Instant Replay in Major League Baseball - Research Paper Example

Instant Replay in Major League Baseball Table of Contents II. Discussion 1 A. Overview of the Use of Instant Replay in Major League Baseball 1 B. Weighing the Arguments For and Against Instant Replay in MLB 4 III. Conclusion 7 Works Cited 8 I. Introduction Instant replay is defined formally as “a video recording of an action (as a play in football) that can be played back (as in slow motion) immediately after the action has been completed” (Merriam-Webster). Instant replay has wide application in a variety of sports, with baseball being among those that have come to widely make use of technologies that allow for instant replay. The wide acceptance of instant replay in major league baseball or MLB, for one, is evident in current plans reported in the news for the wider use of instant replay. At present instant replay is said to be of use in major league baseball for resolving calls that are put in dispute relating to home runs (Ringolsby; Vecsey; ESPN.com News Services; Curry). This paper argues that this planned wider use of instant replay in major league baseball is a positive sign, and bolsters the paper's case arguing for such use of instant replay in the sport (Ringolsby; Vecsey; Merriam-Webster). II. Discussion A. Overview of the Use of Instant Replay in Major League Baseball The favorable view of instant replay technology in baseball is reflected in the way the general managers of major league baseball teams first approved its use in a host of boundary situations in early November of 2007. At the time, the managers voted 25-5 in favor of such use of instant replays, defining, during that process, the instances to which instant replay was to be used. To wit, the situations that were agreed to be part of the scope of instant replay use were: the determination of home runs being foul or fair; fan interference with home runs; on whether the balls go back after hitting the tops; on whether the balls go beyond the fences. The model that was used by the managers in determining the kind of instant replay process to follow was said to be that which was in use in the National Hockey League at the time, where video feeds are from one main location, and video judgments are made from that one location. At the time instant replay finally was put to use in major league baseball in late August of 2008, it was noted that Major League Baseball was the last among the four primary professional sports leagues in America to have made use of instant replays. The scope that was approved by the general managers a year prior was also the scope of the use for which instant replays was approved during that time. This scope, as Major League Baseball commissioner noted, was limited to those instances approved by the managers, as opposed to other proposals that did not flourish, and which involved more extensive use of instant replays to cover most aspects of the game (Curry; ESPN.com News Services). Fast forward to 2012, and there are proposals to expand rather than to limit the scope of instant replays in the coverage and refereeing of Major League Baseball games, a sign that the instant replay technology is being recognized by league members and officials as being overall beneficial to the conduct and future of the game. Beyond the use of instant replays for home runs disputes resolution, instant replay is envisioned to be used in a number of new situations, namely in determining fair versus foul ball calls; calls determining interference from spectators/fans from all four walls, rather than just in instances where a home run is suspected; and in determining catch and no catch situations, or where there are arbitrations to be made with regard to whether the ball is caught or trapped. Some informal polls confirm a somewhat wide support for the provision expanding the use of instant replays for catching spectator interference from all sides, and a somewhat relatively more limited support for the two other proposed additional uses of instant replays for fair versus foul balls and caught versus trapped ball calls. The debate is heated with regard to whether such expansion of the coverage of instant replays to other aspects of the game is warranted, and whether such expansion improves or derails the conduct of the game in general. There is little debate, meanwhile, with regard to the way the current uses of instant replays in Major League Baseball have generally been accepted as part of the way the game is played at present. Moreover, the statistics from the polls discussed above point to instant replays enjoying wide popularity in its current incarnation. This can be gleaned from the wide support, about 68 percent of respondents, for the expansion of instant replay use in cases when spectators and fans interfere with the ball in home run situations. The somewhat more limited support for the other two proposed expansions in the use of instant replays can be attributable to a host of other factors that may not have anything to do with the technology itself, but rather with the implementation of the system to fit the situations for which instant replay is to be used (Rymer; Imber; Close Call Sports). Meanwhile, one can make an argument for the continued use of instant replay in situations where the home crowd may be able to influence the outcomes of games, in instances for example where umpire decisions are affected by the home crowd, and where home crowd spectators may influence home run outcomes by willful interference. The introduction of impartial instant replay technology can be seen as somewhat nullifying proven home crowd effects on the conduct and refereeing of games, and introducing more objectivity in the way the games are policed and judged (Nevill, Balmer and Williams 261-272; Pequeno 86). This is a preliminary salvo with regard to proving the case for the continued use of instant replay not just in baseball but in a host of other sports, where in previous years prior to instant replay, there have been much cause for questioning the validity of some referee calls, owing to the inherent vagueness of some sports play interactions. Such necessitated the use of best judgments or judgment calls on the part of those refereeing baseball games, as with regard to interference on the part of fans. Local fans may willfully interfere with the trajectory of balls in flight in home run situations, for instance. Prior to instant replays umpires with limited vision had to make judgment calls and sometimes cave in to home crowd demands. In the presence of instant replays there is more objectivity as far as making such judgment calls are concerned. To put it another way, in some instances instant replays, by providing clearer views of recently concluded plays, are able to do away with the need to make subjective judgment calls altogether, improving the accuracy of calls made by referees and umpires in major league baseball games and other such professional spectator sports (Nevill, Balmer and Williams 261-272; Pequeno 86; Ringolsby; Vecsey; ESPN.com News Services; Curry). B. Weighing the Arguments For and Against Instant Replay in MLB To be sure, there are arguments put forward by those who oppose the use of instant replays in Major League Baseball, that relate to the inappropriateness of the technology to the game, and to the way they cite the way instant replay processes interfere with traditional conduct of the game. The introduction of instant replays, in essence, according to those who oppose the technology, change the game fundamentally, in the way it is played, and in the way it has been refereed historically. In other words the game is not the same with instant replays being made part of a wider subset of the game. One set of arguments put forward by the detractors has to do with the process of umpires referring to instant replays as tedious, and is an additional time burden to a game that is, as it is, is already very slow in its playing. The argument goes that with instant replays, umpires will take longer to make decisions, and will in effect further cause the game being played at a still more crawling pace. The pace, in other words, according to those who are opposed to instant replays, is an integral part of the way the game has been traditionally played. Those who oppose instant replays point out that the game, on average, already takes about three hours as it is, and the introduction of instant replay to even more aspects of the game can add to the time the game is played. This observation is made to further another observation, made with regard to the commissioner of the league himself having mentioned in the past the need to shorten the length of the game, to improve its pace in other words (Rymer). Of course the fallacy in this argument is that there is room for debate with regard to just how vital the pace of the game is to the very definition of the game. Will slowing the game further change its very essence? Moreover, just how much time will the introduction of more instant replay coverage introduce, or add to the way the current game is played? There needs to be some time and motion studies that need to be done in order to ascertain for sure that the additional time is substantial. Moreover, taking a step back, one is made to think whether the pace of the game is more important than the accuracy of calls and decisions made by umpires in baseball games. In other words, is speed of the conduct of the game more important than the fairness of the calls made by umpires? Are unfair and decision calls really a part of the way the game is played, and won't the game itself get a boost from more accurate and timely calls made because of the use of instant replays? There is an argument to be made for making sure that first and foremost, umpire decisions are sound, so that the integrity of the games and of the game results are maintained. Indeed, what this argument from the opposers fail to say is that a slower speed in the conduct of the game is a trade off potentially for the greater accuracy and integrity of umpire calls. In fact, thinking about it further, can one call that a trade off? Can one live with a sport that is only sometimes accurately refereed, and played at a fast pace instead? Does one sacrifice the integrity of referee calls on the altar of speed? The answer of course is that the integrity of the game is more important than the speed in the way it is played. No major league baseball team or fan worth his salt will accept game results that tainted with the prospect of referee and umpire calls that are questionable in their accuracy, when instant replay technology is available to make those calls more accurate and less prone to errors in judgments (Nevill, Balmer and Williams 261-272; Pequeno 86; Ringolsby; Vecsey; ESPN.com News Services; Curry; Rymer). A second set of arguments against the expanded use of instant replays purportedly come from the umpires themselves, who protest against the immediate implementation of the new proposed and expanded use of instant replays for the fact that different venues provide differing qualities in terms of the video feeds, with some venues providing more accurate and detailed video feeds of replays in comparison to others. Countering this, one can argue that this is not a fault inherent in instant replay itself, but rather a fault with regard to adequate implementation in the different venues. It is possible to standardize the installation of equipment, so that all venues provide equal quality video feeds. If such equal good quality of feeds is assured, then this objection disappears. Moreover, one can argue that within games, the differences in venues do not affect game outcomes, as each game is played in one continuous stretch of time, and in within one venue. For each game, therefore, competing teams are subject to the same quality video feeds in instances when instant replays are used (Nevill, Balmer and Williams 261-272; Pequeno 86; Ringolsby; Vecsey; ESPN.com News Services; Curry; Rymer, Imber). III. Conclusion One can see from the preceding discussion that the current use of instant replays, and the proposed expanded use of instant replays, benefits the conduct and future of Major League Baseball games in many ways. Chief of the benefits is that the integrity and accuracy of umpire calls and decisions are improved, given the tool of instant replays at their disposal, that eliminates guesses and subjective judgments in many instances. The current uses of instant replays are well-received and proven to work, given the popular support for the proposals to expand the coverage of instant replays. Arguments against the use of instant replays, meanwhile, seem shallow and narrow-sighted, and do not consider its positive aspects (Nevill, Balmer and Williams 261-272; Pequeno 86; Ringolsby; Vecsey; ESPN.com News Services; Curry). Works Cited Close Call Sports. “Unconfirmed: MLB won't expand instant replay in 2012”. Close Call Sports. 1 March 2012. 25 April 2012. Curry, Jack. “Baseball to Use Replay Review on Homers”. The New York Times. 27 August 2008. 25 April 2012. ESPN.com News Services. “GMs vote 25-5 to use replay amid home run decisions”. ESPN.com Baseball. 6 November 2007. 25 April 2012. Imber, Gil. “Why MLB Will Not Expand Instant Replay for 2012 Season”. Bleacher Report. 14 March 2012. 25 April 2012. Merriam-Webster. “instant replay”. MerriamWebster.com. 2012. 25 April 2012. Nevill, AM, NJ Balmer and A. Mark Williams. “The influence of crowd noise and experience upon refereeing decisions in football”. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 3 (2002)/ Elsevier. 2002. 25 April 2012. Pequeno, Miles. “Chapter 5: The Human Element”. Ethics Now. 2008. 25 April 2012. Ringolsby, Tracy. “Instant replay could be expanded in '12”. Fox Sports. 30 March 2012. 25 April 2012. Rymer, Zachary. “Breaking Down the Pros and Cons of Instant Replay in MLB”. Bleacher Report. 23 April 2012. 25 April 2012. Vecsey, George. “An Obvious Case for Instant Replay”. The New York Times. 27 June 2010. 25 April 2012. Read More