It seems to me they screw up more calls on replay than football or basketball by a LONG shot. They should let the officials on the field look at the replays like other sports do. What did they see that didn't allow them to overturn the out call on Molina at the plate?
Baseball's replay system really sucks
- Thread starter 3Rfan
- Start date
I'm with you. It's silly.
Hockey does it right by having all the replays centralized with the ultimate decision out of the hands of the officials on the field.
Hockey does it right by having all the replays centralized with the ultimate decision out of the hands of the officials on the field.
I don't know what hockey does but it is centralized in baseball, and they don't even say why they wouldn't overturn a call. At least in football the officials on the field look at it and tell us if they see have conclusive evidence to overturn a call.
Football replay is not very good. It needs to be taken out of the hands of the on field officials.
I don't see as much football as most of you folks but it's done by on field officials and from what've seen they do a much better job those in NY for baseball. They look at however many replays they have from different angles and still get it very wrong. How in the world could they look at the replay of the Judge HR against the Birds and say the ball was in play?!! It was over the wall by 3 feet when the fan booted it out of his glove and back on the field. THEN somebody made the AWFUL decision to call it a triple!!!! It could't have possibly been in play after the fan touched it. Once he did how could it be anything but a ground rule double? He knocked the ball away from Piscotty so they couldn't possibly say they knew Judge would make 3rd base. Anybody with half a brain and two eyes could see it was a HR on the very first replay anyway.
I agree that HR review was shocking. It was clearly over the fence with the fan touched it. The call at the plate on Molina appeared to be wrong by everything we saw. The players have a pretty good idea what happened. Molina immediately waved at the dugout to look at it. The official reason given was not enough evidence to overturn. Baseball does seem to be the worst reviewed sport.
Hockey refs are the worst in game. They're the most inconsistent of all. But their reviews do usually turn out pretty accurate.
I'm continually surprised that baseball doesn't eliminate the strike zone box on TV. It makes their umps look really bad. It's hard to blame hitters for getting upset when you see so many pitches outside the box called strikes.
Hockey refs are the worst in game. They're the most inconsistent of all. But their reviews do usually turn out pretty accurate.
I'm continually surprised that baseball doesn't eliminate the strike zone box on TV. It makes their umps look really bad. It's hard to blame hitters for getting upset when you see so many pitches outside the box called strikes.
Or do the really smart thing and eliminate the ball/strike from the ump. It'd be the easiest thing in the world to do. And could actually call it from top to bottom, without the worry of the BS of hitting or missing the catcher's target.
If they do that they have to raise the box up to the REAL strike zone as the rules say. The boxes on TV seem to represent the strike zone as it's been called for years, anything above the belt is a ball. The actual strike zone is at the letters, or as we used call it arm pit to the knees. Strange that the letter high pitch is one you can drive out of the park if you choose to swing but it's not worthy of being a called strike if you don't.
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/umpires/strike_zone.jspIf they do that they have to raise the box up to the REAL strike zone as the rules say. The boxes on TV seem to represent the strike zone as it's been called for years, anything above the belt is a ball. The actual strike zone is at the letters, or as we used call it arm pit to the knees. Strange that the letter high pitch is one you can drive out of the park if you choose to swing but it's not worthy of being a called strike if you don't.
Armpits is a bit high for the current version of the zone, but I totally agree. The high strike seemingly rarely gets called. That ball that is at the extreme high part of the box is a ball more often than not it seems.
At the letters IS at the armpit. Has the rule changed from what it was or did the umps just disregard the rule a long time ago?
"The Strike Zone is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the top of the knees. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball."
Change was in 1988. That's why I included the link. The bold part doesn't define armpits.
I know armpits to the knees is really old, that's why I asked about the rule. But armpits is at the letters of most uniforms. Whatever the rule says if a strike is called above the belt the players growl and the announcers say it was a high strike. We didn't have any scruples back when it was called armpits to knees.
Oh no, I wasn't defending where it's called now. Just pointing out it's below that armpit line. I agree, if a strike it called much above the belt at all it's an issue.I know armpits to the knees is really old, that's why I asked about the rule. But armpits is at the letters of most uniforms. Whatever the rule says if a strike is called above the belt the players growl and the announcers say it was a high strike. We didn't have any scruples back when it was called armpits to knees.
