|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Aug 8, 2019 18:05:35 GMT
Yeah. Then computerized players! Fuck, we could play the whole season on xbox. Save money on uniforms, baseballs, sunflower seeds all that crap. Or, MLB could make the umps better. When I watch sports, I watch the players, not the officials. They could put monkeys behind the plate and get similar results to what we have now. A computer won't hold a grudge. A computer won't get tired and just want the game to be over. A computer didn't grow up wanting to be a part of the game, just waiting for the big moment to insert himself into the narrative. The other argument for umpires is the 'human element.' We already have that in players and coaches. Let them decide the game, for better or worse. If a player or coach makes a mistake, there's your human element. The walking representation of the rulebook shouldn't make a mistake that directly effects the outcome of the game (or worse, do it deliberately). If we could have electronic officiating in all sports, I'd take it in a heartbeat. As it stands, baseball is the only sport where I think you could do 100% of the officiating electronically. Bad calls are a part of any sport. And I don't have a problem with instant replay. You can't have crap like Game 7 of the 1985 WS, not with the technology we have now. But it would get tedious with the "box" calling balls and strikes. And you still need umpires to call plays on the bases. I've also read that "the box" isn't 100% accurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 8, 2019 18:09:33 GMT
When I watch sports, I watch the players, not the officials. They could put monkeys behind the plate and get similar results to what we have now. A computer won't hold a grudge. A computer won't get tired and just want the game to be over. A computer didn't grow up wanting to be a part of the game, just waiting for the big moment to insert himself into the narrative. The other argument for umpires is the 'human element.' We already have that in players and coaches. Let them decide the game, for better or worse. If a player or coach makes a mistake, there's your human element. The walking representation of the rulebook shouldn't make a mistake that directly effects the outcome of the game (or worse, do it deliberately). If we could have electronic officiating in all sports, I'd take it in a heartbeat. As it stands, baseball is the only sport where I think you could do 100% of the officiating electronically. Bad calls are a part of any sport. And I don't have a problem with instant replay. You can't have crap like Game 7 of the 1985 WS, not with the technology we have now. But it would get tedious with the "box" calling balls and strikes. And you still need umpires to call plays on the bases. I've also read that "the box" isn't 100% accurate. Bad calls shouldn't be a part of any sport, I think we could cut down on them significantly in baseball. I agree the box isn't 100% accurate, but a system could be set up to make it 100%, and certainly closer to reality than the 'every ump gets to make it up as he goes along' format we've had since the game's inception. If nothing else it would lead to players and coaches arguing with a robot, a monitor or a camera. Tell me that wouldn't be entertaining?
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Aug 8, 2019 18:28:48 GMT
Bad calls are a part of any sport. And I don't have a problem with instant replay. You can't have crap like Game 7 of the 1985 WS, not with the technology we have now. But it would get tedious with the "box" calling balls and strikes. And you still need umpires to call plays on the bases. I've also read that "the box" isn't 100% accurate. Bad calls shouldn't be a part of any sport, I think we could cut down on them significantly in baseball. I agree the box isn't 100% accurate, but a system could be set up to make it 100%, and certainly closer to reality than the 'every ump gets to make it up as he goes along' format we've had since the game's inception. If nothing else it would lead to players and coaches arguing with a robot, a monitor or a camera. Tell me that wouldn't be entertaining? Once again, better umpires. You always hear "Well Umpire Fred is calling the low stuff strikes but at least he's being consistent." And that's a huge problem. They should call the strike zone as written in the book. Period. A borderline called strike three is just that, borderline. If it was called a strike and it was four inches out, then you discipline the umpire. It it was a pube high, then the batter should have swung.
|
|
|
|
Post by Heretic the Musk Whisperer on Aug 8, 2019 22:29:47 GMT
With that box they now show during televised games at home plate and where the ball hits, it seems that they could just have the umpire sitting in a booth watching it and calling balls and strikes over a PA. As for the pitcher getting a new ball every time someone on the side could just toss him one. Same thing for the ones in the field with cameras and instant replay now being part of the game to overturn or confirm close decisions. I can't think of a good reason or justification for keeping these guys out there. Can you? Several reasons. A strike zone is not quite as easy as the box, which isnt entirely accurate. Also, the imo needs to hand the balls to ensure that they are not doctored. If he wasnt there, players would be trying to pine tar the balls all the time. Lastly, if a player starts getting testy, like after being hit by pitch and is threatening to charge, the umpire intervenes. |
|
|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Aug 8, 2019 23:46:22 GMT
Yeah. Then computerized players! Fuck, we could play the whole season on xbox. Save money on uniforms, baseballs, sunflower seeds all that crap. Or, MLB could make the umps better. When I watch sports, I watch the players, not the officials. They could put monkeys behind the plate and get similar results to what we have now. A computer won't hold a grudge. A computer won't get tired and just want the game to be over. A computer didn't grow up wanting to be a part of the game, just waiting for the big moment to insert himself into the narrative. The other argument for umpires is the 'human element.' We already have that in players and coaches. Let them decide the game, for better or worse. If a player or coach makes a mistake, there's your human element. The walking representation of the rulebook shouldn't make a mistake that directly effects the outcome of the game (or worse, do it deliberately). If we could have electronic officiating in all sports, I'd take it in a heartbeat. As it stands, baseball is the only sport where I think you could do 100% of the officiating electronically. Yeah, I think it could be done for football to but that would slow it down more than it is. They would have to pause the game to watch a replay in between every play where now it is more instantaneous as the home plate box is for baseball.
|
|
|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Aug 8, 2019 23:49:05 GMT
With that box they now show during televised games at home plate and where the ball hits, it seems that they could just have the umpire sitting in a booth watching it and calling balls and strikes over a PA. As for the pitcher getting a new ball every time someone on the side could just toss him one. Same thing for the ones in the field with cameras and instant replay now being part of the game to overturn or confirm close decisions. I can't think of a good reason or justification for keeping these guys out there. Can you? Several reasons. A strike zone is not quite as easy as the box, which isnt entirely accurate. Also, the imo needs to hand the balls to ensure that they are not doctored. If he wasnt there, players would be trying to pine tar the balls all the time. Lastly, if a player starts getting testy, like after being hit by pitch and is threatening to charge, the umpire intervenes. Those are good points and I cannot think of a reason to disagree. Update: I've come to realize that all they would need is just a guy to keep the peace, supply balls to the pitcher when he needs them and maybe make calls at home. Other than that, I don't see a need for HP umpires anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Aug 8, 2019 23:53:14 GMT
I think they've experimented with this in the Atlantic League this year. I'm all for modernizing sports and adapting with the times; however this just feels 'off' to me - i.e. 'Terminator' like where we're going to be replaced with machines/robots/computers. Leave the umps in - they're part of the game/atmosphere to me.I can get that. They are part of the tradition and taking them out takes away another human aspect of the game. Frankly I am not too keen on baseball now having instant replay. To me that does take away the human spirit of having umps there and is part of my question if they really are needed in baseball anymore. Football with the rule changes all the freaking time and the technology they keep throwing in and the speed, yeah, I can accept IR for that. Baseball with the old school feeling for tradition makes it harder for me to accept IR as part of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Aug 9, 2019 0:03:11 GMT
bring back the umps with style! Reminds me of this scene from The Naked Gun. LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Aug 26, 2019 3:23:52 GMT
After watching a home plate umpire blow yet another called strike that should have been a ball, I'm convinced we don't need them anymore.
Let some guy call balls and strikes watching the computerized box but leave a guy out there to keep the peace between the teams and supply balls to the pitcher when he needs one.
|
|
