Not sure who you mean by 'umpire in chief' - the crew chief? I would not leave it up to the umps to police themselves. Last night was a perfect example of why I would not do that. And John also mentioned the ump conferences, which as he noted, happened for a while but then stopped. And I don't think there are any other sports that use instant replay, where it is left to the official to second-guess themselves, is there? Any why shouldn't the manager be responsible for game strategy? To me, the decision of when or when not to use a challenge would be the same as deciding on a hit-and-run, steal, pitchout, etc. In other words, just another job for the bench coach ;-)
Dan D Central NJ USA ________________________________ From: Ray Salemi <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, June 3, 2010 9:58:53 AM Subject: Re: Umpires I think the Umpire-in-chief should call for the replay. The problem with giving to the manager is that it becomes a strategic decision. I hate it in football when the announcer says, "Well he just has to challenge that because its such a big play." That's just fishing. In this case, I think the crew chief would have allowed a replay, especially if Joyce asked for it. On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Dan DiBiase <[email protected]> wrote: > >I would be amazed if they overturned the call. I'm not sure if this has ever >been done, and I suspect that there have been >cases similar to this in the past and certainly more egregious (see: Don >Denkinger). The rationale is that it didn't affect >> >the outcome of the game. Speaking of that, wouldn't it have been great to hear >the pitcher say, 'Hey, I'm disappointed, >sure, but glad we won the game'..... > >And I would amend my earlier point about giving a manager a challenge or two >during a game. I would say that a challenge >> >could NOT be used to review balls and strikes calls, only plays in the field. >And I would put a strict time limit on the review >period, say 2 minutes from when the umps are ready for the tape to roll. That >way, you'd have no more than, say, 4 minutes >> >delay in a game. > I would also add that any manager, coach or player that argues a call after a > replay review, gets immediately >ejected from the game. That would also move things along after a review. > >And I think this whole argument about 'no replay because it will slow down the >games' is bogus anyways. I mean, games are >> >so long anyways these days, if they were really concerned about it, they could >add replay and also put in some rules about >leaving the batters box, throws to first, paitchers stepping off, etc., to >off-set any potential increase in game time due to >> >replay reviews. > >Of course, the big question with all of this is, who would make the ultimate >decision? The umpires in the field, or someone sitting >in a booth somewhere? Is it a consensus, or does the crew chief make the call? >What if it's a review of a call the crew chief >> >made? Lots of questions to answer for sure, and this would really need to be >reviewed carefully, as it will > really change the >nature of the game and, potentially, it's connection to the past. > > Dan D >Central NJ USA > > > > >> > > ________________________________ > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Red Sox Citizens" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/redsoxcitizens?hl=en.
