Sunday, August 31, 2008

Upon Further Review, We Should All Be Robots

Really. Have we forgotten that we are all human? Nobody is perfect -- stop expecting everyone to be so.

I have spent several years of my life as an on-field official in a couple of sports. I've been baseball umpire. I've been a soccer linesman. And we all know that I currently exist in a legally-blind capacity as a hockey referee.

Do you want to know where I stand on instant replay?

Really. Ask me. Pretty please... ...with a cherry on top....

Instant replay is for the birds. It is possibly the worst idea in sports since Fox brought us the glowing puck on television. OK, I'll back down a bit. It is not a horrendous idea... but in most cases it is not used appropriately. In short, we need to not rely on it.

In every game, across every sport, there are objective people on the field to arbitrate and render decisions on those close calls. They are, outside of Tim Donaghy and his friends, for the most part impartial. Really, we people need to stop thinking that umpires or referees have it in for teams or players. It's not the case.

They are, however, human. And they are flawed -- everyone is. So how can I defend flawed people? Because the alternatives are no better. They too are flawed... ...because they are created by humans who are flawed.

This week, Major League Baseball (MLB) instituted their version of instant replay for use on what are being referred to as 'boundary calls'. They should really just say home runs, because that's the focus. MLB has installed cameras at all of their stadiums to help the umpires determine whether a batted ball left the field of play, if it was fair or foul, or if a fan interfered with a player making a play on the ball.

Why am I saying home runs? Because those are the only calls that an umpire might admit he needs help with -- if he admits it at all. An interference play on a foul ball, is not likely to go for review, because umpires generally do not have a problem getting into position to make calls on balls that end up closer to the infield. Those fan interference calls on foul balls are usually pop flies, and if an infielder or outfielder can cover the distance to the side boundary (I'm talking stands, not foul lines), so too can an umpire.

Home runs are slightly different, because the outfielders are much closer to the outfield wall than the umpires. This leads me to question why a simpler solution was not tried, first. That solution would be to used six-man crews (like those used in the playoffs) during regular season games.

Yes, I know, there was a six-man crew for the Jeffrey Maier incident. But most of those calls will have an umpire in position to make. You have two umpires down the lines in the outfield to make those calls.

Now, I don't know all the details of how this works -- especially because none of the outfield dimensions at any MLB ballpark consist of a straight wall from foul line to foul line. Which means that you would need multiple cameras for this to work to begin with.

Seriously, the only way for instant replay to work is for a camera to be at the top of each foul pole, shooting straight up -- to determine fair or foul -- and two cameras at every angle of the outfield wall -- one shooting to the right, and one to the left. That could get expensive for the Texas Rangers, in their park. And would have cost the Brooklyn Dodgers a metric ton of money at Ebbets Field, where the right field wall had no less than 289 angles.

Besides, as I mentioned before, the technology is not perfect. What if those cameras at the top of the foul pole twist to change the reference points? And really, what are your reference points when shooting at a clear blue sky? Besides, camera lenses get dirty, or simply don't give you a clear picture of what you're looking at.

I work on the CCTV crew at Rosenblatt Stadium in Omaha -- home of the College World Series. I can tell you that often plays are given a second look -- by us and umpires -- after games. The problem is, many times it's still inconclusive. No help there.

All MLB would need to do, is reposition the outfield umpires, to stand on the foul lines, near the wall. On a play towards the gap, they run out to make the call. On a blast down the line -- they hold their position and rule it fair or foul. If they back themselves to the wall, and look straight up -- they have the reference point of the foul pole and can tell you which side of the pole the ball left the park on.

But it does raise one question about a rule. Everybody knows that a ball inside the bases can roll foul or back into fair territory before getting to the bases. A ball that passes the bases on the fly must land between the foul lines to remain fair. But why is a ball which leaves the field of play over the outfield wall allowed to land outside the where the foul lines would be?

For example: You hit a ball that at travels 360 feet down the right field line. The ball never goes higher than 20 feet off the ground (a line drive). At 315 feet from home plate, the ball is inside the foul line. At 325 feet, the ball crosses the line. (This would mean that at 360 feet, the ball is also outside the line -- in simple physics.) At Yankee Stadium, you've just hit a home run. But if you're playing at Safeco Field it's strike one. However, if you're at Camden Yards, you're running as fast as you can because that ball is still in play, and the rightfielder is about to pick it up and throw it back in because it hit the scoreboard/wall.

(FYI: The above rule was changed in 1931. Prior that that, home runs were determined fair/foul at the point of which the umpire lost sight of them.)

But it does make you wonder -- that 360 foot home run... what if you hit it at Wrigley Field, and at 355 feet, the wind blew it back across the line. At 353 feet, the ball left the field of play... but if the wall was 365 feet away, it's in play.

It's a game of inches.

I'm sure someone is thinking that we should put cameras behind home plate, and shoot down the lines. That won't work. My seventh grade science teacher would like to teach you about parallax -- you know, it's how a speedometer reads 55 MPH to the dirver, but only 53 to the passenger. It's the same reason instant replay won't work on close calls at first base. You can't tell when the first baseman catches the ball.

There is a similar problem in football. There is no definite point of reference to determine when someone has possession of the ball. Timing and position do not translate well to video technology.

Now, it does have good uses in football. Like, when a player steps out of bounds. It also has a good use in hockey -- but only ONE. It is that view I like to call rafter cam -- the view straight down on the goal from the ceiling. But that view is often poorly executed. The shot needs to be 90 degrees from the horizontal, on a vertical plane directly above the goal line, at the middle of the goal. Often, that shot is at an angle -- and I can't tell you why, but it takes away any reference to the plane of the goal line, which means the system fails.

But, of the sports that I participate in, that rafter cam view is the only acceptable use of replay I see. Why? Because hockey moves fast, players move fast, referees move fast, and pucks move fast. On occaision, the referee will have a player between him and the puck -- and he simply can not see the puck entering the goal. Other times, the puck might hit a part of the frame in the back of the net. If you blinked, you missed it. That camera can see it, and tell you which part of the frame it hit. But that is it. None of this, was someone interfering? And don't use it to determine if the puck was played into the goal legally. Those are judgement calls, and should not be open for discussion. To one, it may be legal... to another, it's not.

See the play. Assess the play. Make the call.

In summary, cameras are not the answer -- because in the end, it still comes down to the human eye. Nothing takes the fun out of a game more than stopping to take a closer look at something nobody else has a better view of.

Let the officials make the call, move on, and remember... it's just a game.

2 Comments:

At 17/10/08 9:57 PM, Blogger Scigatt said...

About the rafter cam in hockey, I believe that the crossbar is wider than the goal line, so the camera has to be angled to see the goal line.

 
At 7/1/09 1:50 AM, Blogger Sam said...

Actually, the crossbar is a 2-inch diameter. The goal line... two inches wide.

Just like in football, the goal line is a plane. Unlike in football the puck must completely cross that plane (determining edge is the edge closest to the back of the goal).

Unless you are looking straight down on that plane, or straight across that plane. Video is no help.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home