|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Should balls and strikes be called electronically?
I am really getting tired of having umpires unduly influence the outcome of games.
Case in point tonight was when Manny took a 3-0 pitch that was 9+ inches off the plate and was called a strike. Instead of having the bases loaded and nobody out, he ends up hitting into a double play. It is ridiculous to tell batters/pitchers that they have to adjust to the umpire. A strike should be a strike regardless of who is calling it. When the umpire expands the strike zone, it forces batters to start swinging at bad pitches rather than being called out on strikes. We have the technology available to instantly determine whether or not a ball is in the strike zone. So why don't we use it? You can talk 'spirit of the game' and 'tradition' all you want, but all you are doing is arguing that bad calls should remain a part of the game when we have the ability to remove them. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should balls and strikes be called electronically?
Yes. As long as the tech works.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should balls and strikes be called electronically?
the strike zone is such an imperfect science I don't think technology would ever really be able to take over.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should balls and strikes be called electronically?
don't the umpires have a union? i think there are a lot of factors (politics, tradition, etc.) present in baseball that might rule this out.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should balls and strikes be called electronically?
What got me thinking about this for the 1st time tonight was the use of the camera at the Jake that the announcers claimed was used in order to help "standardize" the strike zone across the Major Leagues. The question immediately struck me - if you really want to standardize the strike zone, then you're talking about eliminating human error, which essentially leads you to an argument for robotic strike zones, and ultimately for automation of all umpire duties.
Baseball being the most form-functional of the major sports, I don't see this movement carrying to football or basketball. At least not in my lifetime. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should balls and strikes be called electronically?
If you computerize it, which strike zone do you use?
The one in the book which is knees to letters or the one currently in use today which is knees to belt? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should balls and strikes be called electronically?
[ QUOTE ]
the strike zone is such an imperfect science I don't think technology would ever really be able to take over. [/ QUOTE ] QFT |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should balls and strikes be called electronically?
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. As long as the tech works. [/ QUOTE ] |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should balls and strikes be called electronically?
Yes
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should balls and strikes be called electronically?
[ QUOTE ]
Yes [/ QUOTE ] I think just giving the umpire a vibrating strike caller would be fine, so he'd still look like he's calling them. |
|
|