In Defense of Instant Replay

EDIT: Sorry this took forever to get up. I've been hassled because I have a new "job" where I make "money."

Now that it's behind us, let's just say it together: A.J. Pierzynski was out. I am sick and tired of close plays getting blown in the playoffs. No matter what anyone says, instant replay can and should be implemented. And if I hear one more douche argue that blown calls generate the controversy that gives the game flavor, I am going to pull a Derek Vinyard. It's time.

There are a couple of big arguments against replay. They are all wrong:

1) It'll slow down the game.

No it won't. When the NFL introduced replay, there was the same big hue and cry, and at worst, we're forced to wait an extra minute twice a game to find out the result of the play. Not only that, football is a much more complex game and therefore less conducive to replay, and there's STILL almost unanimous agreement that replay has improved things. For one thing, we don't have to hear the Seahawks whining every December that they got screwed.

As far as time goes, the current NFL system takes forever because the league feels the need to let the on-field referee have the final call. This means he has to waste time by trotting off the field, watching the replays on one tiny screen, and then trotting back onto the field to announce his decision. If one official upstairs had the authority to use video to his advantage and then radio the correct call down to the on-field referee, that would cut out 80% of the delay. Not only that, baseball – unlike football – has tons of natural stoppages that would be perfect to use for reviewing calls. It would take literally thirty seconds for a replay official to overturn an umpire's missed call. I refuse to believe that replay can't be implemented quickly and efficiently in all those blocks of dead time. On top of that, who are the people complaining about this? What's more important here, sitting through 20 seconds of delay twice a game, or being confident that the outcome was settled fairly?

2) Human error is part of the game.

True, it is - on the players' part. Umpires, on the other hand, are like part of the playing field; their fallibility is a necessary evil, and anyone who has ever played high-level organized sports will say the same. Nothing is more frustrating than getting screwed by a blown call, and the knowledge that things balance themselves out over time isn't going to console a guy who was mistakenly called out. Also, the people who say umpires' fallibility is part of the game have a curious habit of changing their tunes once one of their team's baserunners is walking back to the dugout after a phantom tag.

Fair competition is dependent on a level playing field. When managers and players screw up, it hurts their cause, but it doesn't introduce an extra variable – the players are always in control of the outcome, and the only things that can make them lose are their failures or their opponents' successes. The reason umpires' errors harm games is because they detract from that pure competition and, on rare occasions, produce results that make the actions of those players and coaches secondary.

3) Players and coaches don't like replay.

There are good reasons players say this. For one, it's the professional thing to do - nobody wants to come out and sound like they're harping against the umpires, because for the most part they do an outstanding job. Also, players tend to see replay as something that will inevitably be done clumsily - and you can't really blame them, given baseball's atrocious track record for managing sticky situations (the steroid scandal, the 2002 All-Star Game tie incident). This doesn't mean it can't be done right.

4) We need to respect the umpires' authority.

Yes, umpires hate being second-guessed. You know what they hate more? Having one mistake haunt them for the rest of their careers, the media circus that follows blown calls, and receiving death threats. As Gene Wojciechowski said in his ESPN.com column arguing against replay last week, "[Umpires'] imperfections are what help make the game so, well, perfect." Yes, God forbid we damage the sanctity of the game by going over the umpires' heads. I'm sure Don Denkinger would agree with you, Gene. For those of you who don't remember Don, he blew a call in the 1985 World Series that resulted in his receiving thousands of pieces of hate mail from Cardinals fans. His name is now synonymous with that blown call. Had replay been around then, not only would justice have been served on the field, Denkinger wouldn't have had to spend the next ten years of his career wondering if some lunatic had brought a gun into the stadium.

Keeping these in mind, there is a way to use replay correctly:

1) Keep the power to overturn calls in the hands of the umpires.

Both the decision to challenge a call on the field and the end result should be determined by an eye-in-the-sky official who has video access to every play. This is one of the problems with the NFL's replay system. The onus to challenge shouldn't be on one of the coaches, so that after a questionable call the apparently wronged head coach has to play a little mind game with the referees. The same is true of baseball. No challenges, nothing - just create a "Replay Official" who sits in the press box and has access to every camera angle in the park. If a call gets missed on the field, overturn it in 30 seconds and move on. This would happen, at most, two or three times per game, and the delay incurred would be negligible.

2) Don't go overboard.

Ball and strike calls shouldn't be reviewable, simply because there are so many of them that are questionable that it would take forever to analyze each one. This isn't to say that it couldn't be done in the future - witness ESPN's K-zone feature. But if there's a grievous error on, say, a tag play or a catch/trap situation, the replay official could radio down to the field and reverse the call.

Finally, nobody is saying that the umpires aren't competent. Yes, it's impressive that they get over 99% of calls right, even in incredibly difficult circumstances. However, when we have the ability to get 100% of them right without interfering with the natural flow of the game, why wouldn't we use it?

Wojciechowski's final word in his column was this: "Managers screw up. Ballplayers screw up. And on occasion, so do umpires - even when you have a crew of six working a postseason series." You see, Gene, there's a fundamental difference between managers, players and umpires: managers and players are the actors in a competitive forum, while the referees are merely the arbiters. When managers and players make mistakes, it only hurts their own cause, but umpires are part of the framework in which the game takes place – when umpires fail, the whole game fails. So yes, those imperfections are part of the game. Yes, it's impossible to elevate competition to a perfect plane. But keeping us from coming as close as we can is just dumb.