File :-(, x, )
Amerifag !nf/G3CgWyA
Let's have a discussion.

Should baseball have instant replay?
>> Anonymous
No, just better umpires.
>> Anonymous
Yes, it should.
>> Anonymous
Should baseball be called a sport?
>> Anonymous
yes but only for reviewing whether or not someone hit a homerun
>> Anonymous
doesn't it already?
>> Anonymous
>>111897
yes
>> Anonymous
>>111899
Um no. The TV stations use instant replay, while the officials don't.
>> Anonymous
>>111911
so then they do have it?
>> Anonymous
>>111923
No.
>> Anonymous
>>111936

what about>>111899then?
>> Anonymous
>>111940
He's an idiot and assumes that the TV stations having instant replay means the officials have it and can use it.
>> Anonymous
>>111936
but the op wasn't asking about official use was he?
>> Anonymous
>>111946
Don't be an idiot. We all assume he was and he probably was.
>> Anonymous
>>111949
i heard once that when you assume you make an ass out of u and me. is this true?
>> Anonymous
>>111959
>>111946
>>111940
>>111923
>>111899

/sp/ - troll preschool
>> Anonymous
>>111959
Somehow, despite your shitty trolling, you have managed to troll this thread. Probably more luck than skill.

>>111891
This. It does nothing to remove the "human element" of the umpires, which purists BAWWW about at every opportunity.
>> Anonymous
>>111980
also you can't, you know, review every fucking thing that umpires fuck up. games already take forever. this limits replay as much as possible
>> Anonymous
>>111993
This.
>> Kilgamayan !2BklmILFiE
I'm on the "only for home runs" bandwagon, as long as it includes both fair vs. foul calls AND above the HR line calls.
>> Anonymous
It should DEFINITELY be used to determine if a ball clears the wall, and I would also approve of it being used for certain fair/foul calls.

However, dragging it out for every close out/safe/tag-or-no-tag play at a base becomes tedious.
>> Anonymous
Chipper Jones thinks we should. He's right about most things, so yes.
>> Anonymous
yes, but only for plays that determine runs. Not for a close call at first, not for an inside strike, not for a tag on a stealing runner. The umps are usually right, believe it or not.
>> Anonymous
>>112101

I MIGHT also be tempted to favor replay on close plays which initiate or break ties, or cause lead changes.

However, I'd like to see that they could handle the more commonly favored responsibilities first.
>> Anonymous
Baseball is already fucking SLOW as it is. Replay will only make this worse. There's not that many missed calls that are game changers anyways. It all balances out over 162 games.
>> Anonymous
>>112190
but what if they blow a homerun call when the YANKS are playing the SAWKS!?!?!? how will these two teams respective fan bases handle such catastrophe.
>> PhilKenSebben !qNgkjhpu0A
>>112190

Do you fucking watch baseball?

We need Replay AND computer aided strike zones.
>> Anonymous
>>112222
>computer aided strike zones.

Bullshit. That would make the game SO much longer.
>> PhilKenSebben !qNgkjhpu0A
>>112223

I don't care about game length.

I care about accuracy
>> I REACT TO POSTS !PsOrb9esFQ
     File :-(, x)
>>112222

>computer aided strike zones.
>> PhilKenSebben !qNgkjhpu0A
     File :-(, x)
This applies to the Mariners hitters
>> Anonymous
>>112222

>>computer aided strike zones

I've watched games with that "FoxTrax" bullshit; the graphic is often nothing like the actual pitch.

Show me they can do it right, then we'll talk.
>> Anonymous
>>112190
I'm guessing you like to block inevitable change.
>> Anonymous
Have fun with your day-long games and multi-year seasons, fags.
>> Anonymous
>>112222

What why?
>> PhilKenSebben !qNgkjhpu0A
>>112303

Calls are missed all over the place, all the time. and some strikezones are ridiculous