They started this system in The Atlantic League All-Star Game. Personally, I like it, as I think the MLB umps, who supposedly are the best in the game, can't call a consistent strike zone from pitch to pitch, let alone batter to batter, let alone an entire game, let alone umpire to umpire. I like getting it right.
That said, the way they set this up seems to incorporate too many steps. The computer reads the pitch, makes the call, an umpire in a booth sees the call, informs the home plate ump, who informs everyone else.
Where I could REALLY see this being problematic is a situation that occurs rather frequently, actually. Zero or one out, with a runner on first, second base open, and a 3-2 count. Lots of managers start the runner on first in that situation to stay out of the DP, but the catcher usually wants a quick call from the umpire, not wanting to risk throwing the ball into center field if a borderline pitch was called ball 4. If that borderline pitch is called strike 3, but it takes a second and a half to relay that, you're essentially giving the runner second base and eliminating any chance of a strike em out, throw em out DP.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/m ... 702431001/
Robo Umps
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
Robo Umps
00080B3C2A0F2827490 wrote: They started this system in The Atlantic League All-Star Game. Personally, I like it, as I think the MLB umps, who supposedly are the best in the game, can't call a consistent strike zone from pitch to pitch, let alone batter to batter, let alone an entire game, let alone umpire to umpire. I like getting it right.
That said, the way they set this up seems to incorporate too many steps. The computer reads the pitch, makes the call, an umpire in a booth sees the call, informs the home plate ump, who informs everyone else.
Where I could REALLY see this being problematic is a situation that occurs rather frequently, actually. Zero or one out, with a runner on first, second base open, and a 3-2 count. Lots of managers start the runner on first in that situation to stay out of the DP, but the catcher usually wants a quick call from the umpire, not wanting to risk throwing the ball into center field if a borderline pitch was called ball 4. If that borderline pitch is called strike 3, but it takes a second and a half to relay that, you're essentially giving the runner second base and eliminating any chance of a strike em out, throw em out DP.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/m ... 702431001/
I am for robo umps but agree that the scenario you describe is a problem. There has to be a way to make the call quicker.
That said, the way they set this up seems to incorporate too many steps. The computer reads the pitch, makes the call, an umpire in a booth sees the call, informs the home plate ump, who informs everyone else.
Where I could REALLY see this being problematic is a situation that occurs rather frequently, actually. Zero or one out, with a runner on first, second base open, and a 3-2 count. Lots of managers start the runner on first in that situation to stay out of the DP, but the catcher usually wants a quick call from the umpire, not wanting to risk throwing the ball into center field if a borderline pitch was called ball 4. If that borderline pitch is called strike 3, but it takes a second and a half to relay that, you're essentially giving the runner second base and eliminating any chance of a strike em out, throw em out DP.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/m ... 702431001/
I am for robo umps but agree that the scenario you describe is a problem. There has to be a way to make the call quicker.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Robo Umps
sounds like they need a better wifi connection
-
DemDog
Robo Umps
No matter the speed of the wifi connection the robo ump call is going to be a split second slower than the live ump might make. Just enough time to allow a runner to get to second on the strike'em out throw 'em out play. May not happen on every occasion but it might in the most meaningful of situations.
The robo-ump is a work in progress that is just starting. I don't believe it is something that will happen right away.
The robo-ump is a work in progress that is just starting. I don't believe it is something that will happen right away.
-
Bobster21
Robo Umps
527475627464170 wrote: They started this system in The Atlantic League All-Star Game. Personally, I like it, as I think the MLB umps, who supposedly are the best in the game, can't call a consistent strike zone from pitch to pitch, let alone batter to batter, let alone an entire game, let alone umpire to umpire. I like getting it right.
That said, the way they set this up seems to incorporate too many steps. The computer reads the pitch, makes the call, an umpire in a booth sees the call, informs the home plate ump, who informs everyone else.
Where I could REALLY see this being problematic is a situation that occurs rather frequently, actually. Zero or one out, with a runner on first, second base open, and a 3-2 count. Lots of managers start the runner on first in that situation to stay out of the DP, but the catcher usually wants a quick call from the umpire, not wanting to risk throwing the ball into center field if a borderline pitch was called ball 4. If that borderline pitch is called strike 3, but it takes a second and a half to relay that, you're essentially giving the runner second base and eliminating any chance of a strike em out, throw em out DP.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/m ... 702431001/
I am for robo umps but agree that the scenario you describe is a problem. There has to be a way to make the call quicker.
I think it's a small price to pay for improved umpiring. Maybe the catcher will have to throw to 2B just in case. But on that play I think it's a lot worse to call ball 4 when it should have been strike 3 on the 3-2 pitch.
That said, the way they set this up seems to incorporate too many steps. The computer reads the pitch, makes the call, an umpire in a booth sees the call, informs the home plate ump, who informs everyone else.
Where I could REALLY see this being problematic is a situation that occurs rather frequently, actually. Zero or one out, with a runner on first, second base open, and a 3-2 count. Lots of managers start the runner on first in that situation to stay out of the DP, but the catcher usually wants a quick call from the umpire, not wanting to risk throwing the ball into center field if a borderline pitch was called ball 4. If that borderline pitch is called strike 3, but it takes a second and a half to relay that, you're essentially giving the runner second base and eliminating any chance of a strike em out, throw em out DP.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/m ... 702431001/
I am for robo umps but agree that the scenario you describe is a problem. There has to be a way to make the call quicker.
I think it's a small price to pay for improved umpiring. Maybe the catcher will have to throw to 2B just in case. But on that play I think it's a lot worse to call ball 4 when it should have been strike 3 on the 3-2 pitch.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Robo Umps
1E333E2F28392E6E6D5C0 wrote: They started this system in The Atlantic League All-Star Game. Personally, I like it, as I think the MLB umps, who supposedly are the best in the game, can't call a consistent strike zone from pitch to pitch, let alone batter to batter, let alone an entire game, let alone umpire to umpire. I like getting it right.
That said, the way they set this up seems to incorporate too many steps. The computer reads the pitch, makes the call, an umpire in a booth sees the call, informs the home plate ump, who informs everyone else.
Where I could REALLY see this being problematic is a situation that occurs rather frequently, actually. Zero or one out, with a runner on first, second base open, and a 3-2 count. Lots of managers start the runner on first in that situation to stay out of the DP, but the catcher usually wants a quick call from the umpire, not wanting to risk throwing the ball into center field if a borderline pitch was called ball 4. If that borderline pitch is called strike 3, but it takes a second and a half to relay that, you're essentially giving the runner second base and eliminating any chance of a strike em out, throw em out DP.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/m ... 702431001/
I am for robo umps but agree that the scenario you describe is a problem. There has to be a way to make the call quicker.
I think it's a small price to pay for improved umpiring. Maybe the catcher will have to throw to 2B just in case. But on that play I think it's a lot worse to call ball 4 when it should have been strike 3 on the 3-2 pitch.
Or maybe just have the catcher get the earpiece too.
That said, the way they set this up seems to incorporate too many steps. The computer reads the pitch, makes the call, an umpire in a booth sees the call, informs the home plate ump, who informs everyone else.
Where I could REALLY see this being problematic is a situation that occurs rather frequently, actually. Zero or one out, with a runner on first, second base open, and a 3-2 count. Lots of managers start the runner on first in that situation to stay out of the DP, but the catcher usually wants a quick call from the umpire, not wanting to risk throwing the ball into center field if a borderline pitch was called ball 4. If that borderline pitch is called strike 3, but it takes a second and a half to relay that, you're essentially giving the runner second base and eliminating any chance of a strike em out, throw em out DP.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/m ... 702431001/
I am for robo umps but agree that the scenario you describe is a problem. There has to be a way to make the call quicker.
I think it's a small price to pay for improved umpiring. Maybe the catcher will have to throw to 2B just in case. But on that play I think it's a lot worse to call ball 4 when it should have been strike 3 on the 3-2 pitch.
Or maybe just have the catcher get the earpiece too.
-
Bobster21
Robo Umps
434B485F4949452A0 wrote: I think you could just call it a dead play if it is ball four. My main concern is that without this being timely you are looking at injuries that will occur from players sliding into second when it turned out to be ball four.
I've seen plenty of times a catcher throwing to 2B with a runner moving on a 3-2 pitch only to find out it was ball 4. I don't see where a robo ump would make much difference in that event. The catcher sees the runner moving and comes up firing to 2nd before he even realizes it was called ball 4. I don't see this as a significant issue.
I've seen plenty of times a catcher throwing to 2B with a runner moving on a 3-2 pitch only to find out it was ball 4. I don't see where a robo ump would make much difference in that event. The catcher sees the runner moving and comes up firing to 2nd before he even realizes it was called ball 4. I don't see this as a significant issue.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Robo Umps
517078517A72150 wrote: Even with the catcher having an earpiece he would not get the call any quicker than the ump.
very true but you'd be cutting out one step at least.
I think I'm the only person totally indifferent on the robo ump issue. Yeah it would be nice to have calls right but at the same time complaining about calls is a tradition as old as the game. I'm good either way.
very true but you'd be cutting out one step at least.
I think I'm the only person totally indifferent on the robo ump issue. Yeah it would be nice to have calls right but at the same time complaining about calls is a tradition as old as the game. I'm good either way.