Ok, first there is the play - a Sterling Marte opposite field triple off the right field wall in bottom of the 9th inning of a tie game. The throw to third got loose and Marte scampered home but was called out after Pablo Sandoval quickly recovered and relayed the ball to the plate. (Click HERE to see it.) The throw clearly beat the runner and Giant's catcher Buster Posey obviously got the tag down ahead of the slide, but there is this technicality in the rule book that says the runner is safe if he touches the base before being put out, which is what the replay confirmed. I joke about that little "technicality" because throughout baseball's history, when the throw beats the runner and the tag is down in front of the slide, the runner is usually called out by the arbiter. Traditionally, when calls are so close to the naked eye they can go either way, an experienced official makes a call based on all the other information at his disposal (the quality of the defensive play and the runner's decision, the game score, situation, etc). The includes the little factoid of the throw beating the runner. The human element of the game, that formally recognizes something called an "error" for example, surely includes how the game is officiated.
Proponents of using video review will argue that this is the exact reason why expanded IR was introduced, to sort out the oh-so-close game-ending play, but I'm not so sure of that. Most of the outrage over the years has been over the egregiously bad calls which are few and far between and not the routine close ones we see every day. For me, most notable are the calls at first a few years ago that ruined Armando Galarraga's perfect game - which had nothing to do with the outcome of the game - or the one in 1985 that had everything to do with the Royals winning the World Series. These were obvious to everybody and it would have been a good thing if they could have been reversed. If we want IR to be there for those, we have to endure its use on the routine ones too. In the case of the Marte play, conventional wisdom says the runner must take that chance to win the game and force the defense to make a good throw. The burden of proof was sitting on his shoulders and the defense met the challenge by executing a nice play to recover from the earlier miscue, the throw to third. With the game on the line, conventional wisdom also dictated to the umpire that Marte was out and the game should be settled definitively in extra innings. You might be outraged by that statement or in agreement - this is the new continental divide that has polarized baseball fans. (Take a look at an old Emo Philip's joke that illustrates this and change the last question to "replay or no replay?" Trust me - click HERE and scroll down below cartoon.)
So if IR takes something away from the game, what does it add? In the case of the Pirate-Giant game, it did manage to add a layer of tension and excitement for the fans, albeit a derivative drama that is unrelated to the play on the field. The closest thing I can think of in sports is the idea of the photo finish in horse racing which very effectively ratchets up the excitement pending the release of the photo, but I'm not sure anyone ever had an impassioned vested interest in the outcome that wasn't directly related to the piece of paper squeezed tightly in their sweaty hands. In a way, the same is true with baseball's new "lifeline" because if you're a Pirate or Giant fan, you had that same vested interest and elevated blood pressure. But if you're a baseball fan in general, at the end of the day, the excitement was akin to the walk-off bases-loaded walk. There wasn't much action, and the whole hot mess of a game ended on the technicality of the location of the ball by perhaps an inch or two. Ho-freakin-hum; was this really settled like that? I know - I get it - we want to feel like justice was served with the final call. We want Marisa Tomei to walk into our baseball courtroom and give that strangely sexy lecture about positraction on the '64 Chevy from "My Cousin Vinny" (click HERE). We want the boys to be acquitted - we want a happy ending. Due process and representation are good things in theory, but, how do we feel when a guy gets off the hook based on a technicality viewed under a microscope in a lab somewhere? Should Marte have been called out? That is the baseball morality question hanging in the air with IR - the spirit v. the letter of the rules. See that look on Fred Gwynn's face? That's how I feel about this.
Jim Tosches is an amateur umpire and blogger in Encinitas, Ca and author of the book, "The Rules Abide: The Thinking Fan's Guide to Baseball Rules (With History, Humor and a Few Big Words)"
I knew it would happen. I KNEW instant replay would be used to put bam-bam calls under the microscope, determining with 45 camera angles and super slo-mo a version of reality that can only be seen with million-dollar equipment.
ReplyDeleteThat ain't baseball. That's a lab experiment.
It will be interesting to see if they keep it around after this year. Personally, I've made my point so its a subject I'll stop harping about! jt
ReplyDelete