Let’s review: Voices on spot
NOT LONG ago, before these halcyon days of MLB’s official video review, a TV baseball analyst could simply pass judgement on whether the umpire got a call right or wrong.
Now, when the umps put on the headset, there’s a little more at stake for the analyst. Like his reputation. At least for one telecast. A decision will come down from on high to either uphold or overturn, which not only determines if the ump got it right, but the mouth in the broadcast booth as well. The same cat previously had no accountability and was the sole judge of umpire efficiency.
Like the umps they once critiqued without impunity, these baseball savants — mostly former players — are on the griddle too.
In the fifth inning Sunday, Padres pitcher Andrew Cashner tried scoring from first on a double by Jon Jay. Home plate umpire Ramon DeJesus called a head-first sliding Cashner out at the plate despite multiple replays, airing on Ch. 11, showing Cashner touching the plate before Mets catcher Kevin Plawecki tagged him.
San Diego manager Andy Green chal- lenged the call. Then came all the replays, leading to a shot of the umpires waiting for the final answer. “He (Cashner) is going to be safe at home,” Ron Darling proclaimed. “.... The way things have gone for Matt (Harvey) in the fifth and six innings that will be a safe at home. A (tying) run.”
Instead, the Review Masters confirmed DeJesus’ call, despite the replays seemingly backing Darling’s contention. Darling relied on the only technology — in this case a few different angle replays — he had at his disposal. The ruling was followed by more questions from the booth. Like did the review crew base its decision on a definitive angle provided by the Padres broadcast outlet, which Ch. 11/SNY didn’t have?
Darling even suggested that in the future MLB should provide a “still photo” of the “definitive” angle providing concrete evidence for the decision. Gary Cohen punctuated all this with another replay review rant. “.... You have to wait for a couple of guys to put on headsets,” he said. “It is terrible. It has taken a huge chunk of the enjoyment out of baseball. It’s terrible.”
Okay, but think about how the umpires felt for years. Think about how they felt long before replay review when they were essentially put on “trial” on a nightly basis by the technology television developed to not only cover the game of baseball but second guess umpires seconds after a call was made. How much of the “enjoyment” did it take out of their jobs?
There are so many examples. Like the use of the high overhead camera, which shows where a pitch crossed the plate. The purpose of this camera is to determine whether an umpire got a ball or strike call right.
Through all the years this camera has been used there is no way to know if it’s correctly positioned to determine balls and strikes accurately. Or is it simply presenting optical illusions?
Then there’s the ball/strike box, or K-Zone, or Super Pitch or whatever else you want to call it. This is another technological tool designed specifically to second guess umpires. It is presented as infallible by those commenting on the game.
They will question an umpire’s ball or strike call but never question the accuracy or efficiency of the technology. It must be 100% accurate. ESPN is using it, and their analysts swear by it, so it must be correct, right?
Most of these innovations were installed for financial gain as well. We will concede for outlets broadcasting baseball, making money finishes ahead of making umpires look bad.
Nonetheless, when you can kill two birds with one camera, what the heck. Super Slo Mo (which you cannot tell from Not So Super Slo Mo), or Base Cam, audio enhancements or other forms of technology all have sponsors. Just come up with some technological “innovation” appearing to be different and some company will pay to have its name attached to it.
No review of these technological decisions is needed to know the umpires are not getting a piece of that action. Nor were they compensated for being the primary targets of some of the technology the networks have installed over the past 30 years. Ironically, and not intentionally, all the grief likely conditioned them for seeing their calls over turned now following replay reviews. imilar conditioning was not provided for baseball analysts who aren’t responsible for making definitive calls. Now, when there is a review they are forced to. This is a good thing. It brings an added element of some suspense, and drama, to a telecast. And it’s always entertaining when a voice whines about the length of the process. Very moving stuff. While this “hardship,” and video review “accountability” will not approximate the TV technology that has dogged umpires for years, it could spark an era of good feeling between the analysts in the booth and the men in blue.
Are you laughing yet?
S