Instant Replay via Challenge Flags and a War Room

By On April 19, 2012 · 4 Comments · In General Musings

Last night, Al Leiter suggested that baseball bring instant replay into baseball via challenge flags. The umpires had just pretty badly blown a call on Robinson Cano at first base. Cano was easily (even to the naked eye) safe, but was called out. In a one-run game, that play could easily have made the difference.

Baseball needs instant replay. Most sports these days have it on important plays, but baseball severely limits its replay to home run calls. The reason normally cited is that the game is too long. As pitch counts and pitching changes have increased, so has the average run time of a ballgame. Instant replay would likely add to this, as umpires leave the field to review a play in the clubhouse.

A two-part solution can change this. The first is to implement challenge flags, which I’ve written about before. A manager would have a limited number of flags – one or two – that he could throw on the ground every game. He can challenge any call that goes against the team, other than balls and strikes or check swings. For the most part, this means outs at the plate and home run calls. Once the manager uses up his challenge flags, they are gone. You might add in some provision where an umpire can veto the challenge if its an obvious stall tactic while you wait for a relief pitcher to warm up. Another variant could also allow you to challenge balls and strikes, although that could get tedious, I imagine.

The second part is to establish an NHL-style “war room” to evaluate the calls. Whenever a play is reviewed in the National Hockey League, the referees walk over to a phone and call up the NHL’s facility in Toronto. There, they monitor every game for calls like these, and make a ruling. The whole process takes almost no time at all. In baseball, the crew chief could have a special cell phone in his back pocket, call MLB HQ, and figure out the ruling in the same amount of time that a TV broadcaster takes. You wouldn’t add much time at all to the game.

The upside? You would get the call right, almost every time. MLB umpires are good, but they aren’t infallible. Ask Armondo Gallaraga. I feel like a challenge flag would also add a little bit of drama to the game. The downside? I can’t see a significant one. Games might get marginally longer. But are we really well served watching Joe Girardi pretend to argue with Joe West for 2 minutes? Can anyone think of any real drawbacks here?

Tagged with: •
 
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
Delicious Digg

4 Responses to Instant Replay via Challenge Flags and a War Room

  1. Baseball Guy says:
    April 19, 2012 at 2:57 pm

    Here is what I don’t understand about the NFL rule – and this suggestion.

    Ok, you get two challenge flags. In essence what this says is “After you use your second flag (or whatever the number is), it’s ok for the umps to get every call wrong. You are out of challenges.”

    Also…

    There will also come a point when commentators, bloggers, etc… start to then question the manager’s use of the flag:

    “Well, he had one flag, why not use it? You can’t end the game with a flag still in your hand.”

    OR…

    “You never use a flag in that spot. Top of the third and wasting a flag?”

    It becomes just another thing to add unnecessary drama to the analysis of the game.

    As such, I think you’ll then see times when managers will throw the flag just to have thrown it. “In that situation, ninth inning, it made sense to review the play. I had a flag left.”

    Because of this, games will take longer. It will also disrupt the flow of the game as viewers have to wait for 45,000 replays. Even when they are unnecessary. (Watch the end of some basketball games – “We had to foul there…” (even when they’re losing by 13 points with 10 seconds left.) )

    And judging by the NFL, they still won’t get some calls right – even after reviewing the replays. It’s not 100%.

    If baseball is serious about getting calls right, there is a simplier way. Have a fifth umpire, in the booth, watching every close play. In the time it takes for the next batter to step in the box, a play can be reviewed. This can happen on almost every play, but especially the close ones. The booth ump, tells the home plate ump that he’s reviewing the play and to not allow a pitch until he’s done. I don’t even think there would be many delays. If it happens as a matter of routine, the disruption to the game would be minimal. (Watch how replays are handled in tennis, sometimes it is instantaneous.)

    A final point. We all know the statistics about the difference between a 2-1 count and a 1-2 count and how the “balance of power” tips to the pitcher or batter based upon that one pitch or call. The ball/strike dynamic is much more of a factor on a game to game basis than the calls in the field. It’s just there are so many of them that no one is willing to state that that is where games are often won or lost by umpires.

    So we say, “Let’s take the human element out of the game” while keeping the most crucial human element (ball and strike calling) in the game.

    I find the whole thing silly. It’s putting a band aid on a problem that won’t solve a problem and will create other ones.

    No flags, please.

    If that’s the extra drame – I don’t want it.

    Reply
    • Eric Schultz says:
      April 19, 2012 at 4:03 pm

      That’s not entirely true about the NFL system. Teams that use both challenges and win both are given an additional challenge, which limits some of the disincentive for challenging calls early in the game.

      Reply
  2. roadrider says:
    April 19, 2012 at 4:28 pm

    I can see one or two challenges but I prefer the approach where bad calls can be overruled from an umpire monitoring a TV or from a central monitoring station.

    As far as shortening games I hardly think arguments with umpires are the largest contributor. The chief offenders are 1) time between pitches 2) hitters stepping out 3) excessive mound visits and conferences 4) extended TV commercial time between innings – especially in the post-season 5) excessive pitching changes. That’s not in any particular order.

    I would love to see MLB crack down on any of that stuff before I would worry about how much time getting bad calls corrected would add to the time of games.

    Reply
  3. OldYanksFan says:
    April 19, 2012 at 5:04 pm

    I disagree that Instant Replay would make games longer. We have all experience, that while watching the game on TV, and seeing the call on replay, we often know the right call while the manager is still argueing.

    We simply need a video umpire up in the booth with a few technicians. They can lierally be reviewing play, from 9 different camera angles, within seconds of a play happening.

    Home Runs, balls (maybe) bouncing into the stands, fan interference, and Fair/foul should always be decided by replay.
    In addition, each manager should get to challenge any 2 other calls per game.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.