I try not to use foul language on this blog. That’s not because of some edict from on high (the Score Towers) or because I found the Lord Jesus Christ (space daddy’s son). I simply want the blog to appeal to as many reasonable minded people as possible, and I’m aware that a large chunk of reasonable minded people don’t like obscene language.
Personally, I don’t mind it, but I understand how it can weaken an argument or sometimes seem like a juvenile crutch.
One of the benefits of not often writing swear words is that when I do, it tends to have more of an impact. Take for instance the statement that Major League Baseball’s Executive Vice President for Baseball Operations Joe Torre just released in response to the horrible call that ended last night’s Pirates / Braves game in the 19th inning.
As a member of the Commissioner’s Special Committee for On-Field Matters, I have heard many discussions on umpiring and technology over the past two years, including both the pros and the cons of expanding replay. However, most in the game recognize that the human element always will be part of baseball and instant replay can never replace all judgment calls by umpires.
Are you goddamn shitting me? “Most in the game?” What does that even mean? “The human element?” This is the straw man you’re going to pull out in order justify an archaic stance against video replay for something as simple as safe/out calls?
No one is asking for the precious human element to be removed from baseball games. No one wants to take calling balls and strikes away from umpires. What people are talking about is allowing umpires to use technology in order to make accurate calls on close safe/out plays. It’s simple. So simple, that I really, truly don’t understand what I’m missing here.
I’m not asking this facetiously or trying to come across as arrogant, but can someone please provide me with a logical reason why close safe/out plays shouldn’t be looked at through video replay?
What makes baseball interesting is its rules. Without any rules at all, it wouldn’t be interesting. Subjective enforcement of said rules lessens the meaning behind the purpose of playing the game. Doesn’t baseball already have enough randomness at play without validating subjective and fallible rulings when it absolutely doesn’t have to?