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}
"The point"
Date: 2008-08-27 04:22 pm (UTC)What matters the most to me is whether I am entertained. The lengthy delays in pro football, the hideous frame-by-frame checking if a blade of grass moved, the dead certainty from the announcers for something that is clearly debatable — this is not entertaining to me. This is boring to me.
I do care how long it takes. I care A LOT about how long it takes.
I have a wife; I have a daughter. I have books to read and a lawn to mow. I have a job; I have volunteer activities, or at least I ought to. Typically, I have a few hours each weekend and an hour and a half each night to watch TV. I’d rather watch them play than watch super slo-motion replays of watching them play. And I'd rather do just about anything than listen to Joe Buck and Troy Aikman wonder if Randy Moss was still juggling the ball at the instant he stepped out of bounds. ("Right there! The ball moved! And you can see in that shot that his toe is on the white. It's not where his foot first landed, it's where his toe came down on the field of play. They got the call right! And, really, we have to compliment our excellent cameramen, who get these shots week after week, and all the guys in the truck, for getting these shots.")
That said, I'm okay with replays for homeruns. It's the most important call of the game, and I like to imagine that the cost in slowing down the game -- which it inevitably will -- is a price I'm willing to pay. Whether I would accept slowing down the game for every damn judgment call? No.
George Will has said that football combines the two worst aspects of American culture: violence, punctuated by committee meetings. Adding replay (for the love of Pete, there is nothing INSTANTANEOUS about it) means that the lawyers get involved, too. Another step away from sport. And certainly not entertaining.
Moreover, I don't understand how anyone who rooted against Tom Brady in the "Tuck Rule" game could think that officiating is automatically better in slow motion than at full speed.
Re: "The point"
Date: 2008-08-27 07:07 pm (UTC)I think baseball's onto something by limiting its replay to something (a) that doesn't happen all that often and (b) is indisputably important.
Re: "The point"
Date: 2008-08-28 08:30 pm (UTC)On the list of things that "The Point" might possibly be, "entertaining Josh" is not in the top ten. You are not even the kind of audience they're interested in -- single guys with disposable time and income.
On a grand scale, I would argue that "The Point" is commerce. The game is a product. To sell the product, it must have legitimacy. For it to have legitimacy, it must be officiated cleanly. I think technology should be deployed to give us the most cleanly officiated games possible.
I thought I made clear that I do not like in-game delays. Considering the time wasted on manager arguments, I don't think this replay will result in any more time lost. Should that prove wrong, I reserve the right to revoke my endorsement. And I certainly never mentioned anything about wanting more slow motion replays. You pulled that out of your Brady.
So there's no confusion, let me be plain: I think this limited replay is a good idea. I think MLB should use technology to do more of the umpires' work, especially balls and strikes. The Tuck Rule is a stupid rule.
Happy?
Re: "The point"
Date: 2008-08-29 04:39 pm (UTC)Look, if you worked for the leagues or the networks or the advertisers, then I would understand why you'd think "the point" was to make money. If I wanted -- or you wanted -- to watch people make money, CNBC would have much higher ratings. I watch -- and you watch -- to be entertained. I don't watch -- and you don't watch -- to see how much money they can make.
(That I am no longer part of the key demographic is something that helps me sleep at night. It means when I don't get the ads, now I don't have to feel that I'm lame. I *know* that I'm lame, and the advertisers know it, too. For a long time, I've mocked the idea that sports leagues are somehow magical because of their ability to reach that particular target. Yes, indeed. Those marketing experts have figured out that rich, young, white males are highly sought after. This is entirely different than the breadth of American history, in which decisions were based on merit and science. Must have been a pretty complex spreadsheet to come up with that conclusion.)
The greatest threat to the legitimacy of sporting events is the juicing of the athletes themselves. And given the popularity of the NFL -- a league in which every last one of these behemoths* are on some combination human growth hormone and horse tranquilizers -- most people don't really care. Why? Because they want to be entertained.
* Searching NFL.com, the first offensive lineman alphabetically is Chester Adams. He is listed at 6 feet, 4 inches tall, and weighs 325 pounds. Another page on NFL.com notes that Adams "does not look like a great athlete, but moves better than you would expect." Yep, sure sounds like it happens with grape nuts and weigh lifting to me.
Re: "The point"
Date: 2008-08-30 09:58 pm (UTC)As Enchanted Pants said, it could be substituted for the current pause in the game while refs confer or while coaches complain. Also, what if it was an automated and instantaneous process, like in tennis? Would you agree to that?
ESPN's K-Zone knows instantaneously whether a pitch is a ball or a strike. What would be the downside to using that?
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)