Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Umpires vs. Instant Replay

Maybe this article from the Wall Street Journal can settle the umpire argument.

3 comments:

Dennis said...

The Gameday feature on MLB.com uses the data from those cameras to show where the pitch was. I use this a lot to follow Giants games, and it is, as the article says, just about 100% accurate.

What I would like to see is a laptop available just off the dugout where the home plate umpire could review his calls each half inning. We always say we want consistency, so it seems like the ump could look at the pitches, realize if he is calling too many high strikes, and correct it. This would not affect the game itself at all, and could improve the calls.

Dan said...

All officiating in sports should use whatever technology is available to get the call right. I think tennis actually uses it the best. Granted, tennis is a lot less complex to officiate than baseball, for example, but they implement sensors, replay, and allow players a certain number of challenges. There needs to be a combination of technology, evaluation, and self-reflection to make officiating as accurate as possible. The one unsolvable problem is that the public and media are looking for perfection, which simply isn't possible. Balls and strikes, for instance, seems impossible to regulate with technology alone. How can a machine consistently tell if a ball flying at 90 mph passed through an imaginary quadrilateral at varying heights dependent on the individual batter? I like Dennis' suggestion.

Joey said...

Don't tell Serena Williams that.