On The Merits of Instant Replay

Much like the Designated Hitter, the announced introduction of instant replay to Major League Baseball will likely have calcified supporters and detractors forevermore, and it seems just as inevitable that it will remain. MLB may begin reviewing home run calls this season, possibly as soon as August 1, according to a report in USA Today.

There are many hurdles to be hopped over before this is a reality, so the Aug. 1 date seems a bit soon, but if the umpires' union will agree and the logistics can get ironed out, we're going to see this sooner or later, and this year's playoffs (for better or worse) don't seem like an unlikely time that they might begin. This season has seen its share of disputed calls, which has accelerated the call for umps to use the same replay that all fans can see, although the 25-5 owner's vote at last winter's meeting was more of an impetus than any of those missed calls have been.

On the one hand, it makes sense for umpires to be able to get an important scoring call right, especially given their vantage point in the field and the many beloved idiosyncrasies of the various stadiums around baseball (Minute Maid park actually changed the painted yellow line on their outfield walls after one such call). The ball moves fast, and it's only when we can see it again (sometimes endlessly) during the game and on highlight shows that we can second-guess the umps. These guys are human, and have a hard time seeing a white ball against a yellow pole, whether lit by golden sunlight or yellow-white lights at night. Why not get such an important and difficult-to-see call right?

This points to another benefit of the rule, as replays would ironically strengthen (not weaken) umpires' reputation. Though some say it undermines their authority to verify calls electronically, in fact I think it would make us respect them more. We would first of all probably find that many of their calls on the field are correct; and second, by having them subject to the same independent verification we can see at home, we'll know the call is right (even when they're overruled).

Of course, there are problems, too, both large and small. First is the time aspect; we've all witnessed the endless time spent underneath the camera hood by NFL refs, even when they're required to make a decision in ninety seconds (how do you penalize a ref?). If MLB wants to speed games up, will fans stand (or sit or watch patiently) while umps huddle under hoods, whether on the field or in the press box? 

This points to another problem, as Richard Justice pointed out in his blog, that of hometown producers and camera angles. In other sports, the national broadcasters control the feeds, but in baseball, those feeds are often controlled by a hometown (or team-controlled) network. What's to stop a producer from denying the ump the best look, if it shows the other team scoring a run? 

According to the stories going around, MLB might have a central control room in NYC where umpiring officials watch all the games for reviewable plays. This is nice, as it removes any notion of a challenge system by coaches and has the nice impartiality of a central office, who would presumably have access to any and all camera feeds. But the logistics of this seem staggering, even in today's media-savvy and electronically sophisticated world.

Unless they expect a handful of guys to simultaneously monitor (and instantaneously respond to) several games at once in a war room to rival the one at NORAD, they'll have to have individual umps watching one or maybe two games, waiting for controversial calls, at which point, what? They pick up a hotline to stop the game, relayed through some booth official to the guys on the field? Anyone who's had to wait for a decision to be relayed on by several people--or anyone who's ever played the kid's game of Telephone--can imagine the disastrous delays and miscommunication that would result.

And if fans are impatient watching some guy huddled under a hood, my bet is they're going to be a heck of a lot more impatient for an "invisible" guy in NYC. As the seconds and minutes tick away, how do they know he's not off taking a leak or checking with his bookie to see how he should call the homer? I'd hate to be the on-field ump taking flak from hometown fans for a call I didn't have anything to do with--I don't think they'll be throwing trash at the Jumbotron.

There's also the Slippery Slope question to go along with the Questioning of the Umpire's Infallibility alluded to above. If we start with home runs, where do we stop? Traps/catches on sinking liners? Safe/out at first? On a steal? Did that pitcher really balk, or was that strike really a foul tip? And, tied to this, what happens when we start to eliminate the human-error aspect out of baseball, the way we've tried to do in other sports? Isn't baseball the last bastion of nineteenth-century man-made gaming, where technology has as little a role as possible to the game on the field?

Well, the slope is only as slippery as we make it, and football has restricted its replay use to the limited discretion of the coaches (or booth officials in the last two minutes), while basketball and hockey have also kept things under wraps, reviewing only buzzer-beaters and scoring plays, respectively. As to whether baseball is still that homely nineteenth-century game played with a wooden bat shaped more like a dowel than a bottle, with a soft ball and no glove and fielders who stand on the bases they cover . . . that's just not the game we play anymore. Technology has wormed its way in, from video analysis for batters to the bats, gloves and balls they use, so to argue that this fundamentally changes the game is too little, too late.

There's definitely an argument that a safe-out call at first (or in a steal at second) could ultimately end up being just as important as a solo shot, the same way a Monarch can flap its wings and start a tornado in Brazil. But from a purists' perspective, any pollution is as bad as complete pollution, so they're not going to be happy regardless of how much or how often replay is used. But I don't see owners going overboard with this, and if they do try and expand review, we can deal with that problem then. If replay has become too obtrusive, owners and umps will likely resist it more than the fans; but if it's seamless and hardly noticeable (the way umpires should be) perhaps it will be expanded. And will that be a bad thing? Without sounding like Rumsfeld, we'll know it when we know it.

None of these issues are insurmountable or inevitable, and the path to instant replay seems rather clear at this point. Personally, I'd rather see them iron out the kinks in the minors for a season, instead of rolling it out just in time for this year's pennant drive or (worse) the playoffs. Tinkering with the sport can be good, but unwarranted, untested, or untimely tinkering is what can be destructive.

If we're going to go down this path, let's keep our pace slow and steady and not race down it. The purists will appreciate at least the appearance of deliberation, while we're sure to make everyone happy if the transition is smooth and well thought-out.

I hope we're not seeing replay this August, or even this October, but I think that by the first pitch of 2009, it will be something we'll all have to live with. At least for now.