NRypel+Research+Rough+Draft

Nick Rypel English 103 S 037 Research Rough Draft Baseball, or America’s pastime, is a sport with a long history and a sense of tradition as its nickname implies. Something as traditional as baseball will almost always face opposition when the thought of change comes up. That is why it comes as no surprise that using replay to change calls in baseball has been a debated issue for years. On one side there is are traditionalists who want to just keep their sport the way it is no matter the number of human errors made and on the other there is the group that wants the sport to evolve, to lessen the errors anyway possible. There has already been one concession in the debate. In the 2008 baseball season a small instance of instant replay was added to baseball. Umps were given the ability to review whether homeruns cleared the yellow line, whether a homerun was fair or foul, and whether there was fan interference with a homerun. Basically they were given the ability to make sure a homerun was a homerun. This little taste of replay has done nothing to quell the debate though and one major event this year would throw gas onto the fire.

On June 2nd, 2010 Armando Galarraga, a starting pitcher for the Detroit Tigers, would pitch the game of his career (Beck). He was making his way quickly through the Cleveland Indians order all night taking out 26 straight batters. Everyone in the stadium could feel the perfect game, a very difficult feat to accomplish in baseball, coming on. The only way you would be able to understand the excitement would be if you have actually seen a perfect game before. The next batter he faced, Jason Donald, would hit a groundball to the first baseman (Beck). Everyone on the field, in the stands was already celebrating. This was a routine play only some crazy error could ruin it. What a crazy error it was. The first baseman recovered the ball and threw it to Galarraga who was running to cover first base. He would beat the runner to first base completing the perfect game or at least that is what it looked like to everyone watching the game besides apparently the first base umpire. Jim Joyce would inexplicably call the runner safe forever stealing a perfect game from the history of baseball. The thing is all the replays would show it was obviously the wrong call but absolutely nothing could be done about it. Even hardcore traditionalists had to feel bad for the pitcher but this play is focal to the debate. If you want baseball to stay the same then you have to believe that Galarraga does not deserve a perfect game. If you want change then you believe it should have been an easy thing to fix. Some argue against using such an event in a knee jerk way.

Sean Deveney, a writer for // Sporting News //, thinks the MLB is just giving into the pressure from the critics and didn’t really seek for alternatives that could appease the errorless crowd and the purists (38). His article was written right when homerun instant replay was close to being implemented after a series of unfortunate missed calls. His main alternative to replay would have been to add two umpires, one down each line (Deveney 38). He was mainly focused on getting homerun calls right and nothing else. There was only one problem with his idea. They already do this for the playoffs and it hasn’t really stopped errors from occurring. It surely wouldn’t have given Galarraga his perfect game. The truth is if you want to limit errors to the least amount possible then technology is the best way to go. There is no alternative for the errorless crowd. That then brings up the question of how exactly replay should be implemented beyond what it already is. Traditionalists will have to concede replay at least minimally but they have fears of its expansion too far into the game and of its effect on the duration of the game. Therefore it is important that if it is going expand that it does it in the best possible way so that the MLB does not isolate a part of its fan base.

Right now replay can only be used if the umpires agree with each other that a homerun call is debatable. Players and coaches can argue as much as they want but the final call always comes down to the umps. Brennan Christine proposes that the MLB should borrow the NFL’s system of challenges (3c). Under his plan each coach would have one challenge at their disposal to be used whenever throughout the game. The coach would be able to challenge any call except for balls and strikes. If the coach was wrong about the play then Christine suggests that he be penalized a ball or strike depending on the situation (3c). He thinks the penalty is important to stopping frivolous challenges but it seems a little harsh when each coach only has one challenge to begin with. Neither will be able to really disrupt the flow of the game. Weirdly he believe umpires abilities should not be expanded beyond what they are now meaning the only way a call like the one in the Galarraga game would have been overturned is if the Detroit Tigers coach still had his challenge. If he didn’t have his challenge the uproar would have been the same as it already was. It would be a good compromise between both sides of the debate though. Challenges wouldn’t impede much and Christine thinks the impact on the length of the game would also be minimal. While errors would not be completely wiped out for the errorless side of the debate there would be a better chance of a particularly egregious call being wiped clean. What’s the point in just getting some of the calls right though? This doesn’t seem like the debate where compromise would be a good idea. You either need to go one way or the other.

I believe Phil Taylor gives the best opinion on the matter. The Little League World Series has already adopted the use of instant replay. Any plays on the base paths, hit batsmen, and of course homerun calls are all challengeable (Taylor 68). Taylor figures if the LLWS can get it done then there is no doubt the MLB can and I agree with that sentiment. I think the MLB can add an all encompassing replay system that makes sure the fewest amount of errors is possible. All that is really needed is one guy to be hired by each stadium that sits and watches every play of the game. If there is a questionable call he should have direct contact with the umps to make the change. It shouldn’t waste more time than a coach throwing a tantrum and if it is taking a long time the play should be considered inconclusive with no change being made. This I feel would be the best way to implement a full replay system.

The technology is there so implementation should be effortless. The only reason not to would be to keep the human element in umpiring but if you are going to do that then there should be no form of replay. If an ump can take away a perfect game with a blown call then they should be able to take away anything with a blown call. It should be noted that after that blown call only 22 out of a 100 players surveyed felt that replay should be used on the bases (Taylor 68). If the players that are affected by the errors don’t believe in replay then maybe fans shouldn’t either. Works Cited Beck, Jason. // Missed call ends Galarraga's perfect bid //. 2 June 2010. Web. 31 Oct. 2010. Christine, Brennan. "Baseball Still Missing Call on Instant Replay." USAToday n.d.: 3c. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 25 Oct. 2010. Deveney, Sean. "MLB is Overreacting on Instant Replay." Sporting News 232.25 (2008): 38-39. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 25 Oct. 2010. Taylor, Phil. "Play It Again, Bud." Sports Illustrated 113.7 (2010): 68. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 25 Oct. 2010.