EASY TO MAKE THE CALL NOW, RIGHT? DOESN'T LOOK THIS WAY IN REAL LIFE, CHAMP!!
WHAT'S THE CALL? SAFE, OUT, OBSTRUCTION? I'M STILL NOT SURE THEY GOT IT RIGHT.
From ESPN:
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/llws10/news/story?id=5509918
LLWS officials happy with instant replay
Little League officials are pleased with how the expanded instant replay system worked at this year's World Series.
For the first time, managers were allowed one replay challenge per game, similar to how the NFL allows coaches replay challenges. Also, replays were expanded from just outfield fence or boundary calls to close calls on the base paths.
As of Sunday's consolation game, replay had been used 16 times during the 10-day tournament, with eight calls upheld and eight overturned, according to league vice president Lance Van Auken. The total delay for all 16 calls was about 52 seconds.
One of the concerns entering the tournament was how much replay would slow the game. League president Stephen Keener said the system would be evaluated after the series, though it would likely be kept in its current form next year.
ESPN provides the video that a replay team of a Little League umpires and officials reviews to determine whether a call should be upheld.
"At this point, I would assume we could continue to use it," Keener said. "We'll evaluate all aspects of it, and we'll try to make it even better."
This story piques my interest on so many levels.
- One of the concerns entering the tournament was how much replay would slow the game?
You mean slow it down any more than the countless pitching changes made because one of the pitchers hit one of the multiple choice, hodge-podge "pitch count" quotas?
The one and only concern is whether or not viewers would have enough time during the replay review to change the channel.
The play shown above and the story from ESPN shows a couple of the gaping holes in the argument of the jack-booted advocates of replay. The goal of "getting the call right" transfers neatly into the premise that there will no longer be any grievous errors that influence the outcome of games.
OK, look at the replay shown above and tell me that the call should not have been changed. And not in the way the broadcasters speculated. The Texas SS appears to have obstructed the runner coming back to the bag and very likely should have been awarded third base. But that is a "judgement call" which would normally fall outside the jurisdiction of the replay process.
Of course, it would have been hilarious if the Texas coach did challenge the ruling -- looking for a change of call from safe at 2B to an out -- and instead of making that change, upon review the umpires and reviewers instead awarded the kid 3B. In the interest of of getting the call right, of course. Process be damned, get it right, RIGHT?. I'm still not sure why the coach did not challenge that call in the end.
Secondarily, I understand small sample size and all but the story says 16 reviews vs. 8 calls overturned on calls that were subjected to review. These reviews are all made on what are inherently "coin-flip" calls. Call that are 50/50 in nature. FAIR or FOUL!!! SAFE or OUT!!! SWING OR NO SWING!!! And yet the umpires in these tough call situations did no better than a coin in deciding the proper call. You would hope that is not indicative of the overall skill level of the umpires and that this skill level doesn't translate into ball/strike calls. These are the calls which do more to influence the outcome of games than any of these precious replay calls we want to spend so much time cleaning up. So what's next?
By contrast, the following ESPN story indicates that MLB umpires are getting 80% of the close calls correct. Eight percent is pretty good if the theory is that 50% indicates virtually no better outcome than having the kids choose it, playground style and 100% being you're an Umpire-God, utter perfection.
From ESPN:
Study shows 1 in 5 close calls wrong
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=5464015
Researchers used broadcast footage of all games from June 29 to July 11 -- 184 in total -- and reviewed every call, with the exception of balls and strikes.
The overwhelming majority of the calls (fair or foul, safe or out) were so obvious they did not require any sort of review.
What the Hall of Famers say
ESPN surveyed 40 members of the National Baseball Hall of Fame about umpiring and instant replay:
Before this season, did you support expanding the use of instant replay to correct some calls made by umpires?
Yes: 21 (52.5%)
No: 19 (47.5%)
Did Jim Joyce's call in Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game increase your support of the use of instant replay?
Yes: 15 (37.5%)
No: 25 (62.5%)
Are you in favor of the use of instant replay to correct calls on the bases and the foul lines?
Yes: 17 (42.5%)
No: 23 (57.5%)
Are you in favor of the use of instant replay to correct calls on balls and strikes?
Yes: 1 (2.5%)
No: 39 (97.5%)
Should a player's status be a factor in ball and strike calls?
Yes: 0 (0%)
No: 40 (100%)
What level of human error is acceptable for an umpire?
Less than 1%: 5 respondents
Between 2% and 5%: 14 respondents
Between 6% and 10%: 6 respondents
Between 11% and 20%: 3 respondents
Declined to answer: 12 respondents
But the "Outside the Lines" analysis found that an average of 1.3 calls per game were close enough to require replay review to determine whether an umpire had made the right call. Of the close plays, 13.9 percent remained too close to call, with 65.7 percent confirmed as correct and 20.4 percent confirmed as incorrect.
"That's high," said U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning, a Hall of Fame pitcher. "They shouldn't be allowed to miss [that many].
WOW!! 25 out of the 40 HOF'ers want a 90% or better success rate on calls that some of them are about happening about as fast as the human eye and the brain can process information. Remember, these guys are reviewing the toughest calls of each game, that occur in random split second fashion at times when their are multiple outcomes and possibilities that the umpire has to account for. Me thinks these guys doth protest too much. Can you say unrealistic expectations?
Plus 100% of them -- all of them -- say that a players status shouldn't determine the outcome of ball and strike calls. Was Greg Maddux in that group of 40 that were questioned? And are you seriously going to tell me that if Jim Bunning put one right on the black in the middle of August or September and some rookie spat on it and the umpire called BALL!! that Bunning or one of his ilk wouldn't look in and bark that he should get that call on the basis of seniority or reputation? Sorry, HOF dudes. You lost some credibility on that one.
I really shouldn't have to school a HOF'er like Jim Bunning on the "culture of the game" but given some of his more recent public utterances in his Senate position, maybe Jim needs some more schooling.
Calls that are subjective or judgement calls are not subject to review and can never be by their nature. You can't program the computer to reviews balks or interference and obstruction calls, folks. So the goal, while noble, is inherently unachievable.
Without question, for limited calls and for a limited amount of challenges, you want to have replay as an option. But I don't think people should be lulled into thinking it's going to be a panacea, because there's still going to be imperfections and unintended consequences from implementing any replay system.
Surprisingly, I think that Bud Selig's cautious approach is the correct one here. ESPN and the networks in general are beating the drums for their own interests on this issue. If they become an integral part of the playing of the game through the use of their infrastructure and equipment, they become not just a partner with MLB, but as indispensable a part of the game as we used to think umpires were.
Remember the old saying along the lines of "If you think the umpires are bad, try playing without them". It seems like some would like to try. Ironically, this type of mind-set of elimination of playground-style arguing and bickering is the motivation Carl Stoetz had to start what is now Little League baseball many years ago. How far we've come...how far we have to travel.
If you want to see where this could all lead, I recommend these articles for further reading.
FROM THE HARDBALL TIMES:
Strike Zone Fact vs. Fiction
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/strike-zone-fact-vs-fiction/
The Eye of the Umpire
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-eye-of-the-umpire/
It doesn't seem like things would be any clearer than they are now with the more techology-savvy among us in charge.
Personally, I prefer this type of approach to improving the problem. Improve the umpires. Volunteer or not, reputation or not, when you get to this level if you don't pass the test, you do not pass GO, do not proceed to Williamsport. Find another umpire.
FROM THE BBC:
Health Check: New test keeps umpires' eyes on the ball
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11145057
Mr Ananth Viswanathan from Moorfields Eye Hospital has developed a new test, tailored to the fast-moving game of international tennis.
The test examines both near and far sight, and central and peripheral vision as umpires have to watch the players' feet, the ball, the line judges - whilst flicking back and forth to their notes.
And here is a different take, from the sport (tennis) most often pointed to as being years ahead of baseball in regard to using technology and replay to settle close call. Some of the conclusions are quite interesting.
FROM THE U.K. SUNDAY TIMES:
Hawk-Eye proves tennis umpires and linesmen have better eyesight than players
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article3753533.ece
You cannot be serious! Oh yes we can, Mr McEnroe: the umpires and linesmen of the world of tennis have much better eyesight than the players, a fact for which they rarely get credit.
Famous for his disputes with officials over whether a ball was in or out of the court, the one-time enfant terrible of Wimbledon was more likely to be wrong than right, a scientific study has found. John McEnroe wouldn’t agree, of course.
Using evidence from the Association of Tennis Professionals, George Mather, of the University of Sussex, has concluded that while players and line judges can be prone to error when assessing where a ball has bounced, because of what he calls “inherent limitations of human perceptual vision”, the officials are significantly more accurate.
Dr Mather conducted his research after the introduction in 2006 of the Hawk-Eye electronic line-calling system, which has revolutionized the sport. Today, many of the sport’s biggest courts are equipped with instant replay screens that supply quick-fire judgment on where the ball has landed — to within three millimeters.
The system is not universally popular. Roger Federer, for example, the world No 1 and 12-times grand slam tournament champion, openly despises it.
Whatever its faults or merits, Hawk-Eye was not available in the days when McEnroe railed against the umpires. He was young, ambitious, lippy and feisty; they were elderly, autocratic and probably blessed with less-than-perfect eyesight.
Whatever the reasons, they used to annoy the tennis shorts off him. But they, in turn, may have been wrong as often as McEnroe accused them of being. Dr Mather used information from 1,473 Hawk-Eye challenges made by 246 players or doubles pairings during 15 tournaments in 2006 and 2007. Of those, 39.3 per cent were successful, indicating that line judges can make mistakes too. “The judges perform more reliably than the players, but they do make a significant number of mistakes,” Dr Mather concludes. “That suggests players should certainly use their full quota of challenges, because some errors are inevitable and they have little to lose.”
More errors occur on the base and service lines, which run horizontally across the court, than on the side or centre lines. The reason, Dr Mather says, is that the judges on the base and service lines sit side-on to the court, and the ball flashes past them in a blur. “For the players, it is certainly worth thinking harder about challenging calls made on the cross-court lines. However, they should bear in mind that they are also more likely to get these wrong themselves.”
The research found that 94 per cent of challenges featured balls that bounced within 100mm of a line — less than twice the diameter of the ball itself. That, Dr Mather claims, suggests strongly that players challenge when they genuinely believe that a mistake has been made, rather than using it as a ploy to unsettle an opponent or to buy vital seconds to rest before a critical point. “It seems to be a case of players believing they are right on balls that are literally too close to call, and not gamesmanship.”
Tennis officials welcomed Dr Mather’s findings. Gerry Anderson, a University of Sussex graduate who has umpired seven singles finals at Wimbledon, said: “Everybody knows that we officials make mistakes, but Hawk-Eye has proved we make far fewer than players in general think we do.”
From next year the number of challenges a player is allowed will rise from two to three, with one additional one in the event of a tie-break.
Federer, however, remains unimpressed by Hawk-Eye. “Now the umpires can hide even more behind these calls. It makes it really hard for us. They tend to now just let us do the work, the tough stuff. They let us get embarrassed, basically,” he said recently.
So, players will still complain (as Federer does here) regardless of whether they use top of the line technology to aid officials.
There will still be gamesmanship and arguments and challenges with the best technology available, because it has a margin of error attached, albeit smaller. The nature of the arguments will just be different, they won't be eliminated.
On the professional level, the effort and the expense can be better justified than on the youth sports or Little League level. There, the focus should be very, very different.
The problem that ESPN doesn't address ( and yes I'm talking to you Karl Ravech )
http://espn.go.com/mlb/notebook/_/page/bbtn100816/baseball-tonight-clubhouse
is the "trickle-down" effect of their beating the drum and using the Little Leaguers as pawns to browbeat MLB into accepting instant replay.
This is an example of what what happens when we elevate the expectation of "getting the call right". It morphs into the "expectation of perfection" from umpires. I don't want to hear the argument that this type of thing happened before, isolated incident, yada, yada. You either make the situation better or you make it worse. The mixed messages being sent and perverse incentives don't help. You're either part of the problem or you're part of the solution.
This came about as the result of a perceived bad call and the sense of entitlement to a standard of perfection. How many umpires and officials are assaulted after games? The numbers are rising.
FROM CTV NEWS:
Little league players brawl after game in Saint John
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100812/little-league-100812?hub=BritishColumbiaHome
"The situation is probably because the umpire ... changed the tournament for my team," he said. "We practiced all summer long to come here ... and now one guy changed the game."
And whether you realize it or not, once the ESPN induced "bright lights, big city" atmosphere ends -- with the incessant comparisons of 12-year olds to their adult, major league counterparts -- these players, coaches, managers and umpires go back to their local leagues and act like the prima donnas that your coverage cultivates. And the people that watch bring the same expectations and behaviors to the local sandlot.
For the "volunteer umpires" that you laud for their virtuous nature ("they're all volunteers") while simultaneously planting the subconscious seed that "you get what you pay for" that replay brings, you make a tough job of umpiring youth league sports virtually impossible and a thankless job significantly less than thankless (if that's even possible).
I wish I had a dollar for every time a youth league parent wanted to show me a camera phone replay. I usually decline, saying "By rule, I can't use it". I wonder though, if they got a good angle. Where do you think that new mind-set comes from, ESPN? It's not just the increased availability of better technology.
For that you should be ashamed of yourselves, but as you've shown in the past, you are more concerned with bringing more demographically desirable eyeballs to your corporate advertisers than you are for the betterment of a kid's game.
No comments:
Post a Comment