Or at least so many, especially in the postseason. That's the question Jonah Keri asks in today's Wall Street Journal in the wake of some shaky officiating in the first round of the playoffs:The idea, of course, is that more umpires means better play-calling. But this isn't necessarily true. After Friday's game, Tim Tschida, the umpire crew chief on duty that night, told reporters that while there was no excuse for Mr. Cuzzi's blown call, there was one contributing factor. Umpires spend so little time working in the outfield during the season that it can be a challenge in the postseason. "Getting into a position is a little bit foreign," Mr. Tschida said. "It's a little bit uncomfortable."Keri goes on to note the accuracy of the Pitch-f/x zone evaluation system, and the use of the Hawk-Eye cameras in tennis for line calls, and asks whether, rather than throwing six umpires out at a playoff game, we couldn't limit that number and rely more on technology to get balls and strikes and line calls right more often.
In an interview with the Newark Star-Ledger, Mr. Cuzzi also said the positioning was a challenge. "We're not used to playing that far down the line," he said. "The instant the ball is hit, we usually start running. I think I may have been looking too closely at it."
The usual battle lines of this debate end up being those who want every call to be right with no excuses whatsoever vs. those who are wary of taking the "human element" out of the game. I'm sympathetic towards the latter viewpoint, especially when it comes to calling balls and strikes -- I get a lot of enjoyment out of the cat and mouse game pitchers, catchers and batters play with the strike zone -- but I can't help but think that we're on an inevitable course towards technology playing a larger role in the game.
It would be the easiest thing in the world to have a digital camera system make accurate line calls, so what's the argument against it? And once you go there, how long can those of us who like to see a little human variance in the strike zone really hold off the advance of progress?
As a Greg Maddux fan, I'm sure you are a big proponent of a very malleable strike zone. Sorry, bitter Astros fan, and I couldn't resist.
Just let the announcers call it ,they know everything
"I think I may have been looking too closely at it."
Seriously? Is that a real quote?
You confuse technology with progress. They are not always the same. Baseball is a game played by humans and umpired by humans and that's the way it should stay. Of course, this means there will be human errors. So what? That's part of the game.
The only arguement I've heard against it is whether it can adjust from batter to batter (in the balls/strike situation). Considering the zone is adjusting for each hitter, how fast can the system recognize* the new batter?
* - maybe a huge database with measurements for each batter? Would make it interesting for september call ups though.
a hitter deserves a hit when he makes a hit. imagine if he only needed on more hit to move his average from .399 to .400. or if he needed that hit for his 200th hit. you telling me the batter needs to just deal with it? oops sorry and my bad. hitters work too hard in a season to not give them props when props are due
I must qualify my statement by saying that I have been a softball umpire for close to 30 years. I was shocked to see the ump call that 'foul' for I saw it live and knew it was fair. At umpire school (yes, umpires do go to school), we were taught that you get as close to the play as possible, STOP, look at the play, allow yourself to see the play, let it register in your mind, and THEN make the call. Trying to make a call while running, when your head is bouncing around, will lead to blown calls. In my opinion, this was not a close call, as it was at least 4 inches fair. If the ump was running at the time he made the call (I do not recall), then he might have seen it hit 4 inches foul. It is very true that 6 man umping teams are the exception, and the mechanics of calling fair/foul down the lines are a little rusty, put PLEASE, remember the basic mechanics, and apply accordingly. The field is very well lit, and it is very easy to see a white ball relative to a white line. No ump ever in his heart blows a call, and it is very unfortunate that this call occurred at such a critical junction in the game. Yes the announcers kept harping on that call the rest of the game, but, isn't that what announcers do?
Cuzzi was definitely NOT running when he made the call. He had stopped and crouched to look down the line to (presumably) watch the ball as it came down. Pretty much as the picture shows above.
REPLACE THEM WITH CHEERLEADERS DANCING IN CAGES, LIKE IN DALLAS.
That was s stupid question. Does football need referees?
Yeah, my thoughts exactly. It's like these guys are trying to take themselves out a job. I mean, I'm all for the human element, but not if the human element is made up of boneheads who figure they can blow calls and just eject anyone who disagrees with them.
He is human, but that was pretty much his only job. Most other sports have come to grips with technology and mixed the two elements. Why couldn't they use replay and say make it a ground rule double. There are other times when the ground rule doesn't perfectly award the play, but it comes closer than this blown play. Baseball appears to be avoiding using technology. BTW I don't understand why replay isn't used for 'did he swing' or not. Currently the plate umpire is not required to check with another umpire, and when he does, I sort of think he asks the wrong one. As I see it, it's the other line umpire who best sees the wrist or/and the plate.
Let the manager challange like they do in Football
BLOWN CALLS BY UMPIRES?!! SAY IT AINT SO!! IT HAPPENS FROM TBALL TO THE MAJOR LEAGUES. THE REPLY, TO PEOPLE WHO COMPLAIN ABOUT BAD CALLS, IS ALWAYS THE SAME, "EVERYONE BLAMES THE UMPIRES, THE PLAYERS NEED TO ADJUST". HUH? HOW CAN A PLAYER ADJUST TO A PITCH 6 INCHES OFF THE PLATE BEING CALLED A STRIKE?! ESPECIALLY IF THE SAME PITCH HAS BEEN CALLED A BALL FOR THE FIRST 5 INNINGS OF A GAME. TOM GLAVINE DOESN'T WANT TECHNO-UMPIRES, HE MADE HIS LIVING ON GRACIOUS UMPS. AS FOR THE BAD CALLS ON FAIR/FOUL. GIVE ME A BREAK. LET'S USE THE TENNIS TECHNOLOGY. IF WIMBLEDON CAN MOVE THEIR HISTORIC REARS TO USING IT, SO CAN THE IMMOVEABLE POSTERIOR OF MR. SELIG. WHY NOT USE TECHNOLOGY? BECAUSE WE CAN'T STAND A GAME BEING CALLED AS CLOSE TO PROPERLY AS POSSIBLE? IS IT TOO ANTI-HISTORICAL TO HAVE A GAME CALLED AS CLOSE TO CORRECT AS POSSIBLE? DO WE PREFER THE CONVERSATIONS THE NEXT DAY AFTER A BIG GAME IS BLOWN BY AN UMPIRE? "SEE THE GAME LAST NIGHT"? "YES". "PRETTY SORRY CALL BY THE UMP". "UMPS SUCK". WOW, NOW THAT ADDS TO THE "HISTORY" OF THE GAME.
Instant replay works in other sports, why not baseball? But... if the argument is to retain the "purity" of the game, then dump those stupid Designated Hitters. That change took an enormous amount of strategy out of the sport, and for what? So some old guys who can't play in the field any longer can continue to play past their prime? Play BASEBALL! Geesh!
I agree with Joe D. A challenge with constraints as in football. If the challenge is incorrect, then the manager loss the option of another challenge or however many chances they may have during the game. This forces the replay issue without losing the human element. Wouldn't you hate to have to lose the sight of a manager standing toe to toe with an ump and being thrown out! Now there is a baseball tradition! :)
Rule 902c states: "Appeals on a half swing may be made only on the call of ball and when asked to appeal, the home plate umpire must refer to a base umpire for his judgment on the half swing. Should the base umpire call the pitch a strike, the strike call shall prevail.
Notice the wording of "MUST"
While I hate to put words in people's mouths, I think he was referring to having to appeal to get the home plate ump to check with the first/third ump, rather than doing so on his own accord.
When umpires get too close to a play they say it "explodes" on them and they don't have a proper perspective as to the play in question-If he was already up the line, he probably got too close to the play or he was still moving when he had to make the call. They are taught to get their angle and then STOP and be motionless when they have to make the call, so that the head is completely still.
Bill
As a purist, I stil can't stand the DH. The human element must exist in the game. The Angels received some hilarious calls to their benefit at home, and so did Boston. Phantom catches are made (Clint Barmas),and other catch's are blown,(Matt Holiday/Billy Buckner).It's what makes the game of baseball intriquing, you never know what's going to happen. As "Tom Hanks" once put so elegantly, "Their's No Crying in Baseball".
I want to put together a youtube video of every blown call from this post season (there were a lot for many teams). From the NY game where the ump (10 feet away) gets confused to which side is fair territory, to the runner at third for the Angels being called out. I love having umps instead of a computer telling us what's right or not, but on such a high level of play (post season) you need umps that aren't going to drop their pants on the field and crap all over the game.
I would like to see a computer calling balls and strikes and one human umpire in the broadcast booth with access to all network camera feeds to call everything else. I don't buy that having bad calls as a part of baseball enhances the game. You can use whatever euphemism that you want ('human element', 'tradition', 'integrity of the game'), what some of you are defending is the 'blown call'.
Riding in horse-drawn carriages had it's charms too, but eventually we all bought cars. It's time to let technology into baseball.
I think you are confusing the line with the strike zone..
The human element. The game is played by humans, who will undoubtly make mistakes. Umpires are there to make calls not get credit; so bring on the cameras, robots, etc and let move on!
When I umpired, I was taught there are basically only six calls - ball or strike, fair or foul, safe or out. (I know, it's a bit more complicated than that on the field, but basically that's it.) The extra umps down the line have only two responsibilities, that I can see: calling the line beyond the bases, and verifying close homers. MLB already has replay for close home run calls. I see the line as being no different. I say, lose the extra umps ("uncomfortable" in a "foreign" position? Really?), and let the usual 4 call the game like they do the other 162 games (or 163, for us bitter Tigers fans).
I say get the game back to it's purist form. This includes no DH and raise the mound back up to it's original height. I do think that instant replay should be expanded to ALL fair or foul calls, not just home runs.
a hitter deserves a hit when he makes a hit. imagine if he only needed on more hit to move his average from .399 to .400. or if he needed that hit for his 200th hit. you telling me the batter needs to just deal with it? oops sorry and my bad. hitters work too hard in a season to not give them props when props are due
The best argument for use of an extra instant replay official (sitting in the umpires locker room, reviewing plays as they happen and signaling the crew chief when a review is warranted) is that even if Mauer's ball had landed in foul territory, it's still a fair ball because Cabrera touched it (before it landed) while he was still in fair territory. Presumably, Cuzzi was focused on the line and missed that part of the play -- an honest mistake and an easily correctable one.
Amid all the hue and cry to rid baseball of "cheaters" using PEDs, the simple truth is that cheating is not only tolerated, but practically glorified, in baseball. The "phantom" touch of second on the front end of a double play, the catcher "framing" an outside pitch to get the strike call, an outfielder trapping a ball and then acting as if he caught it are all commonplace. Even the umpires get in on the act when they literally double the size of the strike zone on 3-0 pitches.
MLB accepts these cheats and the cronies in the media ignore or even embrace them (just listening to ESPN's Joe Morgan lionize such gamesmanship makes me sick). Meanwhile, everyone at home (and at the ballpark, thanks to Jumbotron) knows that a mistake / cheat has taken place. What a sorry example of sportsmanship for any little leaguer who might be watching. Is it any wonder that our society now tolerates outright lying from our political and business leaders, or that our Internet driven media seemingly has no standards for accuracy in reporting? America's pastime, indeed.
Imagine the lesson in sportsmanship if Melky Cabrera had approached Cuzzi after the play and told him, "Hey, I know you were watching the ball to see where it hit, but it ticked my glove before it landed." Of course, then we'd have to explain to our kids why the Yankee fans were burning one of their own players in effigy.
I second what you just said but also want mention they should abolish the DH. It's amazing how we can pay to watch someone making millions to step up to the plate four or five times a night and watch the game from the best seats the rest of his time there. Relief pitchers don't have it that good.
If the line umpires have trouble getting in position, why don't they just stand up against the outfield wall looking directly down the line? They would have a dead-on view of the line, and they would rarely have to move at all.
Forget Cuzzi's bad call you can't assume the run scores nor can you assume Girardi would have had it played the same way. Theoretically you could use questec or some other system to call balls and strikes and instant replay to determine all other plays. You could have one maybe two umpires maybe even have one up in a booth somewhere watching the game on TV. However that isn't baseball and calls do get botched and the Yankees have had their fair share as well. There were a lot of bad strike zones in several of the series and they probably had a bigger impact on the game then one foul ball call. Yes you really don't need umpires in the electronic age of HD and cameras watching every play but in the end the human element good or bad has been a part of the game and calls can go either way good or bad.
YES, baseball needs umpires. What kind of STUPID question is that anyway?? Baseball has had umpires since its inception. Sure, there were a lot of questionable calls during the Division Series, but has anyone here ever heard of the term "Human Error"? It happens in baseball...Don Denkinger, anyone?? I understand if they need instant replay for certain HR calls, but what next, you want instant replay for each & every close play during the games?? How many instant replays per game to people have in mind anyway?? Maybe 1 or 2 per game is fine by me, but we don't need to have replays for EVERY call, do we now? Yes, they need to get the calls as accurate as possible, but mistakes happen during games, & it's up to the teams involved to overcome those obstacles themselves. And besides, if we left it up to the fans to decide, well, let's just say that there would be a lot of "homer" calls in favour of certain teams, now, correct?
Of course we have a notion that baseball is better unchanged and left as it is with the "human element". I'm sure it is a significantly easier to argue that if you are not a fan of one of the teams that were directly affected this post-season by bad calls. I would like to see a change. primarily because in the post-season it matters. 162 games are played to determine the best teams and those next games are for all the marbles. We expect professionalism and accuracy from umpires but when that human element fails we have no recourse or review. If we just say oh well "oops" shrug our shoulders and say "it happens" and "part of the game" someone is being cheated.
I am going to assume that you follow the Yankees because that is the same excuse that I have been hearing all week from Yankee fans about a run scoring or not. If I am wrong I apologize. What I can say is that you can't exclude that one call in this argument because it sticks out as the most blatant example of a crappy call... extra innings in a tie game. He should get that call right and a run probably would have scored. whether it would have mattered is another argument altogether.
There is nothing wrong with being satisfied with the status quo and accept the fact that calls are missed. What I really wonder is that if that call had come in a world series deciding game if you and others would still have the "aw-shucks-oh-well" attitude about it. The way things are going thus far we may actually see just that in a couple weeks.
There have been calls against the Yankees and in playoff games that have gone against them. I may root for the Yankees but it is a fact you can't assume the run would have scored. Now as far as would it have mattered again you can't assume Texiera's home rune either. Taking the human element out of the game is a tough call, adding instant replay for more things again I am not sure is the answer but again I do feel that bad strike and ball calls and an inconsistant strike zone have a bigger impact on the game then calls on balls in play that are wrong. Chuck Merriweather had more then a few bad strike three out calls then Cuzzi's bad call. Again the outcome could have been different if the strike zone had been consistant but you can't assume the outcome would have been different.
Not only the bad calls, but the ego's of some of the umps so undeserved! They are changing the game more than anything.
No. Your wrong. When you buy a ticket to a game you're going there to see two teams compete and try to win. In doing so, the officiating needs to be perfect to ensure that no side gets an unfair advantage, and winning and losing is ONLY up to the players. If we could have robots replace these umps and they would get every call right I would sign up for it in a second. We don't watch baseball for the umpiring, its to see the most talented players in the world compete against EACH OTHER. There should be no other factors, except weather is fine and affects both teams equally.