Quote: Originally Posted By bosoxbill on 6/11/2010Loath as I am to respond to someone who calls themself monkey_taint - and I don't believe I'll do it again - why the galloping blue retard should we think that challenges will go unused?

Have you ever watched a frigging baseball game? Or are you too busy, you know, licking primate taint

Quote: Originally posted by Jtpsops on 6/11/2010Still waiting for bill to explain how 3 for 4 and 4 for 5 have an equal effect on batting average. Don't think he'll be manning up to that one though.

Quote: Originally posted by bosoxbill on 6/11/2010How many games this year went extra because what should have been the very last call was blown completely?

1, that I know of. How many more?

Certainly not a measurable percentage of 324.

LESS non-baseball horsesh*t, in my system, than in the system that you're apparently fine with. Where there's flags or whatever.

Height of idiocy, you ask me.

Quote: Originally posted by bosoxbill on 6/11/2010

Quote: Originally posted by Jtpsops on 6/11/2010Still waiting for bill to explain how 3 for 4 and 4 for 5 have an equal effect on batting average. Don't think he'll be manning up to that one though.

STFU. You changed that sh*t. You want me to say I'm wrong? Fine, i'm wrong about your stupid invented scenario being AS stupid as I thought.

Wheee. Good for you, huh?

Quote: Originally Posted By bosoxbill on 6/08/2010

Quote: Originally posted by Jtpsops on 6/08/2010 K, let me give you an analogy bill.

In hockey, one thing I absolutely hate is when the powers that be punish an injury instead of a hit. Guy A lays out a hit, his victim gets up, he gets a penalty at worst. Guy B lays out the same hit, breaks a guy's jaw, he's suspended. I don't believe the timing/result of something should dictate if it's punishable or not. It's either a suspendable offense or it isn't.

In this case...if Joyce blows that call while Galarraga has a 2-hit shutout going and he ends up with a 3-hit shutout, is there any outcry? Is anyone even CONSIDERING the possibility of overturning the call? No.

As I've said several times, I wouldn't have complained if the call was overturned, because I think Galarraga deserved that. But does that mean it's what's best for baseball? No.

It sucks, but it was an individual achievement that had no bearing on the outcome of the game.

I know this is a bit of an extreme example, but let's say come the final game of the season, Guy A and Guy B are tied for the BA title. Guy A goes 3 for 4. Guy B is 3 for 4 as well, but has a final at-bat coming up. He hits a ground ball to second base, the throw beats him to first but the ump calls him safe.

Now, what if Guy A and his team protest, saying that call wrongfully gave the BA title to Guy B, and since it was a game-ending call, it should be overturned and Guy A should rightfully get what's his. Nothing to do with the game, but it would give the individual accomplishment to the guy who deserved it. Should that call be overturned as well?

No one would ever agree on acceptable circumstances.

Let me get this straight... spectacularly unlikely scenarios can only be used to argue AGAINST things, and spectacularly unlikely scenarios which have actually happened can't inform our approach to problems?

At any rate, the hockey stuff is irrelevant. Entirely.

I've already said that it took this level of thing to get everyone thinking. That's reality. That's how humans work.

And in your wildly improbable scenario, yes, the call should be overturned. BECAUSE IT IS WRONG. And because getting it right is possible without replaying innings/time travel/make ups or other impossible crap.

This is why we need a tight rule - "calls which should have ended a game, but did not, can be overturned if there is compelling video evidence." - so that people don't HAVE TO AGREE ON ACCEPTABLE CIRCUMSTANCES.

The acceptable circumstances are spelled out. In the rule. Jesus, are you literate? Have you been reading a word that I've typed?

Quote: Originally posted by bosoxbill on 6/08/2010The only things that annoy me are:

The loss of the perfect game - though this it tempered by the idea that you could have had the same call in the 7th inning and nothing could be done (or at least: I'm saying nothing should be done)

The idea that everything is hunky/dory with the current system - this story is not going away. Selig has announced that he's looking into more replay as a result of it.

The twin idea that broad replay is the answer. I just don't see the marriage of fallible refs and instant replay getting us anywhere useful. Unless your goal is longer broadcasts with more advertising minutes to sell, of course. If it's that important to get all the calls right, start phasing out fallible humans and start phasing in technology.

That's silly, of course... I only say it to illustrate that I don't think any of us agree that being right is so important that we have to lose the glasses-needing wank behind the plate. Bad calls are a part of baseball, and overcoming them as a team is part of the game. But that doesn't mean we can't care about bad calls.

What we need to realize is when we can be absolutely correct WITHOUT cost. Like here. No cost. Call is overturned. No dangerous precedents are set. No slippery slopes are introduced. A game ends an out sooner than we thought, and the perfect game that so many people witnessed is recognized in the books.

Quote: Originally posted by monkey_taint on 6/11/2010Anyway, I'm checking out of here.  This was entertaining for a while, but now it's too much like bill is right and I can't hang