59 preceding the 'foul' - not their opinion of the call.

It's interesting to note, though, that one of the officials last night was Joey Crawford. Who was suspended last season because he ejected Tim Duncan for laughing.

I'm not positive but I think he was working the left sideline and thus would have been in perfect position to see the last play. But that's neither here nor there. . .
*
And as re: Football. Yes!! I think IR works great in that sport. Especially Big Ten football, where asking for a second opinion isn't such a dog-and-pony show.
*
Great point about the stadium designs. The umps blew a home run call in the 2005 World Series for just that reason.
*
As far as Joe Morgan goes, sanctimonius prick has been opposed to each and every innovation since the resin bag.

His opposition is an indication of small-mindedness, not any rational thought on his part.

Which brings me to my biggest question: Why are opponents of IR so opposed to, you know, maybe trying it out? In spring training say? Before calling me crazy for thinking it might help the game out. . .

Anyway, I think we should put a symposium re: This issue on the agenda for next month.

Mike "Mike" Hudson said...

I like Joe Morgan. I like Jon Miller. I don't like ESPN fanning flames professionally to drive talk across their widening empire.

Look at those replays. Go ahead! Did you know something off the stairs in right-center was definitely in-play or out-of-play in Yankee Stadium? Or that hitting the top of the wall and bouncing back in Park A is a HR, while in Park B it is not?

In the game I called at the MLB Academy in Compton (beautiful field, BTW) we went over ground rules for 15 seconds. Fence, yellow boundary on top, big screen by the scoreboard is a HR, tarp along the 3B line. But just look at a place like SD or Minn...or for goodness sakes Houston. I shudder thinking about it. You could show me 20 replays and I would still need an ump to interpret the ground rules. So what's the point?

Replay leads to more replay...not less controversy. I totally disagree with the College Football system...it's a mess and hasn't solved a thing because it is still a matter of interpretation. It's just that these days you have a billion dollar media machine trying to create phony, inch-deep drama instead of elevating the game.

Mike "Mike" Hudson said...

...UNLESS...

we can take away about 100 dingers from Bonds using this new technology. Then I'd be in full support.

somebodytogobackintimewith said...

To clarify: I do like the way Morgan calls a game, just hate certain aspects of his personality (ie thinks 'Ryno' is a swear word, HOF vets committee are fascists).

I pretty much love Miller, except I hate his home run call.

Agree to disagree about college football for now.

Oh my God the Tigers.

Scott William Baird said...

With Baseball's thirst to become mainstream as other sports, play by play will eventually be determined by a micro chip.

Replay improves correct calls and replaces the human element.

Steroids improve player performance and replaces the human element.

You can't have one without the other, Bud.