Here Comes the Instant Replay Argument Again

Well, that didn't take long:

Minnesota's own Michael Wuertz was still dealing with a flurry of text messages Tuesday afternoon. The Austin native had messages pouring in from family and friends about his controversial tag on Michael Cuddyer's leg that ended the Athletics' 14-13 victory Monday night.

It doesn't matter what Twins manager Ron Gardenhire thinks, either, though Tuesday he used the botched call as reason for a change he wants to see implemented across the majors.

"I've said all along, I want a red flag. If you use it and you're wrong, you don't get the red flag the rest of the game, but if you use it and you're right, you get your red flag back. It'd save me a lot of money, just throw the red flag," Gardenhire said. "Football has a red flag, why can't we? I'd keep it in my sock like they do."

In case you somehow missed it, here's the play: http://espn.go.com/videohub/player.swf?mediaId=4342936 There's no doubt about the fact that it was a terrible call and a ridiculous way to end a wacky ballgame.  Minnesota should feel robbed, although if they had been able to maintain even a portion of their 12 - 2 lead earlier in the game, there really isn't a story here. But that's how these things build momentum, isn't it?  If this play happened while the Twins had a 12 - 2 lead or even a 13 - 7 lead, nobody pays it much thought. Bad luck made it happen at the end of the game.  Just like bad luck made Luis Castillo drop a relatively simple pop fly against the Yankees a little while ago.  Umps blow calls all the time (especially this season, it seems) and fielders drop balls all the time.  It's when the timing is bad that everyone's feathers get ruffled. Should this incident be the impetus to game wide instant replay in baseball?  How can you make this blown call any more important than the dozens of other blown calls throughout the year?  The outcomes of other games could have been changed by correct calls in the middle innings.  Who knows? The purist in me wants nothing to do with that type of instant replay, but I don't think that is a reasonable approach.  By those standards, players would still be sharing gloves with the opposing team while you could only follow the game on the radio during the day because there are no lights. The world evolves and so does sport.  Instant replay or some type of video review will eventually make it into baseball whether you want it to or not.  The most important question, then, is how best to implement it without slowing the game even further or creating more fodder for argument. First and foremost, balls and strikes obviously can not be a part of any video review.  There's simply not enough time to argue and bicker over something that happens over 200 times a game.  Maybe forty years from now when robots are driving buses and cabs, we'll be a bit more comfortable with a QuesTec type machine calling balls and strikes.  Until then, leave it to the umps. Secondly, the idea of giving teams a number of challenges is faulty.  It works in football because, in essence, you're gambling a time out.  There's nothing to gamble in baseball.  There's no time outs or any way to really penalize a team for wasting time.  Plus, if the purpose is to get the calls right, what is the sense in only having one chance?  Just because the umpire was right doesn't mean a mistake can't happen later in the game.  By creating a challenge system, you're allowing  time to be wasted in reviewing correct calls, and incorrect calls to remain incorrect because there are no more challenges.  That seems counter-productive to the purpose of instant replay. Isn't the whole point to get the calls right? So here's a simple solution: get rid of the current system that reviews home run calls back in New York through satellite feed or whatever technology they're using and place an umpire at a video desk in each stadium.  He can watch the feeds from the home and visiting team broadcasts.  Whenever there's a wrong call, they usually play the hell out of it anyway.  If necessary, you get him his own equipment. Managers can not request that a play be reviewed.  The video umpire watches the game and notifies the crew chief if there is a play that needs review or was called incorrectly. That's it. This has a few benefits.  The main benefit is it keeps the managers in the dugout.  Sure, we'll miss seeing Lou Pinella going batty on an umpire every once in a while, but that's not really the point.  The umpires on the field will have no say in overturning a call.  They never change their minds anyway unless it's possible another umpire had a better view.  This would shorten the time spent on managers arguing calls that even they can't be sure were incorrect. Another benefit would could be less whining from the players.  Balls and strikes are the biggest source of player grousing, but at least on a close play at first, players and coaches could feel confident enough that if they were actually safe, they'd be called safe.  Maybe, just maybe, the annoying player sense of entitlement will diminish a little.  Maybe. The benefit I like the most, however, is that as a system it's basically transparent.  There would be minimal delays because the arguments would be lessened and the correct calls could come pretty quickly given the right resources.  There isn't a big march off the field or two minute argument leading up to the call upstairs.  It is an ongoing review that is employed at the discretion of the umpire.  If the findings are inconclusive, then like the current home run system, the call on the field stands. Whether you want instant replay or not, the essential question is this:  should umpiring be part of the "human element" of the game?  Is it better for the game to have these stories to argue about?  What if Jackie Robinson's steal of home in the 1955 World Series was reviewed and he was called out (despite Berra stepping into the batter's box before the pitch arrived as noted by Allen Barra)?  Would we remember that play as vividly as we do now, after years of hearing Yogi proclaim Robinson out? Probably not.  Conversely, players should be rewarded for good performance and the most appropriate reward is the right call.  If the Twins-A's game was the seventh game of the World Series, how could anyone take that championship seriously? Yes, I;m elevating it to the extremes, just like how Ron Gardenhire felt after his team lost a game on a close call.  A World Series hasn't been lost to bad umpiring yet.  But someday, it very well could.  If it were my team on the losing end, I'd want the right call.