But until then, it doesn't sit right with me to have a replay official either rule on a pair of judgment calls-that is, a hitter's intent of moving out of the way or if the part of his body struck by the ball was in the strike zone. New York's bizarre walk-off HBP was not reviewable, and perhaps should be when robot umps are calling strike zones. We've gotten off to a memorable start when it comes to replay in 2021, but we shouldn't let recency bias or fan outrage cloud our judgment. If each team has only a couple to gripe about at the end of the season, that's not so bad. That means in a 162-game season, each team can expect to be involved in about 95 reviews. Last season, there were 526 reviews in 898 games. But I think a shift like this would be useful for reframing the process-with a focus on making sure calls are right. Just have them assess the play itself! Maybe place a time limit on the process, and if the reviewers cannot make a decision quickly enough in New York, revert to the ruling on the field. The question shouldn't be, "Is there sufficiently convincing evidence to overturn this call?" It should be, "Is the runner safe or out?" The goal should be to get the decision right, regardless of how it was originally called on the field, and I think that gets complicated by placing the burden of proof like this. But I think that language creates an unnecessary hurdle. This is an idea that hadn't occurred to me before I saw former Braves outfielder Lane Adams share it on Twitter last week, but the more I think about it, the more I like it: Don't share the call with the review crew before they get a chance to look at the play.Īs the rules work now, there must be clear and convincing evidence for a call to be overturned.
0 kommentar(er)
