- This topic has 9 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
What do you think? Good idea or bad?
Some *EXCLUSIVE* news to begin your week:
Tomorrow, MLB will begin testing a check-swing challenge system in the Single-A Florida State League.
It's the first step toward seeing if the tech could one day come to the majors.https://t.co/DC9L9SQeMa
— Jared Diamond (@jareddiamond) May 19, 2025
Just a replay will show you what you need to see.
I dont know why it takes a challenge though – the first or third base ump should automatically signal the HPU if the batter broke the plane.
I am really hoping for automated balls and strikes asap. If you sketch each Umpire’s strike zone they only barely resemble a rectangle.
Balls called strikes and strikes called balls for both inside / outside (which never changes) and then let’s not even discuss high / low calls.
Not a bad idea in theory, but I am leery of MLB trying to fine tune every little uncertainty into a computer analyzed or video outcome. If they want to use this, make it an automatic quick call and not something where they have to stop play and the umps put on the head set and all that. If they can’t get it to where it’s a quick “yea or nay” that is sent to the home plate ump, then don’t use it.
I am pretty much in agreement with mike here. In theory all of these challenge systems are good because we want the correct calls made don’t we? However, if the challenges take 5 minutes and rarely overturn the call on the field then they are a waste of time. They would basically offset all of the maneuvers designed to speed up the game.
I could support electronic checked swing easier than I would support automatic balls and strikes. Checked swing, to me, is more along the lines of checking to determine if the runner was out stealing or out running the bases. Automatic balls and strikes effectively take the plate umpire out of the game entirely. The plate umpire does not only call balls and strikes. He keeps the players in line and respectful and disciplined, and he keeps them from getting the ‘big head’, especially the new ones who have not yet learned who’s who, and where they, personally, fit into the overall scheme of things. In essence, the umpires are part of the game. On the other hand, there should be a better process in place for evaluating plate umpires so that MLB can deal with them, appropriately, but not violently.
This is obviously a proposal put forth by the MLB organized gambling syndicates designed to have the decision on the check swing go in the direction opposite of any disproportionate money imbalance that may be present on the book…Vito and Carlos know exactly what they’re doing…Haha!
I’m ok with this staying subjective. There’s no overwhelming reason to change it. I’m not all that certain that replay would actually make it much better.
I have mixed feelings on balls and strikes. It can be one of the most frustrating aspects of the game when an umpire is wildly inconsistent. That said, it seems like a better solution just to demote those umpires although I know that is more difficult to do than it should be. I don’t necessarily mind if one umpire calls strikes a bit lower or higher than another as long as they stay consistent throughout and the zone is reasonable. I think it’s a fun nuance of the game adding that human element.
I agree with BikeMike. I’m fine with it if it is really quick and as a fan you don’t even notice timewise a replay was issued. But currently nothing is more boring in a game than a review being issued and having to wait 3+ minutes to get an obvious call made that ends up just as stands. It kills the action.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.