Yes 15 31.25%

No 28 58.33%

Undecided/Maybe in places 5 10.42%

I agree, Thomas. I think Shane meant in major league baseball when he said league.

I've really hoped to hear more arguments for and against instant replay, even comparing replay usage across different games.
I've long thought that with computers and related sensors coming so far in recent years, there could be zillions of ways to bring that technology to the games.
You made a point about making first downs. I laughed when I read it, I've always thought it was crazy. There's absolutely no precision in measuring whatsoever until it comes to that last push, then it's all-important. Some sort of RF localized positioning system could be set up on football fields that could instantly make ball placement precise and simple. Did the ball cross the goal line? The answer was already there on the ump's armband before anyone asked in their brain. Were the WR's feet down? A wire in the turf and a couple sensors in shoes, we already took care of where the ball is.
That could work it's way into baseball to control boundaries, balls and strikes, to name a few. I don't want it.
To me, that sort of thing is perfect for football. It's a war metaphor. It belongs there.
Baseball is the polar opposite. I don't even like electronic scoreboards. I'd far rather see some kid changing the numbers. That's one of those parts of the game that is SO cool. A kid can go down to the park and keep score, be batboy, watch games all day and gather up broken bats, look for home run balls that land in the creek beyond the outfield fence, the list goes on ad finitum.
MLB is a business, but of the one professional sport that really, really, needs to "get it", they're the ones. People want old school and quaint, at least to some extent. That's why Three Rivers (and so many other ball parks) got pulled down and replaced by parks like PNC. People want to be in the game. They want to be able to see the play so they can b1tch about it, even though it's obvious to everyone they're wrong. That's fun, too.
For my birthday next year I'm asking for the death of the DH rule. If I was an AL fan I'd feel robbed. There's nothing like seeing a pitcher hit. Helping himself out, poking a lucky one over the fence, you name it. That's a good show. Watching a fat, old guy come off the bench and hit a very long single is not fun. I'd far rather see if Justin Verlander can hit even a little bit. That'd be entertaining. :-)
[Reply]

I'm against replay.
I always felt it makes the umps and refs lazy.
I've seen plenty of instances where a ref made hasty call because he knew they were going to look at it upstairs.
Replay is not something we need, better officiating and officials are the remedy.
Umps and refs need to be younger, more fit, and better at their jobs.
The leagues also have to share in their improvements.
That means hiring these guys full time!!!!
Hosting classes and workshops in the off-season, as well as workout camps for conditioning.
[Reply]

Are you also upset that iron-man football isn't played in the NFL anymore?
[Reply]

I thought the only professional umpires that wasn't full time were NFL officials. Has that changed in the past decade?
[Reply]

You are right.
I was speaking more to having them in the classroom, training, and working out full time during the off season.
[Reply]

Gotcha. :-)
[Reply]

Interestingly, it's my opinion that supporting the DH while not supporting instant replay shows inconsistency. Anyone who professes to be a traditionalist while supporting the DH shows a lack of consistency. Seems logical to me.

Of course, by this logic, I am acknowledging that my support of replay while not supporting the DH is inconsistent. I don't really care! I am of the opinion that everyone is entitled to an opinion, and while some may think some opinions lack some sort of internal logical consistency, I am of the opinion that is just their opinion.
No, and to clarify I am certainly not upset. I have no idea what gave you that impression.

But, to your point, to the best of my knowledge the rules of football were never changed to either allow, disallow, or make mandatory two-way players. Teams/Coaches/Players played both ways by choice, not by rule.

IMHO, you're arguing apples and oranges.
[Reply]

I think the iron-man/DH comparison is fair, even though football changed so long ago. It's highly specialized now. So is baseball, to a good extent.
Both being completely different games that don't even rub against each other strategically, that's where the similarity ends. It's like saying Curling and Hockey are alike because they're played on ice.
In baseball, you hit the ball, catch the ball, and throw the ball. Unless you're a pitcher or DH in the AL. That's inconsistent.

I can see where replay would be nice in baseball. I still don't want it. Add replay, you remove the need for good sportsmanship. Case in point, the NFL.
[Reply]

No, I wasn't under the impression that you were upset.
I'm speaking solely of your commenting of the strategy of the evolution of the game, not what governs what one can and cannot do within it. Not apples & oranges to me.
[Reply]

To be fair though, so did baseball. The DH rule came along well before I was even a glimmer in my Dad's eye (I'm 35), and, like was previously stated in this thread, the NL is the exception, not the rule when it comes to the DH (although I remember when I played Legion Ball there wasn't a DH, I don't know if that's since changed or not).
[Reply]

I don't believe my original post made any statement about the evolution of the game. I simply prefer the strategy involved without the DH. I can see if my point was "the way things were" your point about football may be relevant, but that was never my point.
[Reply]

If you don't think MLB needs replay watch this video. The best angle is at the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goZAKhjG15k

NHL actually got this one right. Have another Ump/Ref in the booth reviewing all non-ball/strike calls and let him radio down or on-field radio up for quick reviews. 30 seconds on tight calls might save 5 minute rants by the managers.
[Reply]

Just to be clear, I have no interest in getting into a p!$$ing contest with anyone, about replay or the DH, or what I consider the oxymoron of "pitchers hitting". :-)

Hell, it's only a game after all, and anyone who gets hot and bothered about a difference of opinion need to get a life. :-)
[Reply]

Thomas, I didn't mean to offend or start a pi$$ing match. I'm just in favor of it given the horrible missed calls the past few years.
[Reply]

As opposed to the horrible missed calls back in, say, 1906? :-)

There's no crying in baseball! :-)
[Reply]

They didn't have 30 HD cameras at different angles in each stadium back in 1906. Instand replay didn't exist via silent films. It would only take seconds to get these calls right. I'm not calling for it on balls & strikes, just other plays when necessary.
[Reply]

Technology to improve competititve events? Hey, why not? Back in 1997 IBM's Deep Blue defeated champion master Garry Kasparov in chess. Just a few years ago their Watson supercomputer won over two former champions in Jeopardy. Let's embrace it in other sporting contests, and let's not stop at replay. Why draw the line there? Let's have robotic pitchers, android fielders, and cyborg batters too. Let's eliminate every human element from the game whatsoever, and have a pure and errorless product, be said errors physical, emotional, mental, or observational. Then we could perhaps not only remove the DH from baseball, but the DL to boot. Shoot, with the more predictable performance, and thus outcome, from such contests, we could likely remove the game itself because we'd know the final before the first pitch, and even the WS champs before spring training.

I'm all for it. I would not WATCH it, but I'm not one to stand in the way of progress.

Do you think I am kidding? Well, some, certainly. But consider for a moment, for instance, how much money the USGA spends each year testing new golfballs and clubs to assure that no player will receive any unfair advantage over his opponents due to advances in technology, or the similar testing that NASCAR or America Cup officials perform. Is it really that much of a stretch for one to foresee robo-wars moving from the world of nerds into the arena of competitive sports? So despite the fantastical aspect of my scenario, the main point remains: The more "human" elements you remove from the game, the more "inhuman" it becomes, by definition.
[Reply]

You prefer the old(er) style of play, as opposed to one which incoporates a DH. I really don't see how that conflicts with what I said, at least not with my view from the cheap seats.
[Reply]

It's not my preference because it's older, it's just my preference. Whereas I would think a traditionalist would prefer what is older. :-)
[Reply]

When I consider technology in the game, the first place I consider it is at balls and strikes. Umps differ wildly in their strikezones depending on how they want to move the game along. They'll pay back bad calls, too.
That can all be ended real quick.
I'm sure if someone ran a balls/strikes ratio (that was logged via foxcam or something) between teams after the game was played, they'd show a clear advantage for one team over the other. The use of a technology like that may keep and ump on their toes, looking over their shoulder in fear of their job, but it's not necessary.
If a team loses a game because an ump has it out for them, they have 161 others where the ump is liable to go their way. It's not just one game.

If a ball hits the foul pole and maybe it's a home run, maybe it's not, sometimes a guy will get robbed. He's got another 500 at bats to get another.

My point is, bad calls allow ball players to learn how to be decent human beings. They learn to accept that sometimes the world isn't fair. As a result, baseball players, by and large, don't act like players in other professional sports.
If they do, they straighten up by the time they get older.
Look how many fistfights there are in any single NFL game. Nobody can control themselves because they've never had to. The game doesn't call for being a gentleman, it doesn't help a guy's game to be calm.
In baseball, the only time you see a fight is when a pitcher drills a batter on purpose. Then he gets a quick lesson from the whole bench on how to act. :-)
[Reply]