Baseball vs. Hockey - A Major Contrast

The MLB Commish has decided to let the obviously incorrect umpire call to stand, robbing a pitcher of a perfect game. LINK Meanwhile, the NHL took about 2-1/2 minutes out of the game last night, said they "never happened", and awarded a retroactive goal based on a video review of the play. LINK Interesting.

So baseball ignores mistakes by officials. Football stops the game, and takes several minutes to decide if the officials got it right. And hockey keeps playing, but goes back and "fixes" mistakes, and restarts at the point of the "fix".

Who's system do you like the best? And do you think all the sports should operate the same way, or is each unique and needs their own approach to this issue?

I'm not a big fan of instant replay. It changes the pace of the game, and the officials end up relying on it. I like the human element in sports, even in officiating sports.

Remember that certain football game where that certain Pac 10 team got the onside kick, despite clear video evidence to the contrary. Even through my green and yellow glasses, that was a call that instant replay still got wrong.

Just what baseball needs... Something to make it SLOWER... I like the idea of instant replay, but the pace of the game is already that of a snail on a double dose of nyquil, I don't see how adding another thing that adds a minimum 15 to 20 seconds on a lot of calls can do any good...

So they have instant replay for home runs. Why not have it two outs, bottom of the ninth perfect games too? I'm half kidding. At least this didn't change the outcome of the game.

I agree with instant replay if it is done promptly. Some of the delays in football are unreasonable... there needs to be some sort of time limit/guidance. If they cannot determine something, after say 15 seconds of review then the call on the field stands. And I hate the coach's ability to call for a replay, or when refs dont make a call, knowing they will go review it.

With the technology out there today, faster and better replays are available... heck, my DVR can do it instantly...

I agree with baseball's decision today--you cannot overturn that call (even when clearly wrong) as it was made within the rules in effect at the time. There is no replay in baseball, and therefore no grounds to overturn it.

Football and baseball are different than hockey and basketball (and soccer)... Football and baseball have natural breaks in the action to allow review of what just happened. Basketball and hockey are a more continuous flow, so I think I like that they did not stop the game to review the call (like they often do in basketball, to check a 3-pointer). If it was sudden death overtime, what would they have done? Kept playing? (And I thought the ref behind the goal with the red light button was the primary goal indicator... i guess not, the refs on the ice can over rule?)

DaTruRochin wrote:but the pace of the game is already that of a snail on a double dose of nyquil, I don't see how adding another thing that adds a minimum 15 to 20 seconds on a lot of calls can do any good...

More time to drink beers and eat peanuts?

At the pace games go now, you could drink all the way until taps are shut off at the 7th inning and develop a hangover before the actual game finishes... Unless replay can happen REALLY fast, I don't see how they can employ it unless the do a "coaches challenge" of sorts.

Another thing, if a coaches challenge thing happens, wouldn't that cut down on the chances of getting to see an over weight guy waddle out in his uniform and throw a hissy fit and an umpire? Any system that cuts down on that is shameful in my book

DaTruRochin wrote:
Another thing, if a coaches challenge thing happens, wouldn't that cut down on the chances of getting to see an over weight guy waddle out in his uniform and throw a hissy fit and an umpire? Any system that cuts down on that is shameful in my book

Could you imagine Sweet Lou in an era of instant replay. You'd miss this great moment in baseball history . .

I have to admit I really like how hockey does it and baseball should borrow their model (which is also similar to how some college football conferences do it). Every play in hockey is reviewed in real-time by the officials at the headquarters in Toronto.

Get an extra umpire/ref and have them review every play and in baseball if they can't find inconclusive (or reasonable) evidence to stop play before the next play happens then it is forgotten. This still would allow for the manager to come out and plead his case to another umpire to stall the game.

I just want to see accuracy in the officiating...if an ump ever has to apologize for costing a kid a perfect game then the system is screwed up. If

The nature of the game is a little different, I mean say a player is out, but replay shows them being safe. It changes how a pitcher pitches, how a defensive strategies, whether a pinch runner will come out, whether to bunt and all sorts or other things that require a correct call BEFORE play can proceed. I just know how they will be able to do that without adding to the time of the game, and the way baseball has dealt with controversies as of late, I shudder at how this is going to play out...

But if there is an extra official then they really do not have to stop play to review or confer about it. Hockey goes back and reviews it because they don't want to stop/interrupt play to do so.

If the next play happens then it can't be reviewed (this could get sticky when a batter refuses to step into the batter's box or the pitcher refuses to pitch but there are rules in place for these situations --automatic ball, allow the pitcher to throw, etc).

Yeah, but even a person staring at a monitor takes time, just look at the football replay system... You have a pitcher like Cliff Lee or whatnot that likes to go quickly and work with a quick rhythm (which I appreciate immensely), that extra 10-15 seconds waiting could really throw them off. And if you have to review every decision? It could easily. add 10-15 minutes to the duration of an already interminable game

I should further add, I mean do you let the pitchers decide who looks at a call? And a batter could use that to really delay and purposely throw off a pitchers rhythm... I just see it opening up a whole can of loopholes, unless of course you do a limited coaches challenge thing, or let the home plate umpire decide when to consult replay.

I mean if you want to see a loophole, check this out (and I apologize for bringing soccer into a baseball thread, I just find this clip too funny, haha they changed the goalie substitution rule after this btw):

What I really want to ask is, would Joyce have even used replay in that situation. He said he was certain Jason Donald beat beat the throw until he saw the replay. The replays they were running on tv had determined that he was out before the next pitch was thrown. The only slow down in my suggested way would have been to get the call in to correct the ruling on the field.

Yeah, but a slow down no less, and with games pushing 4 hours, that's the last thing they need...

PilotNut wrote: I thought the ref behind the goal with the red light button was the primary goal indicator... i guess not, the refs on the ice can over rule?

The goal judge's job is to turn on the light when he sees the entire puck over the entire goal line. The referee decides if a goal has been scored. If he sees a goal he can call it even if the light doesn't go on and if the goal was not scored legally (batted/thrown in, kicked in, etc.) the referee can disallow it.

MLB did insert a rule this year that hints at more replay coming. Basically it says if there is a missed call and the calling umpire agrees he missed it the crew can place runners and/or declare outs in order to make things right. Note that this still would not have helped the other night because (A) Joyce was certain he had the runner safe and (B) going for help on a ground out is simply not done at the pro level (or by skilled amateur umpires either).

Yeah, thats the primary problem I have with it, in order to solve the problem like what happened the other day it would require COMPREHENSIVE replay... I mean by the logic of only using it in "close games" or "important situations" couldn't a perfect game's blown play in the first inning be of the same importance to one blown on the 27th out?

Haha now if they can employ replay, they better look at cutting down on time spent shaking of signs, adjusting cups, spitting, waiting for entrance music to stop, going to the mound for "meetings", warming up, pick off plays etc. etc. etc..... Otherwise the game durations might begin to rival that of cricket. I mean you wonder why youth participation is down; major league games routinely go past midnight on the east coast, how is a kid supposed to idolize someone if they can't even see them play? (Haha, side rant, I apologize)

Try and focus....

Congrats to Marian Hossa and the Blackhawks on winning the Stanley Cup. Interestingly enough, the winning overtime goal was not immediately seen by the refs, and the players stood on the ice holding off celebrating while the refs checked the video review.

Strange way to end a Stanley Cup Final.

Now imagine if the next stoppage (which is when the review happens) had been a Flyers goal? We win!...wait, what?...

Actually, play was stopped after the goal because the puck got stuck in the net, and basically no one knew where it was except Patrick Kane. But, yeah, that would be a weird scenario.

Well this is a stretch....but it does have some hockey and baseball commonality, I suppose.

For DeanMurdoch in the frozen tundra of Regina:

I learned yesterday the first testicular guard, the "Cup," was used in Hockey in 1874 and the first helmet was used in 1974. That means it only took 100 years for men to realize that their brain is also important.

Really? The guys who play hockey realized their brains are important....really?