Oh, the humanity
Aug. 26th, 2008 07:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
penfield"It is the highest form of self-respect to admit our errors and mistakes and make amends for them. To make a mistake is only an error in judgment, but to adhere to it when it is discovered shows infirmity of character."
- Dale E. Turner
Major League Baseball is set to implement instant replay later this week, applicable only to so-called "boundary calls," such as determining whether fly balls went over the fence, whether potential home runs were fair or foul and whether there was fan interference on potential home runs.
Purists like to gnash their teeth about developments like this, invoking the sanctity of the "human element" and the terrors of creeping technologism. And then they drag out the tired and typical complaints:
"It will slow the game down!" This is an appeal to pragmatism, considering that baseball games (especially postseason games and Yankees-Red Sox games) are already interminably long. But as it is now, whenever there is a dispute, we fans have to sit through an oral dissertation by one and sometimes both managers as they attempt to parse the umpire's judgment. With instant replay, at least, there will be a finite limit to the process. Any manager who complains after the replay procedure, though, should be dragged to an ante room and thoroughly caned.
"It's a slippery slope!" My response to this one is easy: good. For some reason, even people who think that this forthcoming iteration of replay is a good idea suddenly crumble before the notion that technology might also be brought to bear on fair-or-foul hits, safe-or-out calls, or balls and strikes. But -- and please, correct me if I'm wrong here -- isn't the point to get the call right? Or are we deliberately undermining certainty by clinging to antiquated, traditionalist images of what baseball should look like? The technology exists right now that would digitize the strike zone and make ball-and-strike calls totally accurate. So maybe there isn't yet a system of sensors for determining whether the ball hit the first baseman's mitt before the runner's foot hit the bag. But I guarantee you that the technology will exist before baseball's willingness to consider adopting it.
But ... the human element! People think that having four men in blue making all the judgment calls lends the proceedings additional drama. But the umpires have started believing this idea to the point where they think they are the show -- witness the exaggerated punch-outs at the bases and behind the plate. I can appreciate the argument for a simpler, pastoral game, but we've already passed that point. Humanity, in general, is overrated and certainly no salve for ambiguity. How many things do humans really make better, anyway?
- Dale E. Turner
Major League Baseball is set to implement instant replay later this week, applicable only to so-called "boundary calls," such as determining whether fly balls went over the fence, whether potential home runs were fair or foul and whether there was fan interference on potential home runs.
Purists like to gnash their teeth about developments like this, invoking the sanctity of the "human element" and the terrors of creeping technologism. And then they drag out the tired and typical complaints:
"It will slow the game down!" This is an appeal to pragmatism, considering that baseball games (especially postseason games and Yankees-Red Sox games) are already interminably long. But as it is now, whenever there is a dispute, we fans have to sit through an oral dissertation by one and sometimes both managers as they attempt to parse the umpire's judgment. With instant replay, at least, there will be a finite limit to the process. Any manager who complains after the replay procedure, though, should be dragged to an ante room and thoroughly caned.
"It's a slippery slope!" My response to this one is easy: good. For some reason, even people who think that this forthcoming iteration of replay is a good idea suddenly crumble before the notion that technology might also be brought to bear on fair-or-foul hits, safe-or-out calls, or balls and strikes. But -- and please, correct me if I'm wrong here -- isn't the point to get the call right? Or are we deliberately undermining certainty by clinging to antiquated, traditionalist images of what baseball should look like? The technology exists right now that would digitize the strike zone and make ball-and-strike calls totally accurate. So maybe there isn't yet a system of sensors for determining whether the ball hit the first baseman's mitt before the runner's foot hit the bag. But I guarantee you that the technology will exist before baseball's willingness to consider adopting it.
But ... the human element! People think that having four men in blue making all the judgment calls lends the proceedings additional drama. But the umpires have started believing this idea to the point where they think they are the show -- witness the exaggerated punch-outs at the bases and behind the plate. I can appreciate the argument for a simpler, pastoral game, but we've already passed that point. Humanity, in general, is overrated and certainly no salve for ambiguity. How many things do humans really make better, anyway?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: "The point"
Date: 2008-09-02 01:56 pm (UTC)Incidentally, would they replace the home plate ump with an actor? Or with a big sign that tells everyone what the outcome was? I think I'd prefer having an actor back there.
Re: "The point"
Date: 2008-09-02 06:19 pm (UTC)Re: "The point"
Date: 2008-09-03 02:03 pm (UTC)