June 2, 2010--MLB Umpires' "Day that will live in infamy"?

[Bill V]

First, a blown call by first base umpire Jim Joyce costs Detroit Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga the 21st perfect game in Major League Baseball history.



That call is going to go down as one of the worst blown calls in baseball history. But at least it didn't cost any team a win or a loss.



Later the same evening, second base umpire Dale Scott blew the call in the bottom of the tenth inning, calling Seattle's Josh Wilson safe when he was clearly out, allowing the winning run to score against Minnesota.



This has to rank up there among the worst days in baseball umpiring history. Hopefully it's enough to finally convince some of the "traditionalists" that instant replay needs to be drastically expanded in baseball...

 

[Mike Dziubina]

undoubtedly a terrible call, but humans make mistakes. Its part of life. Did he pitch a perfect game? yes. does everyone know it (including Joyce)? yes. but he will not go down in the perfect game pitcher's book. But I dont know about instant replay for the sport. I have always been taught while playing, bad calls are part of the sport as they always have been. sometimes they help your team, other times they dont. in this case obviously it hurt tremendously not to have the ability to reverse the call, but thats the game. My hat goes off the the pitcher, In my opinion he still pitched a perfect game, and he probably made an even bigger name for himself over this call. there is just too much technology all over the place for me. I cant see adding it to the sport of baseball.

 

[Bill V]

bad calls are part of the sport as they always have been

I've always hated that excuse. It's the equivalent of saying that horses are part of transportation as they always have been, or cords are part of telephone communication as they always ahve been. Technology developed in ways which improved those fields. It's time to let technology also improve baseball.

 

[Roger Batts]

Bud Selig could reverse the decision. The thing is, he probably won't. :smack:

 

[Les]

I've always hated that excuse.

Not an excuse, just part of the game.

It's time to let technology also improve baseball.

Hope not, if baseball gets any slower, it will be going backwards. Technology doesn't improve the game, only displays bad calls. College football is a good example of technology ruining the game for money. Refs wait until the commercial break is over to review the call, thus another commercial. Comparing telephones to sports is like comparing apples to oranges. Calling them games, or sports is just as antiquated, just call them businesses and be done with it.

 

[Bill V]

Hope not, if baseball gets any slower, it will be going backwards.

I can definitely understand and appreciate that sentiment--but if it takes significantly more time, it's a problem with how it gets implemented, not with replay itself. NFL replay is a decent example of this. Early implementations took forever. But the powers-that-be in the NFL saw those issues, and rather than dropping replay, they improved the system, such that it is now overwhelmingly seen as worth the time involved and an improvement in the game.

 

[Bill V]

Bud Selig could reverse the decision. The thing is, he probably won't.

The thing is, he really can't--not without opening a whole can of worms.



For example, the aforementioned Twins Mariners game. If he's going to reverse the call from the Tigers game, then for consistency's sake, he really needs to also reverse the call from the Twins/Mariners game--which would then need to resume play in the 11th inning. Anything short of that would be inconsistent hypocrisy. About the only thing he can do is let it stand, and start taking realistic steps to implement systems to prevent something like this from ever happening again.

 

[Mike Dziubina]

I've always hated that excuse. It's the equivalent of saying that horses are part of transportation as they always have been, or cords are part of telephone communication as they always ahve been. Technology developed in ways which improved those fields. It's time to let technology also improve baseball.

Bill - im not trying to argue here, your opinion is worthy and I am sure many others feel just the same as you do. I will admit, I can see it from you side as well. Yes technology has advanced our ways of life in tremendous measures. I would know as a firefighter/EMT and current PA student. On the topic of benefiting life, it has saved countless lives, probably including mine. But doesn't some part of you say the older days were better. Hell, i'm only 22 and I still say older days were better. I can say that horses still are a means of transportation for some, and telephones with cords are much more quality than the junk today. example - cousins of mine live in rural parts of CT, they choose to go horseback to do some chores, around the land, going to neighbors, etc. could they take the truck instead, sure, but why? cordless phones - Ill laugh about it and I hope no one takes offense, but the conversations I have had with lots of daughters that lead to later activities would have never happened if they couldn't hide in their rooms with a cordless phone!:grin:



Yes I agree with you, technology for the most part has advanced many areas of our daily lives. I even had to take a class in undergrad last year that covered solely the topic of technology, both good and bad. I could write you a book here covering topics discussed. Again, and my opinion, technology should be reserved for only certain parts of our lives, baseball NOT included. Again, i respect your opinion, but I have to include my side as well.

 

[Bill V]

Mike, definitely a valid opinion, and like you seeing mine, I can see your point as well. And I agree with you completely, when it pertains to how the game itself is played. But my personal opinion is that when it comes to officiating/judging baseball (or any sport), accuracy should always be first and foremost, ahead of even tradition.



While we're on the subject of using technology to judge athletic events, I have another question--how do you feel about "photo finishes" in racing events? Should it be used, or is this, too, an example of a situation where technology shouldn't apply? Remember that at one time, such technology was cutting edge, and seen as a replacement of the human factor in judging racing competitions...

 

[Les]

While we're on the subject of using technology to judge athletic events, I have another question--how do you feel about "photo finishes" in racing events?

Bill, to me photo finishes are different, the race is determined by the finish only. And in racing, (foot or auto etc,) to my knowledge replays are not used to call fouls, such as being out of bounds. Baseball, football, etc. can change the outcome of the game by a play within the game. If baseball goes to replays, this event is certainly one which a review would have been in the best interest of the game. But if you go to replays for every play at the base, an already boring game becomes intolerable. Some type of challenge should be allowed, at least on a very limited basis. And as bad as the call was the other night, Selig should have done something. His changing the call doesn't change the outcome in any way. The nice thing about this, after Joyce apologized and met with Gallaraga, the Detroit fans showed lots of class.