Who needs technology?

Baseball needs replay. On Friday, October 13th, 2006, I wrote a post about the number of plays that might need a look during a game. I was on the conservative side (anything that might possibly need a review made my list) and the number was still relatively small. In the entire game (game 2 of the NLCS), I reached to find 11 that might be worth one look, with only three needing more than a cursory glance. As it turned out, the umps did a fantastic job in that game. Replay would have been worthless, the umps didn't miss any calls that replay would have overturned.

But, it is obvious from all the disputed HR's this year that replay is necessary - although I did enjoy watching Dmitri Young legging out a triple. While it is probably too early to bring in technology for balls and strikes and replay for rulings on check swings, can we at least agree that replay should be used for HR's?

Apparently not.

I can be stubborn and opinionated. However, I've been known to respect valid arguments contrary to my position. The problem is that most of the people speaking out against replay aren't making valid arguments.

In response to someone asking if replay should be used on HR's, one ESPN contributor (I think it was someone on baseball tonight, but I'm not sure exactly who) argued that using replay for HR's (which Steve Phillips is in favor of) isn't a good idea because HR's aren't the only important plays in baseball games. I'll agree that HR's aren't the only plays that the umps should try to get right. However, they are easy to replay and are pretty cut and dry usually. Thus, that would be a good place to start implementing replay. It would get replay into baseball and would prevent awful calls like the overrule on the Delgado foul pole homer against the Yankees that changed a correct call to an incorrect one.

Have you ever tried to mount a shelf to a wall? One of the first steps is to find the studs. While this isn't the only important part of the process, if you don't get it right, the end product might be sub-optimal. Sure, if conditions are right and you have the necessary expertise, you can determine where the studs are without a stud finder. But, if you have a stud finder, why not use it? It's a way to improve the chances that you get that step correct!

Someone else argued against replay by saying that the NFL uses replay and often doesn't get the calls correctly, even with replay. I will agree that replay in football is not optimal - anyone affiliated in any way with the University of Oklahoma can tell you that (OU got quacked in Eugene!). But, the argument is flawed. Whether or not a ball clears the fence is pretty cut and dry. Either it did, or it didn't. That is a much easier call than determining if a fumble went out of bounds before it went over the goal line when you don't have a perfect angle. It's also an easier call than whether or not a receiver would have come down in bounds if he hadn't been pushed by a defender (which is no longer a problem because they got rid of the force out rule) or the exact location of forward progress of a runner with a pile of bodies obscuring the view. Baseball replays would be, generally, much more straight forward than many of their football counterparts. Home run replays would be similar to the FG replay when the ball hit the neck on the goal post behind the crossbar and bounced back onto the field. It was obviously a good FG, just like it was obvious that the ball A-Rod hit went over the fence and only bounced back onto the field after it hit the stairs beyond the fence.

While replay in football might not be perfect, replay has been very successful in tennis. A fellow grad student in my department is a tennis fan and is convinced that it does wonders for players by allowing them to forget about the last play and play the next play because they don't have to worry about whether or not they got hosed by the official on the last play. If a player thinks the umpire missed a call, he can challenge and Hawk-eye tells it like it is. If Hawk-eye shows the ump missed it, then the player is right and benefits from the challenge. If Hawk-eye shows the call was right, then the player realizes the ump isn't screwing him over and he can move on to play the next play, which is where the focus needs to be.

And, yet another person put out the lame argument that games have been played for years without replay. Thus, obviously, there is no need to use replay now. What?

According to wikipedia, the first "medical" x-ray image was created in 1895. What happens if you think you broke your arm? You go to the doctor and get an x-ray. CT scans haven't always been available, but doctors use those now. MRI's, heart monitors, blood pressure monitors, etc. If additional technology can improve something without being obtrusive, why not use it?

I can come up with lots of examples, but I'll stop with just one more. We are in a very active tornado year. Meteorologists are able to forecast severe weather. So, residents can know in advance (usually a day or two around here) whether or not there is a decent chance of severe weather - tornadoes, hail, strong winds, etc. I'm pretty sure the meteorologists use technology (models, atmospheric pressure, temperature, and humidity measurements, etc.) to predict the severe weather - although meteorology isn't my specialty. The predictions allow storm chasers to know where they should position themselves. Then, using radar and reports from storm chasers, the meteorologists are able to keep the public advised about areas of severe weather, which is why entire towns can be destroyed by tornadoes and only a handful of people die in the devastation. In a related matter, as bad as Hurricane Katrina was, imagine if the warnings weren't issued leading up to the event and no one evacuated. Technology can be helpful, baseball, get with the program.