I used to be a purist when it came to baseball. Then I accepted interleague play. I even got to enjoy it. I still don't like the DH but I can understand its popularity for fans and players(especially their union).
I was totally on board with the new instant replay rule that went into effect in 2014. I always felt that umpires were given too much deference in the game and very little supervision. Their union seemed impenetrable.
And now comes instant replay to remedy that imbalance right? Well, based on the games thus far, the answer is a resounding no. Noted baseball Ken Rosenthal writer expressed his dissatisfaction in an article today.
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/ne...
He referenced two instances where the replay officials were clearly wrong in the decision making process. I have personally seen two instances where I thought the on field decision should have been overturned but they weren't. Why? Because the standard of proof required to overturn the umpire's initial decision is too demanding.
It requires the four officials viewing the challenge to be persuaded by clear and convincing evidence that the call on the field was incorrect. In essence this gives undue deference to the umpire's initial decision once again. Why? My sense is that it lessens the failure rate of how many bad calls are really made on a daily basis. Sure it's a tough call on bang-bang plays but these guys get paid well.
If we are looking for the right decision,rather than preserving face for the umpires, the standard for review should be "whether there is a preponderance of evidence" to prove the initial call was in error.
That is the standard used every day in civil trials throughout the country. People's lives are greatly impacted by the decisions of juries and judges using that standard. It is a fair one. It simply means the fact finder is satisfied that the scales dip in favor of one side by 51%.
In my opinion that standard is what is needed to better utilize the tools of instant replay rather than assuage the umpires' union. Let's get the calls right for baseball and its MLB's instant replay needs revamping
I was totally on board with the new instant replay rule that went into effect in 2014. I always felt that umpires were given too much deference in the game and very little supervision. Their union seemed impenetrable.
And now comes instant replay to remedy that imbalance right? Well, based on the games thus far, the answer is a resounding no. Noted baseball Ken Rosenthal writer expressed his dissatisfaction in an article today.
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/ne...
He referenced two instances where the replay officials were clearly wrong in the decision making process. I have personally seen two instances where I thought the on field decision should have been overturned but they weren't. Why? Because the standard of proof required to overturn the umpire's initial decision is too demanding.
It requires the four officials viewing the challenge to be persuaded by clear and convincing evidence that the call on the field was incorrect. In essence this gives undue deference to the umpire's initial decision once again. Why? My sense is that it lessens the failure rate of how many bad calls are really made on a daily basis. Sure it's a tough call on bang-bang plays but these guys get paid well.
If we are looking for the right decision,rather than preserving face for the umpires, the standard for review should be "whether there is a preponderance of evidence" to prove the initial call was in error.
That is the standard used every day in civil trials throughout the country. People's lives are greatly impacted by the decisions of juries and judges using that standard. It is a fair one. It simply means the fact finder is satisfied that the scales dip in favor of one side by 51%.
In my opinion that standard is what is needed to better utilize the tools of instant replay rather than assuage the umpires' union. Let's get the calls right for baseball and its MLB's instant replay needs revamping
I used to be a purist when it came to baseball. Then I accepted interleague play. I even got to enjoy it. I still don't like the DH but I can understand its popularity for fans and players(especially their union).
I was totally on board with the new instant replay rule that went into effect in 2014. I always felt that umpires were given too much deference in the game and very little supervision. Their union seemed impenetrable.
And now comes instant replay to remedy that imbalance right? Well, based on the games thus far, the answer is a resounding no. Noted baseball writer expressed his dissatisfaction in an article today.
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/ne...
He referenced two instances where the replay officials were clearly wrong in the decision making process. I have personally seen two instances where I thought the on field decision should have been overturned but they weren't. Why? Because the standard of proof required to overturn the umpire's initial decision is too demanding.
It requires the four officials viewing the challenge to be persuaded by clear and convincing evidence that the call on the field was incorrect. In essence this gives undue deference to the umpire's initial decision once again. Why? My sense is that it lessens the failure rate of how many bad calls are really made on a daily basis. Sure it's a tough call on bang-bang plays but these guys get paid well.
If we are looking for the right decision,rather than preserving face for the umpires, the standard for review should be "whether there is a preponderance of evidence" to prove the initial call was in error.
That is the standard used every day in civil trials throughout the country. People's lives are greatly impacted by the decisions of juries and judges using that standard. It is a fair one. It simply means the fact finder is satisfied that the scales dip in favor of one side by 51%.
In my opinion that standard is what is needed to better utilize the tools of instant replay rather than assuage the umpires' union. Let's get the calls right for baseball and its fans.
I was totally on board with the new instant replay rule that went into effect in 2014. I always felt that umpires were given too much deference in the game and very little supervision. Their union seemed impenetrable.
And now comes instant replay to remedy that imbalance right? Well, based on the games thus far, the answer is a resounding no. Noted baseball writer expressed his dissatisfaction in an article today.
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/ne...
He referenced two instances where the replay officials were clearly wrong in the decision making process. I have personally seen two instances where I thought the on field decision should have been overturned but they weren't. Why? Because the standard of proof required to overturn the umpire's initial decision is too demanding.
It requires the four officials viewing the challenge to be persuaded by clear and convincing evidence that the call on the field was incorrect. In essence this gives undue deference to the umpire's initial decision once again. Why? My sense is that it lessens the failure rate of how many bad calls are really made on a daily basis. Sure it's a tough call on bang-bang plays but these guys get paid well.
If we are looking for the right decision,rather than preserving face for the umpires, the standard for review should be "whether there is a preponderance of evidence" to prove the initial call was in error.
That is the standard used every day in civil trials throughout the country. People's lives are greatly impacted by the decisions of juries and judges using that standard. It is a fair one. It simply means the fact finder is satisfied that the scales dip in favor of one side by 51%.
In my opinion that standard is what is needed to better utilize the tools of instant replay rather than assuage the umpires' union. Let's get the calls right for baseball and its fans.
No comments:
Post a Comment