May 19, 2008
An Argument for Replays
FanHouse makes a very good point here about Carlos Delgado's home run/foul ball:
Perhaps I'm being harsh on Davidson's performance, especially since there's no reason for him to be put in that position. In the time it took for Reilly to make the call, Derek Jeter to protest it, the umpires to confer, Willie Randolph to argue their reversal and, finally, Davidson to eject Mets bench coach Jerry Manuel, they could have just looked at a replay and got the call right.
That's one argument against replay, it would take too long, debunked and the other, it would lead to all kinds of replays, is inane.
Posted by David Pinto at
11:18 AM
|
Umpires
|
TrackBack (0)
Put sensors on the outfield wall... if the ball or the player hits the wall, it triggers a replay warning. At the end of the play, the umpires have to review the play, no matter what. The could also limit the number of replays you request per inning or game. Or the umpires could be the ones to request a replay if they mucked the call or (more importantly) believe the call will be controversial.
How do you miss a fair/foul call? I've seen several instances in this young season that umps are out of position and not hustling at all. I worry about this, not replay.
y'know... MLB is making enough money to put 2 more umpires out there- along the foul lines. Just like they do in playoffs. What's so doggone hard about that?
If eye tests and weight limits were imposed, you would see more accurate calls.