Donn's Thoughts on Men in Tight Pants

Old Men are Blind

So it’s Monday night and I’m enjoying the one game playoff between the San Diego Padres and Colorado Rockies to determine this years NL Wild Card winner, when Garret Atkins hit a deep fly ball to left field that appeared to hit a yellow pad on the top of the wall and bounce back onto the field of play in the seventh inning. The umps ruled that the ball had hit the wall and never left play, thus awarding Atkins with the double rather than a home run. The Padres were able to strand Atkins and get out of the seventh inning unscathed.

That’s when it hit me: imagine if the Rockies lose this game by one run. A short while later, the unthinkable happened. Matt Holiday was ruled safe at the plate with the game winning run after tagging up on a Jamey Carroll fly ball to shallow right field. Padres’ right fielder Brian Giles made a strong throw to catcher Michael Barrett, who blocked the plate while attempting to use a swipe tag on Holliday as he attempted to slide head first around Barrett’s outstretched leg. The ball dropped out of Barrett’s glove and Holliday lay motionless on the ground after taking a nasty face plant. Home plate umpire Tim McClelland motioned that Holliday was safe, and the Rockies celebrated their thrilling come from behind victory. All was well with the world….Except for one problem – replays showed that Holliday never touched home plate.

Thus the great debate: should instant replay be used in baseball to ensure that potentially game-altering calls are made correctly? Maybe it’s because I’m not a 60-year-old “traditionalist”, but I really don’t see any argument for not allowing it. I mean what’s not to like? The idea that teams and their fanbases will not have their season ended prematurely on the shoulders of a blown call?

Perhaps more appropriately, what basis is there for keeping replay out of the game? I’ve only heard two arguments against the idea, and they’re both equally stupid. The first claims that instant replay would slow down the game. What people don’t realize, however, is that in the time that the manager whose team just got screwed on a bad call argues with the umpires futilely, the play could have been reviewed four or five times over. So obviously, that’s not a legitimate argument.

The other reason I’ve heard revolves around the idea of “the human element”. You see, these people prefer the idea that a game can be altered by the human element, or essentially a human fuck-up. To that I say: WHY? I wonder how many Orioles fans liked the human element in October of ’96 when 12-year-old Yankee fan Jeffrey Maier leaned out of the right field stands and caught a Derek Jeter fly ball that Tony Tarrasco had lined up for an easy fly out on the warning track. The umpires ruled the play a home run, essentially awarding that series and a World Series berth erroneously to the Yankees.

I’m not advocating the use of replay for ball/strike calls, however, in my mind there is no reason why fair/foul, catch/trap, and safe/out calls shouldn’t be reviewed for the good and fairness of the game. Every single play of every single Division I-A football game is reviewed before the next snap, and no one has complained about the lack of a human element. We have developed advances in technology to improve our lives by ensuring accuracy and efficiency in all areas of life, so why not put these advances to use in baseball? Or should we keep our trust in the ability of blind old men to make game altering calls?