Should instant replay be used in baseball?
Debate Rounds (4)
Instant replay will also help put focus on the game where it belongs instead of on the players, managers and umpires although some fans would miss the arguing element in baseball but it is all for a good cause in many eyes. When the amount of arguing is reduced then that means that the amount of player suspensions is reduced. If a good player is thrown out of the for arguing with the umpire then that could be the difference maker in an outcome to a game. This may result in more interesting games and match ups which could increase ratings and that would also help t.v. networks such as fox, tbs, espy, and other networks; even small local networks that broadcast the games.
I agree that better and more accurate calls will be made with the use of instant replay. But it is an interesting idea that umpires can become miserable when it comes to messing up plays.
My opponent: "The amount hatred can be mind blowing from players, managers, and even fans." Yes, this makes sense, but it has always been a point of the game to try to make due with the umpires calls. The umpire is part of the game, and the plays made can be argued with if necessary. But hatred? I wouldn't go that far. That would be called bad sportsmanship, to hate the umpire because he innocently made the wrong call.
"Instant replay will also help put focus on the game where it belongs instead of on the players, managers and umpires although some fans would miss the arguing element in baseball but it is all for a good cause in many eyes." Isn't the focus SUPPOSED to be on the players and their performance?! If it's not, than that's proof of the way MLB has changed recently.
This is a perspective that is well balanced, as I'm sure many people want to keep it old-school and let the umps do their job while others would want the game to be more fair by using technology and instant replay instead of managers and umpires arguing up a storm! There are pros and cons for each side. To defend the old-school, here are some disadvantages for using instant replay:
~ technology will take even more control over the game of baseball in MLB. Again, this is a matter of opinion, but using cameras and then projecting them to--what will judge: will there be an extra set of judges?--who will finalize the call of the plays, is this good or bad?
~ will the instant replay be shown to all through the JumboTron, or will the umpires be given devices to watch the play again so it would only be their call to make? For me it depends how they would use instant replay but the concept of taking the TIME to go through and watch the plays again is not very useful, and dare I say it's ultimately worthless.
~ more time wasted figuring out the fairest call
~ where would the umpires be needed, in baseball, once we start using instant replay? If we have cameras doing the work I'm sure we could just add the--say, the count of the batter/pitcher--to the JumboTron and other screens everywhere so that the umps wouldn't have to make the 'fists' for 'out' and 'strike,' and there would be less intruding of idol umpires standing in the field. Again, do we WANT technology to take over like this?
All in all, instant replay would change the game of baseball a TON if it was used regularly.
"If a good player is thrown out of the for arguing with the umpire then that could be the difference maker in an outcome to a game." All I can say is that it's the player's fault for arguing with the ump. This is bad sportsmanship.
As far as TV networks go, I don't know how that matters very much and it would be a minor thing to have an increase in rates. Besides, this has nothing to do with baseball.
I look forward to the next round!
A few more pieces of evidence I would like to bring up in this round:
-With more accurate calls comes more legitimate outcomes
-Many sports use instant replay
-The process of change would not be challenging
-Could change history for the benefits.
I also took a survey and 89.5% of the voters are for using instant replay in baseball.
Calls from umpires in the past have changed history so technically no matter what decision, history will still change. I say this because bad umpiring calls have prevented champions and legends from arising. An example of this is a few years ago when it was the ninth inning, two outs, and Galarraga (the pitcher) had a perfect game going. The batter hit a ground ball right to the first base men who threw to Galarraga who was at first and the runner was out by a mile. Although the ump called the runner safe. This upset the fans, players, coaches, and the pitcher Galarraga himself.
"Isn't the focus supposed to be on the players and their performances." Exactly, when you say that you are correct. But the focus would still be on the performance of the players, it just wouldn't focus on the players arguing.
You also say, "where would the umpires be needed"" The instant replay would only be used as a backup and umpires are still the main and prioritized game callers.
You said that it would take too much time to review the correct call, but arguments between teams and umpires also take up much time.
-What sports use instant replay? In what ways are they used?
-Could [also] change history for the worse
Survey...keep an eye on my poll!
The umpire is SUPPOSED to effect the game. But he can't always make good calls! Maybe it's just matter of opinion that the batter was safe/out at first, perhaps y'all got mad because after all, it was your team who lost. Or did the team lose? Did it actually matter over-all? It would make sense if your first base man actually got out the runner "by a mile." But since the umpire called it, you shouldn't argue, and hopefully the ump learned from it.
Rarely does an ump blow a call that changes the game in that bad of a way. Nor does it affect the game in such a horrible way, either. But EVERY call the umpire makes counts...every call contributes to the game's ending, right? So you can't blame the ump too much. They are trained to do this stuff and 90% of the time they know what they're doing.
"...it just wouldn't focus on the players arguing." Who said the players wouldn't argue? First, would the umpires be used if there was instant replay, or would they be of too little use to be put in the game? You said the umps WOULD be used and the umpires are still a main priority. Does that mean they finalize the calls, or is that what instant replay would do? We can't assume if the players wont argue because the umps will still be there to argue at/to.
"...but arguments between teams and umpires also take up much time." Well, the arguments sure seem more entertaining.
BrianF forfeited this round.
BrianF forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by travis18352 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: no sources were used so no points were awarded there. con had better conduct because pro forfitted. rest of the points were awarded based on pros forfiture.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.