4 ms·

In a very literal sense a non-trivial part of the entertainment value of sports has been taken from you. I don't think it's ridiculous at all, I think the peopl

by Spivak 1y ago

In a very literal sense a non-trivial part of the entertainment value of sports has been taken from you. I don't think it's ridiculous at all, I think the people making the decisions to have computer accurate refs don't understand what makes sports fun to watch holistically.

rkomorn 1y ago
I think it's very double-edged. I don't think anybody genuinely wants refs affecting outcomes with bad calls. The problem is we have more and more technology (camera angles, first down markers, strike zones, HD and 4K resolution, etc) that make it easier to see errors after the fact. Not using technology to get things right starts to feel like dereliction of duty by the leagues as evidence of errors pile up. I accept the "human element" but I wouldn't say I like it. I do think umps having their own strike zones is one of the better instances of human element, though (so long as they're consistent).
- llbeansandrice 1y ago
  Umps aren’t consistent tho and because of the way seniority works, the worst umps (the older ones) get the jobs in the playoffs and World Series. If you want a human element this is just using it as a challenge system. So the players have to have a good eye to decide whether an ump was right or wrong and they can’t get help from anyone else to decide to challenge a call.
  - rkomorn 1y ago
    My point was mainly that leagues are leaning towards computer-accurate stuff because mistakes are increasingly easy to spot. Arguing about calls when we were watching blurry slow-mo on CRTs isn't the same as when we're watching crystal clear 4K. Even with a challenge system as you describe, you still have potential for an ump missing calls that are obvious to everyone watching on TV. Being able to challenge is good, sure, as a bare minimum, but it's very arguable that players shouldn't have to.

4 ms·

In a very literal sense a non-trivial part of the entertainment value of sports has been taken from you. I don't think it's ridiculous at all, I think the peopl

by Spivak 1y ago

rkomorn 1y ago
I think it's very double-edged. I don't think anybody genuinely wants refs affecting outcomes with bad calls. The problem is we have more and more technology (camera angles, first down markers, strike zones, HD and 4K resolution, etc) that make it easier to see errors after the fact. Not using technology to get things right starts to feel like dereliction of duty by the leagues as evidence of errors pile up. I accept the "human element" but I wouldn't say I like it. I do think umps having their own strike zones is one of the better instances of human element, though (so long as they're consistent).
- llbeansandrice 1y ago
  Umps aren’t consistent tho and because of the way seniority works, the worst umps (the older ones) get the jobs in the playoffs and World Series. If you want a human element this is just using it as a challenge system. So the players have to have a good eye to decide whether an ump was right or wrong and they can’t get help from anyone else to decide to challenge a call.
  - rkomorn 1y ago
    My point was mainly that leagues are leaning towards computer-accurate stuff because mistakes are increasingly easy to spot. Arguing about calls when we were watching blurry slow-mo on CRTs isn't the same as when we're watching crystal clear 4K. Even with a challenge system as you describe, you still have potential for an ump missing calls that are obvious to everyone watching on TV. Being able to challenge is good, sure, as a bare minimum, but it's very arguable that players shouldn't have to.