January 5, 2009

The Huddle

Sports reporter Jacob Carpenter examines sports issues from the past and present.

Recent posts

More blog entries »

RSS Feed RSS 2.0

Instant replay spreads to baseball

If Bud Selig hadn’t already secured his crown of “Baseball’s Most Disastrous Commissioner,” then he nailed down the title this week. Baseball will go to instant replay for home run calls, a decision that could start a technology-based downward spiral in the most classic of sports.

The entire move toward instant replay in sports over the past 10 years appeals to the most punctilious of sports fans. But isn’t the point of sports — and particularly baseball — that nothing is ever perfect?

Baseball players who are successful three out of 10 times make ridiculous bank (I’m told “bank” is the new, hip word for money, replacing “dough,” “coin,” or “cha-ching” from the ’90s). Pitchers who throw a perfect game are part of an extremely exclusive club, one that includes only 14 players in the past 104 years.

In sports, the greatest memories often are those that involve controversy.

With instant replay, would anyone honestly remember Game 2 of the 2005 American League Championship Series, when Los Angeles Angels catcher Josh Paul dropped a called strike three on Chicago White Sox catcher AJ Pierzynski but the umpire ruled the ball hit the dirt, leading to an Angels’ loss? How about Game 6 of the 2003 National League Championship Series, when Steve Bartman became the Cubs’ black goat? OK, maybe a few Cubbies would remember it.

While these plays wouldn’t be reviewable under baseball’s new rule, the home run reviews could be the start of a slippery slope. If there has been a trend in sports, it’s that instant replay grows instead of receding.

The idea has hit nearly every sport imaginable: basketball, football, hockey, gymnastics and the list goes on. Minutes have been added to games because of instant replay, drawing out matches in the name of perfection. As if basketball games didn’t have enough timeouts in the final minute of the fourth quarter, instant replay makes fans wait beyond the average 48 minutes it takes to play 60 seconds.

There’s something to be said for making sure travesties don’t occur, but part of what makes sports so entertaining is the heartbreak of catching a bad break or the joy in getting a favorable call (Tim Donaghy decisions not included).

A couple months ago, Detroit Tigers first base coach Andy Van Slyke said he didn’t favor instant replay. Van Slyke, however, was one of the greatest victims of the lack of instant replay.

In 1985, Van Slyke and the St. Louis Cardinals were three outs from winning the World Series when an erroneous call at first base extended Game 6 and ultimately led to a Kansas City Royals victory. The Royals won Game 7, 11-0, and the title.

Van Slyke would probably be in the minority of his 1985 St. Louis Cardinals team to say he didn’t favor instant replay then, but part of what makes baseball, and other sports, exciting is the human element of the game. Van Slyke admitted that mistakes happen, but it’s no mistake that we revel in celebrating or lamenting the gaffes that make otherwise forgettable games memorable.

Comments RSS 2.0 Comment Feed

Mike K
08/28/08 @ 12:05pm

What’s the argument against it? That you won’t remember games with blown calls? How about getting the call right? Most umpires are in favor of this, because the idiosyncrasies of the new ballparks have made it more difficult to make home run calls. There are no longer any cookie-cutter ballparks.

Aside from your “weak” argument against instant replay, you are way off on Bud Selig as well. Sure he’ll be remembered as the “Steroid-Era” commissioner, but too many people turned a blind eye to that stuff (Tony LaRussa, Bart Giamatti, etc.). It started in the 80s, well before he became the man.

Bud Selig has been the commissioner with no labor stoppages. The game is as healthy as it has EVER been. Its popularity is strong – its attendance is soaring. Teams like the Minnesota Twins and Tampa Bay Rays are competitive due to a luxury tax. I think your comments about him are inaccurate and baseless.