Imagine Jack Buck's memorable call of Kirk Gibson's walk- off home run in the 1988 World Series to end with...but wait, let's check the replay. How about Bobby Thompson's memorable blast, or Hank Aaron's record breaker? I know none of these home-run's were close calls, but the fact that instant replay is rearing its ugly head into MLB could cause future moments to be a tad less special in history. IR is a complete injustice and, in my opinion, should be appealed and overturned. Once it is in, it will change the length of the game and the purity of the game. You see, they say it will only be for home runs but do they really expect us to believe this non-sense? It is only a matter of time when they will start using it for plays at the plate... 'traps' in the outfield...tags on stealing runners.. pick-off plays at first... balks... check swings... running in the baseline....etc... Then they will say that if the umpire is blocked on a certain play, they'll resort to instant replay. There are SO many things that IR can be used for in baseball (probably more than any sport around), and the day is coming where there will be too many plays it will be used for during a game that they deem as crucial in nature or plays of the game that are pivotal. Here is an idea: If they 'say' they only want to use IR for home-runs, then employ additional umpires for regular season games as they do for playoff and world series games. The cost for MLB to install IR cameras in each ball park, then hire the staff to manage the IR in the 'home office', not to mention all of the soft dollar costs that will be incurred by just managing the system. They would be hard pressed to say adding a few more umpires per game would be more expensive than installing IR in each ballpark in the majors. I am a purist. There is no room for this in the game today, and I hope that the powers that be would reconsider such an idea. Jeffrey Maier, where are you now??
Posts
Midway Point in the Season
12 years ago
2 comments:
I can't understand your militant stand on this matter 57. Why not do what you have to do to get the call right? What do you represent the Umpire's Union or something?
I have no idea why you mention the historical homeruns that you mention. Even you admit that instant replay would have had absolutely NOTHING to do with any of them.
Your argument that it will eventually spill over to other types of plays has no merit whatsoever...besides, the aforementioned Umpire's Union would never ever allow it.
If it lengthens one or two out of ever 100 games by 3 or 4 minutes, who really cares?
This is a no-brainer, and should have been instituted a while ago. Now that the technology is there to do it right, I applaud Major League Baseball for having the guts to do it.
57, the first use of instant replay showed it can be used properly when there is a questionable umpires call. 2 minutes and 15 seconds was all it took to review A-Rod's homerun and determine it really did go out. And based on the way MLB will institute replay it will only be used (at least for this year) to review homeruns.
Don't try to couch the argument by referring to Gibson's homerun - there was no doubt about it. But had it been used during the playoffs when Jeter's hit was ruled a homerun (thank you Jeffery Maier)interference would have been called, Baltimore probably would have one the game and the playoffs and you would have been extremely happy.
As for Thompson's homerun, maybe they would have caught the guy on tape who was stealing signs and Thompson would have been ruled out. (Then we would never have to hear that rediculous recording of "The Giants win the penant, the Giants win...."
Post a Comment