Baseball’s cautious acceptance of technology will continue in 2009. This will be the first full MLB season played using the video replay system for ‘boundary calls’ and it was announced recently that the World Baseball Classic in March will also be adopting it.
However, MLB’s use of replays seems insignificant compared to the similar developments in cricket.  The England cricket team has plenty to get confused about during their current Test series against the West Indies (most notably the recent sacking of the manager and captain and the potentially divisive IPL auction), but the introduction of a ‘decision referral system’ just adds to the potential for embarrassment.Â
More importantly, the new system takes a swipe at one of the founding principles of the game. It’s a development that will make opponents of the instant replay system in baseball fear the worst.Â
Cricket has been unusually keen to keep up with the latest technology. The sport is constantly trialling new rules and procedures and the latest harebrained idea is being forced on the England-West Indies Test Series at the moment.  Players will be allowed to refer decisions that they think are incorrect to the third umpire, who will then use the TV footage to assess whether the original decision was right or not. Both teams are allowed two unsuccessful appeals in each inning before running out of ‘challenges’.
Such a referral system has been explicitly ruled out (for the moment) by MLB commissioner Bud Selig. Players and managers are not allowed any official input into whether the umpires check the video replays for a boundary call. They may try to convince them that a second look would be a good idea, but ultimately the umps are there to manage the game and it is completely their decision.
No other type of system would have been introduced in the sport’s first move down the technology route. All relevant parties had to agree to the rule change and the Umpires Union wouldn’t have signed up to anything that seriously compromised their role. Â
Selig’s argument behind introducing a limited ‘video replay’ system in baseball centred around an understanding that, for various reasons, it can be extremely difficult for umpires to see whether a ball went for a home run or not in some cases. Technology exists that could be used relatively quickly to aid this decision-making process, so it was agreed that it should be embraced. This wasn’t for the teams’ benefit; it was for the umpires’. MLB was introducing an extra tool that the umpires could use to make these tricky decisions if they felt they needed the help.
That move divided opinon among fans, but there was a common, widespread fear that once the technology was introduced for one part of the game, it would slowly begin to be used for other types of decision as well.Â
This is exactly what has happened in cricket. It’s a problem exacerbated by the breathtaking incompetence of the International Cricket Council, the latest example of which is the new ‘referral’ rule. Watching players desperately making ‘T’ signs after an LBW decision may provoke ridicule, but allowing them to formally challenge an umpire’s decision is a serious attack on the spirit of the game.
The issue was highlighted by Andy Bull, a sports writer at the Guardian who wrote a very complimentary article about the Trescothick benefit baseball game in October last year. As he explains:
“According to the Laws of the game, ‘It is against the spirit of cricket to dispute an umpire’s decision by word, action or gesture’. Not any more”, adding: “With the landscape of international cricket developing so swiftly, this comparatively major change seems to have gone almost unnoticed. A small but significant section of the Laws has been temporarily suspended”.
Everybody knows that when it comes to the calling of balls and strikes in a baseball game, the umpire’s decision is final. Anything more than a short cry of discontent will see a player thrown out of the game quicker than panic spreads throughout Britain at the first sign of snow.Â
But perhaps one day that simple truth will be removed. Has the introduction of video replays for boundary calls started us down a path that will see players formally issuing challenges against a called strike three?
Bud Selig does have his faults, but I don’t think he’ll be following the ICC on this one. Whether his predecessor will or not is another question, although you would hope that common sense would prevail.
Sadly for cricket, common sense isn’t high on the list of qualities possessed by its ruling body.
The main counter-argument to the new rule destroying the heart of cricket – as put forward perfectly by Geoffrey Boycott on Test Match Special during a rain break in yesterday’s play – is that it removes much of the dissent from the game. While to challenge the umpire’s ruling in a legal manner appears to be against the spirit of cricket, it is perhaps less of an evil than players showing open disrespect for an official.
Some people feel it will put more pressure on the umpires, but it’s just as plausible that it will take pressure off, as the players have the ability to overturn incorrect decisions on the spot, without a negative consequence.
Boycott also stated that it seemed strange for cricket to be happy to make money from the technology of television if it was then going to ignore the technology when it came to facilitating appeals.
Of course, this is not to say that it is the right path. When the West Indies appealed a “not out” decision on an appeal for leg before wicket yesterday, it came after a period of three or four quick maidens, where Collingwood was really struggling for runs and Pietersen was not his usual free-scoring self. With the overs being bowled so quickly (I think you could fit about forty Chris Gayle run-ups into Flintoff’s one), there appeared to be no chance for England to break free from the shackles. But the appeal seemed to take well over 5 minutes, even though it was pretty obvious that it was not out (and the delivery was later shown to be a no-ball anyway). This deflated the growing pressure.
Also, it takes something out of the commentary, as was also mentioned on Test Match Special yesterday, since the commentators cannot with confidence declare that the batter is out leg before wicket, in a burst of excitement, but now instead have to opt for the more measured and less exciting: “Well, he could be out leg before wicket … But let’s see if he’s going to appeal … He’s thinking about it … Oh, he’s decided to accept the decision.”
I was massively against the decision until I heard Boycott put the advantages forward yesterday. He is a persuasive man and, in my opinion, an excellent part of the Test Match Special team.
I honestly hope baseball doesn’t allow technology to creep in further. As bad as it is for boundry calls, I think it would not help with balls and strikes. I don’t think a review of the video will satisfy players and managers, who might be looking for an excuse to get thrown out of the game. What would make for more consistency with balls and strikes is making the Questeck system mandatory for all ball barks. Currently, Someteams like the Mets, Yankees and REd Sox have it while other teams like the Braves (nee REd Stockings) don’t. Instituting Questeck seems to have made for more consistent call on balls and strikes. That’s probably the one piece of technology that I think has helped the game. That’s probably the one piece of technology should be allowed. Out side of that, they shouldn’t allow technology into the game.
Thanks for passing on Boycott’s thoughts. He’s always got an opinion and, blunt as he is, he often talks more sense than people give him credit for.
I’m still not in favour of it though!
But then Freddie Flintoff gets Devon Smith out after an LBW shout was referred. Maybe it’s no so bad after all!
Looks like they messed up with the technology, from what I hear because there was controvery when West Indian Batsman Ramnaresh Sarwan was initially ruled out, but then the decided to overturn it when there wasn’t enough evidence for a reversal. It reminds me of the SuperBowl where teh officials blew it at the end of the game. Blowing several calls not calling a penalty and misapplying the replay rule and costing the Cardnails a Victory.
Balls and strikes don’t need replay. They just need the computers to call them in the first place. The umpire union will never allow it, but how easy would it be to have a green or red light come up after a pitch if it’s in the zone or not?
I’m sick of umpires giving the benefit of the doubt to veteran pitchers who are known for “control”.
It could happen one day. Some pitchers do seem to get the corners a bit more than others. I guess it works the other way as well though, with experienced hitters having their judgement trusted by the ump.
Back on cricket… I’m really enjoying the current Test Match in Antigua, not just because England are on top and Boycott is on fine form, but because the ground lacks the facilities for challenges.
Also, the commentary team are enjoying the fact that they’re playing on what just a couple of days ago was a football pitch.