"Imperfect" Call Fuels Debate Over Use of Video in Baseball

I love a good debate.
Some people think I just like to argue, but that isn't true. What I enjoy is the fact that there are always two sides to every issue and it fascinates me to participate in (or watch from the sidelines) the presentation of those opposing ideas.

I rarely take it personally when someone disagrees with me, and I'm big enough to admit that I have a tendency to stick to my guns rather tenaciously. Which is a nice way of saying "if you want to convince me that you're right, you better have some really good ammunition."

Usually if I enter a debate (or argument if you prefer) I have a decided position on the matter - if I haven't got an opinion strong enough, I won't take part. I'll simply listen to the viewpoints and use them to decide which side of the fence I want to be on.

Sometimes, it isn't so easy.

There are some topics that are very difficult for me to decide on because both sides present very compelling cases and I can't satisfy myself as to which one I agree with more.

For example; motorcycle helmet laws.

I agree with the safety aspect of the argument, but as a motorcycle enthusiast, I also enjoy the feeling of riding without a helmet.

Then there's gun control; I can't bring myself to take a position either way because I think that both sides make very legitimate points - and since I don't own (or want) a gun, I'll let others decide.

Now, let's get down to a debate that is near and dear to my heart...

The use of video replay in Major League Baseball games.

I love baseball.

I love everything about it and in my opinion the only people who don't enjoy baseball are the ones who don't truly understand baseball - but I digress...

What I want to discuss today is the ongoing feud over the use of video replay in baseball games.

Obviously there are two sides to this issue and I must say that I appreciate both of them, to the point where I can't make up my mind.

Part of me believes that baseball is a game played by human beings (steroids notwithstanding) and officiated by human beings; and the human element is part of the game's allure.

Umpires, being human, are going to make mistakes. To expect anything different is unrealistic; but when you look at the number of calls they make versus the number of mistakes they make, I think overall they do a pretty good job - so we shouldn't interfere with that.

Just because we have technology available to us is not a reason to use it everywhere. In the case of cameras/video recordings there are places they should be used and places they shouldn't.

Surveillance cameras in banks, etc - good use. Red-light cameras, good (until you get nailed by one). Dashboard cameras in police cars - also good for keeping everybody honest.

Using video footage to decide the fate of a game...I'm not so sure. After all, it is just a game. Sure there are millions, if not billions, of dollars riding on the outcome, but it's still a game that should be left up to the humans to decide.

What'll be next, asking computers to predict the final outcome of rain-outs?

I know football and hockey use replay on a limited basis, but even there it is controversial, some players/coaches hate it while others love it.

I can also say that there have been countless times when an umpire's call was thought to be mistaken, only to be proven correct by reviewing the video. Once again I say that given the number of calls made in each game combined with the split second an ump has to make a decision, it's amazing how often they are right.

A hitter who succeeds 33% of the time is considered great but when umpires miss one call out of a hundred we want to replace them with a camera.

Doesn't seem fair.

Then there is the other side of the coin...

If we have the ability to analyze a particular play to determine if the umpire made the right call, shouldn't we use it?

Part of me says yes - what is the harm in taking precautions to ensure that the teams on the field are going to win (or lose) based on what really happened as opposed to what the umpire thought happened.

In reality, wasn't that the whole purpose behind using neutral officials in the first place - to provide unbiased and (hopefully) accurate decisions on the action, allowing the players to play without worrying about it?

There have been a plethora of calls made that have been shown to be incorrect over the years, and probably just as many, if not more, in the pre-camera days. We're not talking about meaningless games either, some of the biggest bloopers came at crucial times, providing the pro-replay crowd with a slew of evidence to support their cause.

The 1985 St. Louis Cardinals were (arguably) denied a World Series title because of a mistaken call by umpire Don Denkinger.

In the 1975 World Series the Boston Red Sox complained in vain about a controversial call by umpire Larry Barnett involving (alleged) interference of catcher Carlton Fisk by Cincinnati Reds hitter Ed Armbrister, a play that could have easily changed the course of the game and possibly the Series outcome.

Then on June 2, 2010, Detroit Tiger's pitcher Armando Galaragga was (blatantly) deprived of a perfect game when umpire Jim Joyce mistakenly called Cleveland hitter Jason Donald safe at first base - with two outs in the ninth, no less.

Three examples of situations where the use of replay analysis could have confirmed or corrected the "rightness" of a critical call.

Perhaps the solution is for replay to be used only in "critical" situations?

Who determines what is critical?

Because of the nature of baseball, the length of the season and the potential importance of every game, and by extension, every play, there can be no fair definition of what is or isn't critical.

Then there is the "delay" aspect of it.

Baseball is a slow moving game - the use of replays would definitely make it slower.

One of the rebuttals from the "anti-replay" side is that "you can't predict the outcome of a game, so reversing a call does not guarantee that justice is served."

I think Armando Galaragga would disagree. In fact, so would Jim Joyce. Had the correct call been made, Joyce would continue his umpiring career in relative obscurity and Galaragga would be in the history books.

It could go on forever...back and forth...and each side makes legitimate points.

In all honesty, I really can't decide whether I'm for it or against it.

I, like the rest of the baseball loving world, truly feel that Galaragga got the shaft, but I am not ready to say that I want to see replay in baseball.

For every highly controversial call in a "critical" situation that should be reviewed, there would be dozens of plays being reviewed just to satisfy a manger's anger or a player's ego, which would completely rob the game of the "human" element.

The resolution of this controversy will not come easily and I do not envy those who have to decide on it.

One thing is certain, no matter what, if anything, happens, there will be loud opposition proclaiming what a mistake has been made.

What do you think?

If you have an interest in this subject please leave a comment below and weigh in on the topic...I'd like to write a follow-up article that gives opinions other than mine. If you would like to make an anonymous comment, you can email me at tbaker@blindoggbooks.com.

Thank you.