Wireless in Baseball: Hit or Miss?

Why don't they just have a video game of it,.....and annouce that way.

Coming up to the monitor is rookie juan veldarez. Boston picked him up for 30 million dollars from cuba. He has fast hand/eye cordination.....oops. looks like he can't find a quarter to put into the machine and has to call time out.........

Did you see the appalling mistake the ref and his assistants made in the England - Germany World Cup match yesterday? The ball was at least 1 ft over the line - it was a clear goal to everyone except the ref. The replay was shown in slowmo' literally seconds after the shot.

The only thing stopping the use of video replays is FIFA.

BTW - this isn't just sour grapes because England lost - they deserved to lose - they were rubbish.

Yes England were rubbish and deserved to loose the game and probably by more than they did. I don't understand how a bunch of high paid so called professionals can put in such a dismal performance -they did not perform in any of the games in the world cup. However all of this does not take away from the fact that the ball was over the line. In the match between Argentina and Mexico Tevez was at least 1 meter offside and the goal was given. There was also an incident in the France v Rep Of Ireland game in which Henry handled the ball twice and this also went unnoticed by the officials. Then there is all the diving that goes on which leads to yellow and red cards - the list is endless.

The replays, usually shown in slow motion, shows that the referee/ assistant made a mistake but without the aid of a replay and slow motion it is difficult/ impossible to get every decision correct - the referee/ assistants have milliseconds to make a decision, no easy task.

FIFAs position, which I happen to agree with, is that the same rules apply no matter what level you are playing at - there are no cameras in the goal at a the lower levels of the game. Mistakes have been made (example 1966 when England won their only World Cup) and in some ways it makes for good talking points. This disallowed goal will take away from a great German victory and cover up the dismal performance by one of the pre-tournament favourites.

Should cameras be used to determine if it is a penalty or not? What about a free kick just outside the box? Where would the use of cameras end?

Update ('case anyone missed it). FIFA seem to be on the point of caving in and accepting the use of "hi-tech" assistance in such decisions. Not sure which version (chip-in-ball, 3rd umpire etc.) they'll go for.

Its a freaking GAME folks, don't screw it up by instrumenting it, or burying it under technology. Sure, mistakes will be made by the umpires, the players, the fans etc but in the end it is a GAME. Play and have FUN.

that's baseball

There are aspects or opportunities in every sport or game that involve the human (officiating) element that are not diminished by improving the fairness of the contest using available technology. Officials should be there to make judgment calls, and the rules can and should specify the questions or measurements that are subject to the official's judgment and those that are not.

Using slo-mo instant replay to determine whether a player was off-side or whether the ball crossed the line is a no-brainer. OF COURSE FIFA must implement it. It will do nothing to diminish the referee's rightful influence on the contest. He still has his whistle (or flag), and of course those nifty little cards.

American professional football has used instant replay and review to strong effect in recent years. It's not perfect but has improved substantially the fairness and reliability of the game.

Replying to myself because I totally missed the subject:

Baseball too. Plenty of specific measureable metrics, plenty of judgment involved. Now, effective use-of-replay rules may not have saved that pitcher his perfect game, because the proper reliance upon technology is to verify the sanctity of the game's result: which side won or lost; not the quality of individual player's performance.

Or not: it is only a game, and "we" decide how it plays.

The game is allot like life. there are no guarantees, and if you get shafted by a bad call, learn from it and move on.

For there is nothing sweeter than over coming diversity.

p911

What does getting shafted by a bad call teach you? To cheat? To give up?

If I am a competent athlete, I expect competent officials in my contest. I work too hard to let some dumbass mess up the result by failing to do their duty. I'm not competing against the referee, or at least, I won't enter into a game in which I must.

I've had to resist ditching professional bicycle racing because of all the doping scandals. You can never trust the result anymore, and that's just because cycling has so relentlessly fought the problem, not because cycling is an inherently corrupt sport. If it weren't for the beauty and wonderful complexity of bike racing, I wouldn't watch. The competition itself is worth watching.

I expect competent officials in my contest.

You can expect all you want, but that doesn't going to make it so.

If I am a competent athlete, I expect competent officials in my contest. I work too hard to let some dumbass mess up the result by failing to do their duty. I'm not competing against the referee, or at least, I won't enter into a game in which I must.

You enter and play a game just like you play out life. Do you expect to get PHuqt over, no but it happens, you deal with it and move on, the next game may be on level playing fields.

Now do not confuse corruption with incompetence or even a mistake, $#it happens, but if it is corruption be smart and walk away and don't get drag into it. Don't cry corruption when its a mistake or a bad call, or your as guilty as the rest of us.

if you a competent athlete? or maybe your playing above your level. or was it a bad choice of wording.

p911

So do you think it should, it sport, be left to the perception of the umpires/referees/linesmen whatever for all the decisions?

Are we back to "Chalkdust! - I saw Chalkdust! ..."?

I contend the introduction of the "Third Umpire" (or whatever it's called in games other than cricket), is a positive move, and has in it's way reduced the incidence of on-field and off-field confrontation - instantly defusing issues which (in a pub - and possibly on the field) could lead to violent outbursts.

In American football your allowed two challenges where it would be reviewed, if you are wrong thats it. and it costs you a time out. If you win the challenge it does not cost you a time out and you still get 2 challenges.

The NFL (National Football League) did this to get it right. and most of the time during a challenge it was the correct call, bit at times it wasn't. They may say they did this to for the fans, but this is big business, they did it for them.

But in baseball, the umpire or field referee can make the call because there is not much going on, but it can be overturned by the umpire.

but doping, I can not stand it, an athlete for the Dallas Cowboys did Cocaine, the league did testing, but the union created rules for testing to that protect these multimillion dollar players. that is the same for steroids in baseball protected by their unions, where are these home-run kings now from 10 years ago. I have no pity or sympathy for them if the are in poor health.

Those 2 sports should be ashamed, or atleast the player unions.

p911

I don't know if you're asking, but I am a competent athlete - at my level. The refs at the county rec soccer league I play in are more competent than some of the World Cup refs, based strictly on the "How can you possibly MISS that?" calls the WC refs blow.

Officiating is a duty that should be approached about as seriously as the athletes approach the contest. The World Cup is the highest level of soccer/football available in the known universe. The current standard of officiating is WAY off the mark, and could be substantially improved by adding a video review system.

Actually, it's not just a game....it's a business. A huge multi-billion dollar (or pound or euro, etc.) business.

Bull, it's big business. As long as they fill the seats and sell to television, they won't change.

I know some pro sports use replays to review calls and it works. North American football and hockey come to mind. The flow of the game is not hindered even with slightly prolonged reviews by judges. Gives the TV fan a chance to get another pop. Soccer can benefit from such reviews and I would suggest that where a call is controversial the coaches should be given the option to review similar to NA football. Just throw in a red flag and review the call with similar rules. The clock need not run during such reviews. Who knows...but maybe the fans would stay in the stands longer and use the concessions more. The owner's should like the opportunity to earn more concession money. A review in the baseball match in question would have been reasonably quick based on the cameras now positioned and a decision would be then correct after review.

Soccer should change some rules (not just the camera reviews) to allow the game to be faster. For, example let the full 18 players participate in the game with unlimited subs during throw ins. That is the way most younger levels play but is discontinued as the players get older to accommodate the out-dated FIFA requirements. As a hockey fan, I would love to see offside rules modified when the ball is inside the 6 yard line...to something similar to hockey's blue line. More scoring and more fan appreciation would be gained. A drop pass in soccer could then become a scoring weapon. I am a soccer fan who would like to eliminate spectator yawns and improve the game with rule changes that many puritans consider sacred. Electronic reviews are available, so use them. We are beyond the 19th century development era.

Just leave most amateur sports played by kids alone and depend on the refs decisions.

I saw the offending call, as my good friend Tyler Feliczak was crying on his FaceBook account about the his beloved Tigers and how upset he was. Although originally against it, I fully support the NFL and their attempt to "take the ref" out of the close calls, leaving him to the easy ones which need no review. The time it takes to review is well worth the wait, and should halt the resulting days spent harping on bad calls. Technology wins again! Send it in, Coach! Bobby Vassallo