umpires suck

[mikech]

i just watched two separate ballgames tonight that were decided largely due to bad calls, and i'm pretty pissed off. first, the yankees were losing by a run in the 9th, with 1-on/1-out, sheffield hits into a game-ending double-play. except no! the 1st base ump says sheffield beat the throw, although replays showed clearly that he was out. yankees go on to tie it in the 9th, and giambi hits a walkoff in the 10th. the game SHOULD HAVE BEEN OVER.

ok, a little later, it's the bottom of the 9th in oakland, and the 3-2 breaking ball to the a's leadoff hitter of the inning is called ball 4 even though it hit the EXACT SAME SPOT on the outside corner as the 3-1 pitch. the leadoff walk is a killer, of course, and the mets end up losing on a 2-out double.

so the yankees win and mets lose, the worst of both worlds, and both because of bad umpiring. you're saying, yeah yeah, whatever, happens all the time. i say, precisely. THIS [censored] HAPPENS ALL THE TIME! why do we still even have umpires or referees or line judges, etc etc? why haven't they all been replaced by computers and electronic sensors and whatever newfangled technological doodads that can ensure 99.99999999% accuracy?

i've heard ppl say they want to retain the "human element" in sports, so they don't want to rely solely on technology. that's just dumb. obviously, as instant replay is used in the nfl and occasionally in the nba, most ppl care about GETTING THE CALLS RIGHT. the only "human element" i want to see in sports is between the athletes competing, not for their competition to get decided by the human error of an idiot ref.

i mean, in the 100m dash in the olympics, should we rely on the human eye to determine which runner crosses the finish line first? so why do we leave it up to the human eye for a play at first in the world series (read: don denkinger, royals-cards '85)? or for a serve at match point in wimbledon? or for whether a foot's on the line when a crucial 3-pointer is launched in the nba finals?

anyway, this is just a rant cuz the mets are in a tailspin and tonight's games ticked me off, but i seriously would love to see the day when there are no longer any refs/umps/etc in sports. is there current technology that would make this feasible? if not, how far into the future would it exist, in 10 yrs? in 20? for me at least, that day won't come soon enough.

[istewart]

The play at first was pretty close. It's easy to say he's out when watching it on Sportscenter in slo-mo, but tie goes to the runner and that looked damn like a tie the first time I saw it.

[Crveballin]

Mets fan that hates the yankees???

[The Stranger]

[ QUOTE ]
tie goes to the runner

[/ QUOTE ]

no.

[istewart]

Fine, it's a BS "cliche," but I like it.

You win this time.

[The Stranger]

The runner either beats the throw or he doesn't.

For a trained umpire, who understands angle/distance theory and knows his checklist of responsibilities for this type of play, basically the only way to miss this call is a brain-fart--something just not registering properly. It happens occasionally. To me it is amazing how far umpiring has come. They get an amazingly high percentage of the calls right, especially given the speed with which plays develop at the big-league level.

[youtalkfunny]

God, no. Please, no. No more technology to help the officials.

I know I'm in a sliver of a minority, but I HATE the NFL's use of instant replay. I love the IDEA, on paper. But all the ten-minute delays are far more frustrating than the occassional blown calls.

Note that I don't bet on NFL games, and might have a different opinion if I did. All the bettors I know like replay, because we're talking about their money.

I don't have money on the games. I'm watching for entertainment--and ten-minute delays do not entertain me. There's enough interruptions for commercials already. So many, in fact, that the last two Superbowls were damn near unwatchable for those of us who didn't have a dozen prop bets down.

Keep replay out of sports! I mean it!

[The Stranger]

[ QUOTE ]
why do we still even have umpires or referees or line judges, etc etc? why haven't they all been replaced by computers and electronic sensors and whatever newfangled technological doodads that can ensure 99.99999999% accuracy?


[/ QUOTE ]

mostly because that kind of accuracy hasn't been achieved yet. There is this sort of technology in research and development. Some has been used in Japan, namely bases that light up when touched. I don't know much more in the way of specifics, but you are not the first person to think of this.

Also, there is currently a computerized system locating pitches. At this point it is only used for umpire evaluation, and not for calling the games. link

By the way that camera out in centerfield that makes the umpire look two feet taller than the batter doesn't give the viewer at home much of a perspective of where a particular pitch was. "K Zone" is a little better, but it doesn't take into account the fact that the strike zone is three-dimensional. The area over home plate, the bottom boundary being the hollow below the knee-cap and the upper boundary being an imaginary line half-way between the shoulders and the waistline, when the batter is prepared to swing. Any part of the ball touches any part of the strike zone, and by rule the pitch is a strike. Obviously the "K-Zone" has limitations in this area.

[wayabvpar]

Go watch one of the NBA Finals games (especially if Bennett Salvatore or Dick Bavetta are involved), and then tell me how you feel about MLB umps. They are 1000000000x than the blind f*cksticks in the NBA.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
The play at first was pretty close. It's easy to say he's out when watching it on Sportscenter in slo-mo, but tie goes to the runner and that looked damn like a tie the first time I saw it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was pretty clear to me when I saw it as it happened that he was out.