By Elizabeth Finn
Michael Cuddyer was furious. His celebration truncated before it even began, the Minnesota Twins’ right fielder turned to home plate umpire Mike Michlinski in utter disbelief, pointing to the location where he had evaded the late throw and high tag. He knew, like everyone else in the stadium, like the announcers in the booths, like manager Ron Gardenhire, who marched out of his dugout to express his own incredulity, that Cuddyer had been safe. Everyone knew, in fact, that the Twins should have lived to see at the least another inning, except the only person whose opinion held as gospel truth.
The Oakland A’s dubious win over the Twins on July 20th, a back-and-forth game that ended in fiery confrontation when Cuddyer attempted to score from second base on a wild pitch, is simply another catalyst in the long debate over instant replay, that pits baseball purists against those restless for precision.
Though American fans are most familiar with the use of instant replay in the NFL, it is also utilized in limited capacity in the NBA, NHL, and international professional leagues. The technique of assuring accurate officiating beyond what the naked eye can assess was first instituted in Major League Baseball in late 2008, to assist in ambiguous home runs (determining fair/foul balls, if the ball has remained in play, and fan interference). This first–and what some fans hope to be only–foray into instant replay for a previously “untouchable” league received the approval of general managers and umpires before its installation in the official rulebook.
But, for some fans, even this regulated usage is beyond acceptability. Part of the charm of baseball has always been its rustic humanity, and though fans opposed to instant replay hardly believe that the slippery slope of limited home run calls will be an entirely robotic umpiring staff, there is still concern over the snowballing effect of toying with the real-time aspect of the game. Incidents like the blown call in the Twins/A’s game only spark ire on both sides of the fence, with detractors arguing in anticipation of a call for revisions to the current rules. One popular idea for increasing the presence of replay is a “red flag” allowance. In a concept similar to that used in the NFL, managers would hold one challenge privilege, to be used once and only once during a game, on a (non pitching) call of their choice. This is a notion that appears to be quickly gaining momentum and, in turn, backlash. And this time the fans aren’t the only ones crying foul (or fair).
“I wouldn’t want it,” LA Angels’ manager Mike Scioscia stated flatly to LA Times reporters after learning that Gardenhire expressed support for challenge flags in baseball. “…the overwhelming majority of calls are correct.”
But how should baseball address the fact that some calls are simply wrong? Perhaps the solution isn’t in achieving pixel-precision put outs through frame-by-frame analysis. Instead, baseball may be able to cut down on sloppy calls by heightening umpire accountability. Currently, the partnership that MLB has with QuesTec has installed strike zone tracking systems in 11 stadiums and sends computerized pitch analysis to each home plate umpire after games. Instead of such a hit-or-miss application, might mandatory installation of QuesTec in all 30 ballparks, with a copy of the findings sent directly to the head of the Umpires Association, create more fair, consistent strike zones, at least within individual games? Though players and coaches are barred from arguing pitches, the heightened tension that “floating” strike zones create can’t be good for baseball. And what about the charming judgment calls on put outs and tag outs, where occasional detrimental inaccuracy teeters on the fine line of “part of the game?”
When players under-perform, they run the risk of being demoted to the minor leagues. Perhaps some such system should be put into place for lazy, unyielding, or simply imprecise umpires. Achieving big-league status shouldn’t be a license to lose the eagle-eyed sharpness that brought so much initial success.
This would, of course, meet with much opposition from the MLB Umpires’ Union. Taking away the relative autonomy and authority of umpires could potentially diminish the inherent respect that teams should have for those making the final call–though it can be said that when that call is incorrect over and over, respect is hardly earned.
What is clear–at least clearer than a tag to the outfield side of second base–is that baseball is at a breaking point. In an era of parity and razor-thin division leads, one blown call that affects a game’s outcome can actually affect, in turn, a pennant race. But, feasibility aside, there is something to be said for preserving the integrity of a game our great-grandparents loved. Surely a compromise can be reached that will assure fair officiating while refraining from posting MLB-sanctioned cameras at every base. If nothing else, baseball owes it to Michael Cuddyer.
{ 1 comment }
This is a tough call (pun intended). The “human” dimension of the non-technological call is part of the game’s tradition, one that actually creates the equally traditional manager-umpire, wave- your -finger-in-his-face-throw-your-cap-on-the-ground-kick-dirt-on-his-cleats argument. The problem, I think, has become increasingly aggravated by our instant replays and multiple camera angles that allow us to see–over and over again– what the ump may have missed in the split second action and his resulting judgment. At other times, though, the repetition of replays eventually validates his decision and leaves us admiring his eyesight, quickness, and–in some cases–courage.
I’d hate to surrender this human dimension of the game, while I agree that accountability is absolutely in order. Perhaps it’s technology itself that can continue to help umps get their own houses in order and at the same time allow umpiring accuracy and idiosyncracy to coexist.
Comments on this entry are closed.