A Proposal for Replay in 30 Seconds or Less

by
June 8, 2010

You probably already know why I’m writing this post (but if you’re reading this in 2014, Armondo Gallaraga was robbed of a perfect game in the 9th with 2 outs on 6/2/2010.)

Replay gets discussed a lot these days, and there are those in favor of it and those against it. The main reason for it is that replay is more accurate than an umpire, which has been demonstrated over and over again. There are two reasons against it. One is the tradition of umpires, the other is that it will slow down the game. As far as I can tell, it’s futile to argue with people when they love the tradition enough: if you’re sufficiently committed to tradition, no other value will persuade you to give up your stance. I don’t share that love of tradition, but I won’t enter a futile argument here either.

The lost time due to replay is different. We can count seconds and we can try to balance lost time with increased accuracy. Moreover, as technology improves the amount of time lost rewinding tapes and whatever else they had to do in the NFL in the 1980s goes away. So, theoretically, 100% of time used for review is actually spent making a decision. How much time is worthwhile? We’d have to have a discussion about that, but I’m going to throw out 30 seconds. If we could have 30 second replay, it would be worth it. A controversial call on the field typically takes more than thirty seconds anyway, because umpires huddle (but never change the ruling) and managers come out on the field and argue the call (which never has any effect except to get the manager removed from the game.)

Still, it takes a long to time review the play from every angle to come up with the best judgment that the video evidence supports. You just couldn’t do all the work necessary in 30 seconds, so it looks like we’ll have to settle for a longer review time or sacrifice the accuracy we desire.

That is a mistake. The reason replay takes so long is that we think that the goal is to produce the best judgement that the video evidence supports, using time the way we should in a courtroom, where no minute is more valuable than the freedom of the innocent-but-accused. The reviewer must check the play from all angles. He must double check it. He must confer with other reviewers for their opinion, and then come to a consensus. It’s an inefficient system, which in criminal trials is fair and good, but it’s not good for entertainment.

Replay doesn’t have to be a courtroom. Give five reviewers access to all the available video. Give each 30 seconds to decide what the call should have been. Then the vote. They don’t talk about it, they just vote their own best judgment. No changing the vote once cast. The majority rules the day. Suppose for a moment that there is a .75 probability that each of them makes the right call. Then the probability that the majority is correct is .896. (Binomial distribution probability.) Such reviewers would botch the call (as a group) just 1 in 10 times. Furthermore, in the preponderance of replay cases, video evidence is completely clear cut and it takes less than 30 to make a determination that’s right with a probability of 1.

This 30 second replay system would eliminate the vast majority of all erroneous calls in baseball. It wouldn’t be a fail safe system. It would require that we abandon our standard of having evidence that fully justifies our conclusions to all so that no one could come to a better conclusion on the basis of the evidence. But we shouldn’t let perfection be the enemy of the good. And it’s a good thing to preserve perfection.





 

14 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
jimbo
13 years ago

I’m not a rabid “traditionalist” but I also like watching a game that is played/run/feels like it did when my grandfather was a kid. Sure, there are jumbotrons and radar guns now…but some progression is to be expected. So I at least understand where the tradition argument stems from.

To satisfy those folks I don’t see any reason that replay can’t be incorporated transparently. Manager comes out to protest (as they do today), umpires huddle IF the umpire feels it is warranted (as they do today), then one or more of the umps can have an earpiece linked to any review booth/setup.

Once in the huddle, they can discuss the play first, get their direction from “upstairs” immediately, or anything in between. It leaves ultimate control of the game in the hands of the umpires on the field. Some might rely on it more than others, and eventually one will reject the booth review and get a call wrong. Thus the human element remains. Key part being that even IF they break the huddle with a reversal, nobody in the stands would even need to know if they used replay at all.

It allows the umps to keep (most of) their ego in place. It doesn’t turn into the NFL’s sprint to the replay booth. And over time should be a seamless way of getting the more egregious calls corrected quickly…as in 30 seconds or less.

1
Chris
13 years ago

I agree with Jimbo, but I’m also a traditionalist. If it could be made transparent on the field then it should be done. Having an extra umpire or two in a booth to watch replays with all umps being mic’d up to talk to each other without leaving the field would make instant replay much more… instant.

The only problem I could foresee with this this is that many 1B umps seem to call the plays by sound. Listening for the sound of the runner’s foot on the bag vs the sound of the ball hitting the glove in very close situations. Having an ear piece in could hamper a pivotal sense that umps use every day to make close but routine calls.

Perhaps this is something that they can do a trial in high levels of the minor leagues before they try to incorporate it into MLB games.

0
Dave Woody
13 years ago

philosofool, great article. Something like this needs to happen ASAP.

Chris, I think they’d go with either the home plate ump or the crew chief for the ear piece, and I don’t think they’d leave it in all game. They’d just put in the ear piece when they wanted the booth review, get the call from the booth, and then signal. Then they’d take out the ear piece and get on with the game.

0
jimbo
13 years ago

Chris, good point about in-game interference. Could just be a hands-free type of dealio they put in/over their ear en route to the huddle–or even as the manager is approaching, one less ear to hear with. 😉

I suppose one question would be if the ‘booth’ saw a missed call, and no umpire or manager objects…do they still alert an umpire on the field?

Biggest obstacle IMO is defining what is/is not reviewable and when does discretion enter in/not enter in? Fair ball called foul? Can award the hitter first base…other runners treat it as a walk, advancing minimally. Not full benefit of getting a hit, but more better than continuing an at bat.

0
philosofoolmember
13 years ago

Thanks all for your thoughts. Obviously, I left some of the mechanics out of the picture.

This is pretty cosmetic, following Jimbo’s thought, I like the idea that the Umpires report the call of the booth. There’s some of the spirit of baseball in that. I hate the uptightness of referees in football. The umps can huddle, discuss and await the booth call. Afterward, the chief umpire gives us the signal and we know what the call was.

I would favor introducing replay gradually. Technically, we already have it, but only for home run reviews. I would like to see it added to plays at the bases and nothing else to start. After that, fair/foul calls would be good as well.

I kind of like a mixed system for deciding when a replay may be used: managers can request a replay for out/safe calls, but umpires can request “booth assistance” for difficult to see fly ball catches or other instances in which they want it. Anyway, it’s important that the decision to use or not use replay doesn’t waste anytime and that it can’t be used frivolously. (When the call is clear the call is clear and managers shouldn’t have a right to slow down the game because there’s no cost to contesting a call.)

0
Beer Baron
13 years ago

My idea for replay reviews is very similar, except why not just review every play except balls and strikes? Keep the replay ump in the booth (or even at at a central location like they do in the NHL) and give one umpire on the field a means to communicate with the replay ump. Every safe/out or fair/foul or HR/not a HR call is reviewed by the replay ump, and if replay conclusively shows that the call on the field is wrong, then the replay ump gets on the radio to the field ump and the call is overturned.

No arguments from managers, no red flags thrown on the field, no umpire crew huddles, just less wrong calls. If the call is close enough that replay is inconclusive, the call on the field stands. This would eliminate the need to review the play from every possible angle. How many times do we see a few different replays within 20 or 30 seconds that conclusively shows that the call on the field was wrong?

Neyer wrote about it this week, but the issue would be that they would have to have a plan for what to do in every possible baserunning situation. Here’s the link if you missed it: http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/3866/adding-fifth-umpire-is-the-easy-part

0
jimbo
13 years ago

Makes sense Beer. Sort of how in football the window to review a play lasts until the next hike, so it could be with the next pitch in baseball. After an out (or hit), there’s plenty of time in the normal flow of the game to have a behind-the-scenes review.

Only conern I’d have is the “incentivizing” of delays. Close play on a stolen base, will the catcher go to the mound just to allow more review time? Or will a batter call time out more often…pretend to need a new bat…and so on.

If both teams know every play is up for review, I could see multiple instances each game where one side or the other will believe a call should be reviewed. How do you prevent that from dragging things out, aside from a review limit?

0
Matt
13 years ago

I’m a pretty fast reader, but I couldn’t finish that in 30 seconds or less.

Kidding aside, While a lot of talk makes it seem like the reasons for not introducing replay is either from a tradition standpoint or the time aspect, I’d argue most of what prevents it from being incorporated is the practicality and mechanics of it all, something you even admitted in one of your comments don’t really address.

Another issue, which Jimbo kind of touched upon, is that to refer to the problem people have with instant replay as a “time” issue isn’t really accurate. I would much rather watch 45 seconds of a manager arguing with the ump than watch 25 seconds of players kicking dirt around waiting for the umps to come back on the field after running off camera to a secret tunnel. That’s just boring. Again, I think it’s more of a pace issue than a time issue, as is often the case with baseball. If something is happening, I don’t mind how long it is, it’s all the nothing that can make even just 30 sec seem like far too long.

1
jimbo
13 years ago

Matt…I for one still can’t get used to the umpire parade onto the field post-replay. I’d love to see that go away in a hurry.

0
Vida Blue
13 years ago

Thanks, philosofool (shouldn’t that be philosomore? or is that the point?).

Here’s my opinion, wondering if this is the consensus (more or less):

dedicated off-field reviewer > leave as is > on-field umps huddle around monitor.

I assume the proposal is for 5 off-field reviewers, since the ump huddle eats time. But that’s too perfect-world, no? Extra salary = (162)(30/2)(reviewer salary)(5). Change the 5 to a 1 and now it’s affordable.

0
Jordan
13 years ago

That’s a decent proposal, but I think I can do one better. Baseball should adopt college football style replay; have an extra umpire (or two, or more if you’d like) stationed in a replay booth with access to all of the tv cameras all game long. Give him a way to contact the crew chief on the field. Anyone who’s watched a baseball game knows that there’s always time to watch at least one replay between every play. And after one replay, we can almost always see the correct call. If, after one replay, the replay umpire still isn’t sure, he can contact the crew chief and tell him to hold up the game until further notice. It never takes more than two or three replays to arrive at the correct call. This system would, in all likelihood, completely eliminate umpiring mistakes without disrupting the flow of the game – managers argue close calls for longer than it takes to watch a dozen replays, anyway.

1
Beer Baron
13 years ago

Jimbo:

That happens now anyway – pickoff attempts, catcher and coaching visits to the mound, guys stepping out of the box. At least now the calls would be right.

0
jimbo
13 years ago

Beer, yes, they happen in the course of the game as-is. That’s why I’d be concerned about incenting them to occur even more frequently with replay being the carrot.

0
quintjs
13 years ago

I would just run reply the way its used in international sports like cricket and rugby (can you guess i am not american?)

on field umpire calls for reply, an offical sitting in the stands with the replays watches it makes the decision and tells the umpire on the field through their communication network (the guy in the stands could easily be the official scorer).

Its simple, and quick, because they spend most of the time deciding whether or not to use reply. all the umpire on the field has to say is I want the guy too look at that, make a signal, and then get him on the radio and say “can you see if he beat the ball, or did he make the tag? or did the ball leave the park, fair or foul?

It doesn’t take long, and believe me, tradition in baseball is nothing compared to tradition in cricket, and we have been doing it in cricket for well over a decade, and everyone loves it.

It doesn’t slow the game down too much because the fans are watching the reply to see what happened at the same time as the scorer, its easier to use it, you don’t need to explain and argue with the managers, and spend minutes walking on and off the field.

0