I spent the weekend watching the Diamond Dawgs (swept USCe, by the way…Go Dawgs!) and the Braves, and all the rage on the socials was about the ABS overturns in Major League Baseball. The Automated Ball-Strike (ABS) System is a “robo-ump” that quickly measures up a hitter and gets a strike zone based on the hitter’s appropriate strike zone, and if the batter, catcher, or pitcher think a call didn’t go their way, they have two ABS challenges they can use by tapping their head.
If successful, you still have two challenges left. Some teams challenged away successfully multiple times. Some (like the Braves) blew their two in the first inning.
So far, the catchers have been the ones to use the robo ump the most, followed by batters, and least by pitchers. I guess they have to trust the catcher more since they have a better idea of the zone than does the pitcher.
Anyway, it seems to be making the game better, in some people’s opinions, and the purists are the ones having the hardest time with it as they believe there should be some of that umpire error involved. I’ve enjoyed it, so far, but the one thing about it is that the review is quick, a decision is made, and they move on.
What’s interesting in college football, on the other hand, is the length of reviews when they are used in a game, like for targeting or inbounds catches and so on. One thing I liked the few times I watched an ACC game, is that they transparently broadcast the review for all to hear:
Now I don’t think every play can be reviewed ad nauseum, but having more than one might be nice. You can currently challenge certain plays, by calling a timeout and requesting a challenge, and, if successful, can challenge again later.
What I don’t care for is that the following can’t be reviewed:
- Holding
- Pass Interference (remember the Texas game…I do, and you do, too)
- Illegal contact, block in the back, or roughing the passer
- Spot fouls for personal fouls, like facemasking
Would having more challenges improve the game? Also, would allowing challenges to the four categories above improve it, as well?
Discuss.
I would make the system like the NFL. If the officials on the field don’t believe a hit is targeting, there should be no eye in the sky for it by slowing down the play frame by frame to call it.
Who am I kidding? The lawyers would go crazy, and Matt Austin wouldn’t have a job on ESPN any more.
The thing about the Texas game is PI not being reviewable should have benefitted Georgia and it didn’t. They over turned it anyway when they shouldn’t have been allowed to do so unless they did it immediately after the play by saying there was no flag for interference. Instead, the only reason it was reversed was because of the delay in the game caused by the Texas fans throwing trash on the field.
It was a bad call to begin with since it wasn’t PI, but the call in the field should have stood since it isn’t a reviewable call.
Was it, one too many water bottles thrown on the field of play, not all lambo’s accounted for in the player parking lot or even to many ass wipes predicting texass is baccckkkkkk, these and many more are essential reviews required vs texass….GO DAWGS!!
I don’t know if we can shorten the time for reviews much in football, because there’s so much judgment involved in most of these plays. The baseball strike zone review is so simple once you have the technology to create a virtual strike zone. That said, I think everyone agrees that the transparency the ACC showed was refreshing, and even if it didn’t result in shorter reviews, it made it more interesting for fans.
In baseball, the home plate ump is like the conductor on the train caboose, not long for this world. The automated system is significantly more accurate than the ump. Let it make the call & get on with it.
On football, no need for the field ump to go over & look at a screen. Let the booth refs made the call & move on quickly
I agree with you about home plate umps as far as balls and strikes are concerned, but they have to make other calls like sliding in at the plate, foul tips, hit batters and others. So I am not sure that we can get rid of them yet. But so far I love ABS. It is quick and to the point and takes less time than a pitcher stepping off the rubber. I do wonder if some teams in baseball are going to figure out ways to game the system. If a batter crouches low in his stance doesn’t that narrow the strike zone?
Umpires are a necessity. What needs to be developed is a system where the ABS relays the accurate ball/strike information immediately (within a couple of seconds) to the umpire so the ump can make the accurate call. I’ve seen umps that make slow deliberate calls before. This system would also support the ump instead of continually degrading /embarrassing him if he is an inch off.
CFB needs to adopt the ACC method of broadcasting the reviews.
There’s one play in football that I wish they’d add to review since it’s pretty black or white, but because I’m old, I can’t remember it right now. Check back in the fall when I’ll be raging about it again. 😀
Targeting needs to go both ways, offense and defense. If the runner leads with the crown of the helmet and strikes the defender, targeting.
Cue the Blind Ref/Ump memes
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=640111edf4a4d2bb58ee5aff736f84110803136094ecc8168a2c3429ab723fecJmltdHM9MTc3NDkxNTIwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=2b4c256d-c0ae-6d15-0511-31c7c1676c18&u=a1L2ltYWdlcy9zZWFyY2g_cT1ibGluZCtyZWYrbWVtZSZpZD04RDM3MThFQTkxNDUxNDAwNUU5Q0RDNTY2ODFCMUJGQTc2MUI5MzgxJkZPUk09SVFGUkJB&ntb=1
Enrico Palazzo hardest hit.
https://youtu.be/x-S-eeInJVk?si=yDPF7uizHirY5rrl
In baseball switch the role of the umpire like in tennis. Let ABS make the call and upon appeal the ump can overrule if video evidence supports it.
Football is much harder to automate but with all the money available why not add another backfield judge to add a set of eyes for all of the LOS and backfield action where the majority of purely missed calls occur…holding, roughing, facemask, etc. And I agree the replay booth should just make the call and tell the head ref the result, ball placement and clock adjustments. These should be available to the broadcast for full transparency and a time limit on deliberations in the booth. They can call down to the field to ask what the refs saw for clarity if needed. Booth can’t initiate calls except for major personal fouls like roughing, targeting, facemask, etc. Need to overhaul targeting rule as we’ve previously discussed and PI for more consistency. And in college, make them paid professionals.
I like ABS, except when Ronald burns through the challenges three pitches in during the first inning, lol. I love social media is singling out the trash umpires that are getting corrected the most. I will adore if some Texas Justice finds them the way it never came for Penn Charlie Sierra Wagers. If not for Coach Richt’s impeccable example, I might have changed the calculus for processing my dissatisfaction with that particular SEC Ref…
A lot of calls in football are subjective, but I think anything that’s objective should be reviewable.
For instance, TYLER SIMMONS WAS ONSIDES and a video review would’ve clearly shown that. This example actually opens up an interesting can of worms, because video review also would’ve also shown that a couple of Bama players flinched before the ball was snapped. So would a video review simply negate the offsides penalty resulting in a blocked punt, or would they call a false start penalty on review that they missed in real time resulting in a re-kick.
Another example is the interception by Daylen Everette in the SECCG last year. He got called for a facemask during the INT return, but the Bama player clearly had a hold on his facemask too. Could video review have resulted in offsetting penalties here? Would this be a good use of a coach’s challenge?
While I’d like to see the reviews take less time, getting the calls right is the most important thing.