The ending of Monday's 19-inning game between the Pirates and Braves has rekindled the 'instant replay' debate around the MLB. Traditionalists everywhere are still trying to rationalize why it's OK to get these game-changing decisions wrong, even though we have the technology to get them right. Here are the 3 main arguments against instant replay, and why they suck:
1. Instant replay will slow down the game!
Many opponents of instant replay claim that it would cause the game would be slowed to an egregiously slow pace. Although the blinding, break-neck speed of an MLB game is definitely one of it's strong points right now, I think taking an extra minute to get a call right would be worth it. Not to mention that there is already a 20-30 second break between plays in baseball; plenty of time for a replay official in the MLB 'War Room' in New York (which, by the way, already exists for current replay procedures) to determine if a closer look is in order. Think about it; when there is a close play at the plate, or a questionable catch in the outfield, you get to see at least 2-3 replays of it on the broadcast before the next pitch is thrown... and 99% of the time, if there is conclusive video evidence, you are going to see it in those 2-3 looks. It would actually take longer to relay the proper decision to the crew chief than it would to make the correct decision in the first place.
Just like in other (see also, 'less stubborn') leagues, not all plays would be reviewable. Expanding replay for use in questionable catches and close tags would go a very, very long way in eliminating game-changing missed calls. And if you still think it would get out of hand, go to an NFL-type system where managers have 2 challenges to use at any point in the game, and all reviews are left up to the booth starting in the 8th inning.
2. The Human Element is what makes baseball great!
This one is my favorite. It's one thing to tolerate mistakes; it's another thing to EMBRACE them. There are actually some people out there who say that the imperfection of baseball adds to its allure; that the inevitable mistakes of umpires are a positive contribution to the game, and that the 'human element' will always be a part of baseball, so why should we even try to eliminate it? To pararphrase Vinnie Richichi of 93.7 The Fan, 'That's why there are 3 columns on the scoreboard - one for runs, one for hits, and one for errors - because errors are a part of the game. And if players are allowed to make errors, why shouldn't the umpires be allowed to make them as well?' (I wish I could find the verbatim quote, but I assure you that the stupidity of the argument has been preserved.) He went on to make the analogy that instant replay is to umpires what performance-enhancing drugs are to players.
If the human element is truly such an important part of baseball, then I say let's go to one umpire. Get rid of the guys on 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, and let the home plate umpire make every call on the field. This will help the MLB save money, it will increase the consistency of balls and strikes (since the same guy would be behind home plate for the whole series), and it will eliminate those pesky mid-game umpire conferences which are slowing down and ruining the game! Everybody wins! Sure, from behind home plate it may be hard to tell if that baserunner was able to steal 2nd before the tag was applied, but missed calls are part of the game! They're good for baseball! The one-umpire plan makes sense economically, it makes sense logistically, and most importantly, it gives everyone more of what they want; the human element.
3. Umpires will be embarrassed by instant replay!
Some people are worried that if instant replay is expanded, umpires throughout the MLB will be embarrassed and shown up when a replay overturns their decision and they are forced to admit their mistakes. First of all, if you're a Major League umpire and you think that your ego is more important than getting the call right, you should find a new job. Secondly, in today's age of slow-motion HD replays, multiple camera angles, and 24-hour sports channels, everyone is going to know if an umpire misses a call. Refusing to admit it or deal with it doesn't make the call any less wrong; so you might as well get the call right, otherwise you're wrong AND stubborn.
Additionally, instant replay can actually help everyone appreciate umpires who make good calls. How many times have you seen a call go against your favorite NFL team and think, 'Wow, how did they miss that call?' only to see a different angle which justifies the original call and leaves you thinking, 'How on earth did they manage to get that right?'
I'll give you a baseball example; let's say a baserunner on the home team tries to steal 2nd base. The play is very close, but the umpire rules the runner out. In the current system, the runner jumps up and starts yelling profanities, and boos rain down from the fans as the manager trots out on the field to further belittle the umpire. (Take note of the fact that it doesn't matter which way the umpire made the call. It was so close that even if he called the runner safe, he would get the exact same reaction from the fielder and manager on the other team; whoever ends up on the bad end of the call is going to believe that the call was wrong, and is going to let the umpire know about it.)
Now consider the exact same play, with instant replay in effect. The out call is made, and the fans begin to boo in protest, but instead of the runner yelling profanities and the manager getting in the umpire's face, the runner jogs over to his dugout, informs his manager that he didn't think he was tagged, and the manager informs the umpire that he wants to challenge the call. By the time the umpire can walk over to the phone to talk to the 'War Room' in New York, the replay official on the other end has already determined the proper call. After a 15 second phone call to get the proper call, count, and runner position, the umpire hangs up and (if necessary) rectifies the situation. If the call was correct and the runner was out, the home team and its fans don't have much to be upset about. The correct call was made, and it's time to move on. They don't spend the rest of the game booing the umpire because they assume he was wrong. If the call was wrong, and the runner should actually be safe, the runner is returned to 2nd base and the at-bat continues with the proper count. The fans are happy, and although the visiting team would rather have the out, they can be assured that the call is right. Nobody gets in the umpire's face, tensions aren't escalated, managers aren't ejected, and most importantly, the correct call is made. All at the expense of an extra 60 seconds.
The truth is that any case against instant replay is thinly veiled resistance to change. People don't want things to change, because they don't want things to change. It's circular reasoning, it's stubborn, and it's fundamentally flawed logic. If you like tradition for the sake of tradition, then you should be traveling by horseback, reading by candlelight, and doing all of your work on a typewriter. The rest of us will be evolving. We have the technology to get these calls right, while minimally impacting the game. It's time for baseball to evolve, and if it means leaving a few curmudgeons behind, then so be it.
