The major arguments against instant replay are: 1)It would ruin the integrity of the game; 2)They didn't need it when Babe Ruth played, why do they need it now?; 3)It would add time to games that are already too fucking long; 4) We couldn't make it perfect, so we should rely on 4 guys (with Coke bottle glasses) randomly positioned 150 ft away from a 9 inch sphere, moving 125 mph, and two men running 15 mph to decide plays that can come down to a fraction of an inch and could eventually cost people millions of dollars.
The major arguments for it: 1)They do it in football and it seems to work OK; 2)Technology exists today that didn't exist 75 years ago, so we should use it (and fuck Babe Ruth); 3) Too many calls are blown that cost teams runs directly, and therefore games; 4) Too much money is riding on the outcome of these games to leave them to chance; 5)When a call is close, they already waste 3 to 5 minutes arguing with players/managers, and by that time the TV booth already knows whether the call was blown or not.
I think it is pretty clear what I think of this. While I admit there is some charm to baseball and the way it is officiated, I think it is stupid to let the umps make the calls, but then show the replay of an obviously blown call on a jumbotron and have the umps pretend they are still right. There are about a million different proposals for instant replay in baseball (much like a college football playoff, and not unsurprisingly, the likelihood of either happening is about as likely as Bear's first born not having fur, sharp teeth and a taste for salmon). Last year, MLB refused to consider even an instant replay of only close HR calls (the only play that ALWAYS changes the scoreboard).
So here is how I would do it:
1) ALL plays would be fair game. I'm talking any play on any base, HR's, close catches/traps in the field, fair/foul, balls and strikes.
2) Each manager gets 3 "challenges" per game. This is similar to the NFL rule. Manager comes out of the dugout or throws a flag or something.
3) There is an independent replay person in the booth at every game. This would not be expensive or time consuming. The cameras are already in place at every game.
4) Balls and strikes would be called base on a standard strike zone (which they are supposed to use anyway). Waist to knees or whatever it technically is. If ESPN/Fox/TBS can put the "K-zone" thing up 5 seconds after a pitch, surely a replay person can have the same technology.
5) I think the largest issue would be: what would happen if a ball that was actually fair was called foul and reversed, or a ball that was ruled an out on a diving catch that was actually trapped was reversed? What happens to the base runners? I think what needs to happen is like old school "lazy-man" baseball. (i.e. The hit would have to automatically be ruled a single, and the runner on base would advance one spot). Obviously, this is still screwing the team that had to challenge. But, a single is better than an out or a foul ball that could later lead to an out.
6) Time wise, this would avoid the manager arguments,
ejections, etc. I
actually think this could cut time off of a game. I also don't think you would have a big problem with challenging balls and strikes because there are so many calls in a game, I doubt many managers (except Dusty Baker) would waste challenges on those.
7)Umpires would still be integral, but would actually be held accountable in the game for messing up.
I personally don't think it would be that hard to implement, and it would have a great positive effect on the game. Limiting the challenges would avoid a team arguing on every close call, and saving them for key moments. Umpiring would improve, games could be shortened, strike zones would be the same for every pitcher/hitter/umpire. And we wouldn't have to listen to Sox/YanksCenter bitch about another missed HR call.
