Do the umps want instant replay?

Even more disturbing than the number of HR calls that were blown immediately this season, are the ones that were called correctly, but overturned to the wrong call.

Replay's going to get a big push after this season, I think, because of all the blown calls we've seen in the first two months of the season.

Unless the blown calls start disappearing, I'm not sure how the umpires will be able to fight it.

 

How is replay used in the NHL? Goals only right? They haven't expanded replay in the NHL for offside, too many men in the ice, etc.

Same thing for MLB. Home runs only. Not a big deal.

 

Correct. Goals only. (And in actuality, EVERY goal gets a review, although some are very quick obviously).

And to overturn it, there has to be conclusive proof.

Of course, the drawback with the NHL replay is that they have to go to the Toronto war room for EVERY controversial replay.

 

I'll tell you why they don't have them (and won't, in the near-future): Youth parents.

Here, I'll explain:

Good umpires are being driven out at the lower levels, all over the country. I know this first-hand, because (if I do say so myself) I used to be one of them. (Granted, I didn't stop calling games for that reason, but I know several good umps who did.)

The abuse is increasing, the threats are increasing, the demands are increasing ... the pay is not increasing (enough) ... and it's harder to get enjoyment out of being a good umpire anymore. Trust me, that trickles up, because the pool of potential professional umpires is lower.

The pros who are left, I will say, are better trained than most umpires in the past -- you can thank the Wendelstedt and Evans schools for that. Most of them are very, very technically competent. But some of them don't have a very good sense of the game. Calling the game, or controlling it. Which is just as important. And part of the reason they don't have a good sense of the game is because they have to become a lot more hardened earlier in their careers than they used to. You can thank youth parents and their ilk for that.

Umpiring has always been a thankless job. But at least it was enjoyable, for the most part. It's not as enjoyable for many umps these days, and that holds true in youth ball, high schools, colleges and, naturally, in the pros.

I don't see that trend turning around anytime soon.

(We now return you to your regularly scheduled replay discussion at this time ... )

 

ML umpires used to make crap wages, had a lousy pension plan and had no in-season vacations. So if they didn't live near a city that had a team, they got home for three days from April 1 to Sept. 30. There were fewer teams, which meant fewer games, and fewer jobs.

That was a more enjoyable life?

 

The crew chief would get the final call if the umpire whose call it is and another umpire vehemently disagree. In other words, he'd be the tiebreaker.

For instance, I'm working third base and the third base line. I call a line drive a double because in my judgment, the ball hits off the top of the wall. The second base umpire looks and considers the same ball a home run. I'm adamant the ball is a double. He's adamant the ball is a home run.

I proposed letting the crew chief decide as sort of a neutral observer weighing input from the other umpires. Let's say the crew chief is working first base. He would weigh my arguments for a double and the second base umpire's argument for a home run and would make a decision.

 

I see your point but I don't think that would work. If the crew chief has an even worse angle he'd be all but guessing on the play. I think if two umps are adamant about what they've seen the decision should lay with the ump whose call it was originally.

I think replay on only homeruns would be fine but I doubt it would stay with just homeruns.

 

The best solution.

As for those on the outfield lines, who do you think fucked up the Jeffrey Maier call?

 

Why is everyone so convinced it would automatically expand beyond home run calls? As was pointed out, hockey has stayed just on goals. Basketball has very specific guidelines. Only football has really opened it up. Make it home runs and leave it at that.

 

Clearly, you didn't read a word I posted. :

Yes, conditions have improved for ML umpires. But I was talking about umpires at lower levels, who deal with much more abuse than they used to.

 

Yes, you're right. I didn't read a word you posted.

Your point was that MLB umpiring might be suffering because qualified people drop out early. My point is that it's never been an easy life and the path to MLB has always been nearly impossible for most people who try the profession. The rewards at the MLB level are much greater these days. so that should provide an incentive to stick with it through tough times.

Anyone who aspires to MLB umpiring has a hell of a lot more to shoot for these days thanks to the gains that have been made. If you can't handle loudmouth parents at high school games, maybe you weren't cut out to umpire with 50,000 people in a ballpark, with TV commentators criticizing you, with your work being noted in the newspapers and with Lou Piniella and Tony LaRussa simulataneously screaming at you.

And, btw, how would you know how much abuse umpires did/didn't take in the '60s on all the sandlots nationwide?

 

What he said.