The HP umpire has been awful tonight. Can't have that in a World Series Game 7. We all need to riot until Bud Selig, Jr. agrees.
hph6203 said:
Perfection is boring?
Bobby Petrino`s Neckbrace said:
It aint the ump's fault that Altuve and Bregman just decided to suck for the last 7 games.
Quote:
Yes. Butt hurt fans over officiating is part of sports and I'd genuinely be happier if there was less of a trend towards replay reviews. Life is imperfect, sports should be too.
hph6203 said:
Yes. Butt hurt fans over officiating is part of sports and I'd genuinely be happier if there was less of a trend towards replay reviews. Life is imperfect, sports should be too.
hph6203 said:
Yes. Butt hurt fans over officiating is part of sports and I'd genuinely be happier if there was less of a trend towards replay reviews. Life is imperfect, sports should be too.
Junkhead said:
Why would you be against balls & strikes being 100% accurate?
diehard03 said:Quote:
Yes. Butt hurt fans over officiating is part of sports and I'd genuinely be happier if there was less of a trend towards replay reviews. Life is imperfect, sports should be too.
This is such a strange take. It's one thing to dislike the solution to try and achieve perfection. It's quite another to deny even trying to get it.
sellthefarm said:
I've watched every game this World Series and tonight was actually the best they've been all series. Time for robo zone.
91AggieLawyer said:Junkhead said:
Why would you be against balls & strikes being 100% accurate?
1. Accurate based on what? The strike zone is 3d. How are you going to measure it. Triangulating cameras. We can calculate spin rates, exit velocity, estimate distances of home runs, but can't measure a box?
2. You're going to have the same exact issues with calls. Instead of "the ump missed it" it will be "they programmed the strike zone robot to favor the Yankees" (or whoever, or a certain pitcher or pitcher style). There will be allegations of a conspiracy based on longer or shorter games, more entertainment (ala NBA), making small market teams more competitive, owner revenues, player stats, etc. What if MLB changes the robot year to year based on various measures? You open up a huge can of unforeseen worms here.Baseball, and all sports, have changed rules to get closer to perfection, while realizing that perfect is the enemy of good. Batters used to call for pitches to be in certain spots, and it was the pitchers obligation to do so. Overhand pitching was illegal at one time. A caught one-hopper was an out. The rules will change and be adjusted to address problems. It's been that way for almost 150 years.
3. What IF the robot actually does miss it? How are you going to handle it and what are you going to do to fix it? Are you going to promise to stop *****ing? (We won't hold our breath). The leagues that have used it address this. The umpire still watches every pitch and can call balls and strikes. They do so because testing has shown that the "robot" sometimes doesn't make a call, or there's a glitch that results in an obvious error. The umpire is allowed to correct those situations.
As long as people have a rooting interest in a team they will NEVER be satisfied in whoever the arbiter is, human or tech. I can assure you that there will never be any agreement as to what constitutes 100 percent accuracy. Even if you could master the tech, and the robot actually worked (a huge IF), as the base running issue illustrated last night, there are just quirky rules in any game that people are not going to like regardless of whether they're called correctly or not. Putting a computer at the helm is NOT going to make any difference. You'll be asking for the next big thing later.If accuracy on balls and strikes could be improved from 85%-90%, depending on the year, to 90%-95% or even higher, would you consider that an improvement to the game? You'll never be able to get 100% accuracy, because there's ambiguity written into the rule on what is a strike. But if you can improve the accuracy AND consistency, I can't see how that is a bad thing.
WhoHe said:
Robo umps will bring their own set of problems to the game, just like every other technological rules enforcement system before.
It's a slippery slope ... while logic says to use all the technology available to "get it right," our sports are evolving more and more into video games and losing some of the charm that ultimately makes them so addictive.
Quote:
Think about it: if you're convinced a call was missed and someone points out that, either by rule or by interpretation, the officials or umpires actually got it right, what is your FIRST reaction?
"Oh, OK, I learned something then."
OR
"Bull****"
Be honest, please.