So, if they did challenge, you're saying when a strike is called, if it's a ball on replay, but it's close to a strike, it's should stand because it was close.

That might very well be the stupidest thing you've ever posted, and that's saying a shit ton.

Already happening


We can't challenge strikes unless they implement some kind of computer tracking to begin with. If they are going to computer track the strike zone then the ump might as well use it all the time.

attach it to the inside of the ump's mask and the fans will never even know he's using it.

It's going to happen sooner or later, just do it.

Doesn't take it out of the ump's hands, it gives him a tool to use to do his job.

I'm old school when it comes to baseball.

I'd rather it be a game about humans. I don't even like instant replay in baseball.

I'd rather it remain "pure" and not become a victim of technology.

Worst idea ever

even with the tech, humans will still **** up the right call

Unless you're 100% sure that a machine is 100% accurate on tracking a strike, you really want a machine with a margin of error to be overturning borderline strikes/balls? A machine should be used to overturn really obvious balls and strikes. It's no different from all other instant replay where you need 100% confirmation on something to overturn a call.

1 or 2 challenges a game isn't going to slow the game down much at all. And that's what this should be used for, if at all. And if they do it right, the review can happen in seconds, just like it happens in tennis.

Absolutely bring consistency and 100% accuracy with electronic strike zones.

I can't comprehend whatsoever how anyone is fine with a human behind home plate placing the outcome of the game on bad call after bad call. WTF people????

Yay.

The NFL Offices in New York get to determine what's a catch and what's not a catch, often altering the outcome of a game.

Yet several people want the same for a ball or strike?

Wha?

The idea of replay to challenge balls and strikes is pretty ridiculous.
However, if you are going to use it, then it better be god damned definitive.

Your idea is just a ****ing joke.

These "electronic strike zones" you are probably imagining are not actually accurate. Many of those pitchtrack boxes on TV are just plain incorrect. They can probably achieve some accuracy for inside and outside, but high/low literally changes for each batter.

The technology is there to automatically adjust the e-strikezone in comparison to a players height in the database.

Now, adjusted to a certain stance... probably not, but I would still hypothesize it is more accurate than a human.

Holy snikies games would last 6 hours.

In almost every sport that has replay, leagues focus on obvious mistakes. They try to avoid borderline shit. A call has to be 100% conclusive to overturn a call.

I don't trust machines to be 100% accurate on borderline strikes. But I'm sure you can get pretty close to 100% accurate if you extend the strike zone on a reviewable call. That does a few good things... 1) it takes away incentive to review borderline strikes, which would be annoying; 2) it focuses attention on blatantly missed calls, which is the only purpose I can see for allowing machines track balls/strikes.

I'd just as soon not review balls/strikes at all. But I'm ok with it if it helps overturn pitches that are blatantly off the plate.