"WNBA who ?"

[UcMiami]

you make some good points, However, I think baseball does have a system that allows challenges to judgement calls and it works well, in fact they could or should allow more challenges.

I think allowing a basketball coach to challenge a call twice a game it would help the game. They would risk losing a timeout, so they would only use the challenge on critical calls.

But those are 'boundary' or 'touch' issues in baseball - they can look at out calls, HRs and catches - but those are not 'judgement calls' they are issues that by slowing down the action you can see if the ball hit above or below a line, or a ball touched the ground before the glove, or a foot landed on a base before a ball entered a glove. But the judgement call of balls and strikes, or the point at which a player is ejected - nope. Same with football - penalties are non-reviewable except possibly 12 men calls? which again gets into a boundary issue, not a judgement issue.

 

[John Glass]

But those are 'boundary' or 'touch' issues in baseball - they can look at out calls, HRs and catches - but those are not 'judgement calls' they are issues that by slowing down the action you can see if the ball hit above or below a line, or a ball touched the ground before the glove, or a foot landed on a base before a ball entered a glove. But the judgement call of balls and strikes, or the point at which a player is ejected - nope. Same with football - penalties are non-reviewable except possibly 12 men calls? which again gets into a boundary issue, not a judgement issue.

The technology exists to make balls and strike calls without the umpire. It is going to eventually be used, could be 5 years, could be 50 years. As far as players being thrown out of a game, it will be rare if the technology increases.

Imagine Johnny McEnroe in his prime with the current tennis system. Would he argue with a computer ?

 

[UcMiami]

The technology exists to make balls and strike calls without the umpire. It is going to eventually be used, could be 5 years, could be 50 years. As far as players being thrown out of a game, it will be rare if the technology increases.

Imagine Johnny McEnroe in his prime with the current tennis system. Would he argue with a computer ?

Yes I think he would!!!!

 

[rford53]

The technology exists to make balls and strike calls without the umpire. It is going to eventually be used, could be 5 years, could be 50 years. As far as players being thrown out of a game, it will be rare if the technology increases.

Imagine Johnny McEnroe in his prime with the current tennis system. Would he argue with a computer ?

An electronic strike zone would be 100% accurate. Umpires will fight it until it happens (I'll give it 7 years, 2022) and then they will be like toll gate attendants, just there to make sure the "e-z pass works and the gate opens".

 

[Beemer]

The technology exists to make balls and strike calls without the umpire. It is going to eventually be used, could be 5 years, could be 50 years. As far as players being thrown out of a game, it will be rare if the technology increases.

Imagine Johnny McEnroe in his prime with the current tennis system. Would he argue with a computer ?

You bet he would

 

[j66kicker]

The technology exists to make balls and strike calls without the umpire. It is going to eventually be used, could be 5 years, could be 50 years. As far as players being thrown out of a game, it will be rare if the technology increases.

Not allowing humans to call balls & strikes would significantly change the game. There are tons of "unwritten rules" about giving the pitcher an inside strike or a low strike (if the pitcher can consistently hit the same spot, the catcher will be lobbying the ump - many times successfully, but if he's just getting lucky every now and then the catcher will keep quiet about it and hope for the best. Etc, etc. etc). I don't hear anyone inside baseball calling for this change. Plus the rules on the upper and lower limits of the zone pertain to the batter's body parts, which can be interpreted differently by different umps, and how the batter wears his uniform. Who gets to program the computer on where the bottom of a particular batter's kneecap actually is? MLB gives guidelines to the umps, similar to the NFL's ever-changing referee "points of emphasis".

 

[Gus Mahler]

Not allowing humans to call balls & strikes would significantly change the game. There are tons of "unwritten rules" about giving the pitcher an inside strike or a low strike (if the pitcher can consistently hit the same spot, the catcher will be lobbying the ump - many times successfully, but if he's just getting lucky every now and then the catcher will keep quiet about it and hope for the best. Etc, etc. etc). I don't hear anyone inside baseball calling for this change. Plus the rules on the upper and lower limits of the zone pertain to the batter's body parts, which can be interpreted differently by different umps, and how the batter wears his uniform. Who gets to program the computer on where the bottom of a particular batter's kneecap actually is? MLB gives guidelines to the umps, similar to the NFL's ever-changing referee "points of emphasis".

Won't be long till they'll have emphasized everything.