Instant Replay in Baseball??

I think baseball needs instant replay. This is due to the lack of consistencey amongst umpires. If it is used, it should be used only at the discretion of umpires.

Yes but...to play devils advocate It would slow the game down even more and human error plays a part in the game. I think for balls and strikes its a bad idea, but if its a jeffrey Maier situation or its deciding whether a ball was fair or fall or if it was a home run, then baseball should have instant replay. If its a question of a ball in play, they should have it, and not stupid little things...

Instant Replay would be nice, but the system must be organized. If it takes 5 minutes to review a play - forget it! If it takes a minute, I am for it.

Very true christof. One of the flaws in football's system is that they don't abide by the 90 second rule on the replays.

There is precisely the same debate in English sports. Particularly cricket. I don't think it should be used in cricket, because luck evens itself out, and it's all part of the game. Besides, no-one really gets that het-up about it. I think it should only be used in an important situation. If on two outs with no men on and a runner is judged safe wrongly, then who cares? Sure if he hits a Home Run it looks daft, but at least the game isn't slowed down (even more). Considering MLB has a 162 game season, I'm not sure the odd game-changing call will make too much difference. It'll balance itself out eventually. Besides, if there can be no wrong decisions, fans won't have anything to moan about, or the Royals coaching staff won't have anything to say is going against them. Flipping the argument, perhaps replays should be abolished, that way there will never be any wrong decisions, and the players will have to respect the referees decision, whether they like it or not. Also, the refs will feel they are still in a job, rather than just standing there counting strikes and balls.

I would like instant reply in baseball. I don't want to see it used during the at-bat but for safe/out calls or as AF says above, for Jeff Maier situations. I'd also prefer a booth up top to call for replay instead of the umps on the field, kinda like what NFL does.

What about like the NBA and only use it on "buzzer beaters?" The equivalent of a buzzer beater in MLB would be any game-winning play.

Maybe they should only institute replay for the playoffs. It's not like the extra time it takes would make much difference -- the games drag on forever anyway -- but each blown call has enormous ramifications when you're in a 5- or 7-game series. Also, there should be restrictions on what's reviewable and what isn't: maybe HR's over the wall/off the top of the fence, or fan interference could be reviewable, but things like whether a runner is safe or out, or whether a ball is fair or foul shouldn't be reviewable.

I think not having replay it what makes baseball unique. There's umpires, and plus everyones like when a player or a manager argue a call it's good television. That would gone. And replay in baseball would slow down the game, this is not the NFL where there's time btween every play anyway. I don't know about you but I rather see someone argue and get run than wait for an umpire to look at a reply and ruin the flow of the game. Plus there something special about humans making calls, making mistakes. And there's times where players try to steal bases and tey advance extra bases inappropriately and their are some "for the love of the game" out calls. Baseball itself has never really been 100% fair.

With about 300 pitches a game...how would it be determined which one to review and which not? Would there be a limit? I can't see it being used on balls and strikes but maybe on-field plays....but I'm against it.

I'd love to get to the point technologically where a computer can instantly judge if it was a strike, thus totally removing the "human element" (aka idiot umpires) from the equation. To have a thing as important as the strike zone dependent on the official is like football letting referees change the length of the field. It's frankly insane. The only reason it doesn't seem insane is because we're all so used to it, but it is. So many sports are using replay technology so effectively now (for example, tennis now uses instant replay for line calls) that there is no good reason not to use it in baseball. Who would you rather have define the strike zone, a computer that makes it the same for everybody in every game or an umpire who varies it based on the pitcher, batter, weather, the history between the teams involved, his hangover, and whether he got laid last night? I think umpires are necessary, but having them define the strike zone makes zero sense.

First, I don't think you can have separate rules for playoffs vs reg. season. Everyone needs to get used to the rule changes and the playoffs is not the time/place. I diskliked the idea when NFL proposed it but have sort of gotten used to it, though I do think college football's implementation is much better having dedicated off-field booth officials look at the tape instead of the on-field officials.

Hockey has separate rules for the playoffs vs. the regular season -- continuous OT instead of 5 min. and a shootout.

There's always going to be umpires. I don't think we'll see, at least not for a very long time, a computer making strike zone calls. My opinion is that instant replay should be used only for major calls, NOT balls or strikes.

The NFL has separate rules for the playoffs, too. You can theoretically have a tie in the regular season in the NFL - there was one what, 2, 3 years ago? - but not during the playoffs. MLB may have a few separate rules as well that are so arcane none of us know of them. Nothing wrong with different rules.

Baseball is slow enough as it is. Sure, the human error sucks when it goes against the team you're rooting for, but it's part of the game. I'd love to see all the calls go the right way, but the game already takes far too long. We don't need it going any longer.

such a need