There’s been more talk lately about expanding instant replay in baseball than there ever has been in the history of the game. This coming due to advancing technology, and with that technology comes concerns that more needs to be done to get the calls right every time. (Something that truly can’t be done.)
But the topic of increasing what’s reviewable and what isn’t is controversial among many. Some feel that things need to be left just the way they are, sighting the human error element that’s always been part of the game, however, others are saying that as long as you have the technology, you should use it.
I stand somewhere in between.
I love the idea of getting every call right, but at the same time, I don’t see how that would be possible, and I somewhat enjoy the human element to the game. If you lose that, it’s not the same game anymore. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they don’t. That’s the way it works. But I understand wanting to get the call right more often than not.
The main complaint that comes from those who oppose further replay is that it would lengthen games, which have historically increased in length over the past few decades. If you begin reviewing everything, a game which already takes roughly three hours to complete, could begin taking closer to four, depending on the events of any given day.
The only thing I see as being “unreviewable” is balls and strikes. While there’s no denying that umpires blow a few calls of the strike zone every game, there’s also no denying that reviewing every single close strike call isn’t a realistic option. There’s absolutely no need to do so, nor is there the time to do so. Other than that, everything is discussable for possible replay, in my mind.
But while everything other than balls and strikes is worthy of replay discussion, not every close play needs to be reviewed. Some things will have to be left off the list of reviewable plays or it’ll turn into a big joke of reviewing every single close call. I would hate to see that happen. But this is where it gets complicated: What should be reviewable and what shouldn’t? And why choose some things and not others?
My thoughts, looking at all of the possible controversial plays that can take place in a game, are that the major plays worth reviewing are the ones in which runs are scored; be it a questionable home run, trapped/caught ball in the outfield in which a run does or doesn’t score, fan interference that would’ve scored a run, and close plays at the plate. If it could be argued one way or another, it should be reviewed. As far as everything else, it doesn’t involve a run scoring, and I feel the umpires do a decent job of those type of plays for the most part.
So, to sum everything up as best I can, I’m for more replay in baseball, to an extent. You’ll never be able to get every single call right, but if you can increase the chance that the outcome of the game doesn’t turn out differently than it should have because of a blown call, by reviewing certain run scoring plays, why not make an attempt to try?
What do you think: Should there be more replay in baseball?