Sunday, November 10, 2013

AFL Instant Replay: 20% of Challenged Calls Overturned

20% of challenged plays were overturned in baseball's instant replay experiment during the week's slate of Arizona Fall League games televised on MLB Network. The same MiLB umpiring crew comprised of chief Tripp Gibson, Sean Barber, Jeff Gosney and Patt Hoberg was employed for the duration of the test games, played at Salt River Fields at Talking Stick and Scottsdale, Arizona.

Here is the breakdown of the instant replay test plays, challenges and their results:
Game 1: 4 Challenged / 4 Upheld: 3 Safe/Out at first base + 1 Catch/Trap in left field.
Game 2: 7 Challenged / 4 Upheld: 2 Safe/Out (Tag) + 3 Safe/Out (1B) + 2 Missed base appeal (2/3B).
Game 3: 0 Challenged (No plays were challenged during Thursday's Game 3 event).
Game 4: 1 Challenged / 1 Upheld: 1 Safe/Out (1B)
Game 5: 3 Challenged / 3 Upheld: 1 Safe/Out (2B), 1 Safe/Out (Tag at 2B) + 1 HBP/Foul Ball (HBP)
Totals: 15 C / 12 U: 8 Safe/Out (Force) + 3 Safe/Out (Tag) + 2 Base Touch + 1 Catch/Trap + 1 HBP/Foul

80% of challenged calls were upheld, consistent with data finding that around 20% of close calls are erroneous.

Comments on Instant Replay: Joe Garagiola Jr.Tony La RussaJoe Torre

12 comments :

Gil Imber said...

Proposal #1: I propose a vote for an addition to Rule 4 to award predetermined points to an umpire who passes away during the season. This rule would be called the "Wally Bell Rule" (or "Bell Rule").

Proposal #2: If Proposal #1 were to pass, I propose a vote on the points awarded. There would be two options:
(a) A fixed number of points

(b) A calculation to determine the points awarded, based on the umpire's average points for the two previous seasons, multiplied by the percentage of games remaining in the current season. For example, if an umpire had 8 points last year and 4 points the previous year and died at the halfway point of the season, he would be awarded 3 points ([8+4] / 2 = 6 average points; 6 * 0.5 = 3 points). This calculation would be rounded up (for example, 2.1 would be rounded to 3).

Proposal #3: If Proposal #2a were to pass, I propose a vote to determine the fixed number of points, with the following options:
(a) 1 point

(b) 2 points

(c) 3 points

(d) 4 points

Proposal #4: If Proposal #2b were to pass, I propose a vote to determine a minimum "average points" an umpire would be awarded. This would prevent an umpire from receiving negative points (in the case of an umpire having a negative average from the past two years). In effect, if the average of the previous two years falls below the voted points, the umpire's points would be based on the voted points. The "percentage of games" calculation would still apply to the voted points. The following options would be available:
(a) No minimum - "negative" umpires get negative points
(b) 0 points - "negative" umpires get no points for passing away
(c) 1 point
(d) 2 points
(e) 3 points
(f) 4 points
(g) 5 points

Gil Imber said...

I once again propose that acts of throwing ur bat and spiking ur helmet be demeed unsportsmenlike conduct as long as there is clear and convincing evidence that the player is ejected for the bat or helmet spike and not for arguing the play

Gil Imber said...

How about a points for getting a close call correct that is challenged? For example, a video replay call that is upheld could be awarded 0.5 points??? The reverse could result in a minus 0.5. Want to get more umpires in on the action and reward those who are at the top of their game.

Gil Imber said...

I propose a rule or rules regarding challenges. It is my opinion that with the advent of replay and challenges that ejections will greatly diminish. I propose that rules be written to award points to an umpire for a call/ruling in which they are officially challenged through replay. I propose the following points


Currently, Ejection points work out (for the majority of cases) in the following fashion...
Ejection w/ QOC = Correct; +4 points Umpire, +1 Crew Chief
Ejection w/ QOC = NEC Unsportsmanlike; +2 points
Ejection w/ QOC = Incorrect; -2 points


I propose challenge points be (for the majority of cases) half. These would also be only for cases in which it is clear who the call falls upon (Safe/Out, Catch/No Catch, etc...) I.e...
Challenge w/ QOC = Correct; +2 points Umpire, +0.5 Crew Chief
Challenge w/ QOC = Incorrect; -1 point umpire


In cases in which it is not clear which umpire has the direct responsibility, such as in cases of the placement of runners after obstruction/fan interference, I suggest the following.
Challenge w/ runner placement = upheld; +1 point all Crew Members (or maybe just the Crew Chief).
Challenge w/ runner placement = adjusted; +0 points to all Crew Members (or again possibly just Crew Chief).


Lastly, I still expect there will be situations in which a call may be changed by the umpires on the field prior to an actual challenge. In this case, I feel the following points should be earned...
Challenge after call overturned on field w/ QOC = Correct; +1 point all Crew Members, +1 additional point to Crew Chief.
Challenge after call overturned on field w/ QOC = Incorrect; -1 point all Crew Mambers, -1 additional points to Crew Chief.


Thanks for reading

Gil Imber said...

Proposal #1: If a challenge is denied on correct/incorrect grounds, it may be renewed as irrecusable and vice versa

Proposal #2: Permitting the reinstatement of challenges based on newly discovered evidence not present at the time of the initial denial (I believe in a play involving Kansas City the Royals player left the bench and saw the play in the clubhouse and then came back out - this was not known until the postgame conference video was posted sometime later)

Forgive my inartfulness, someone else could make it more elaborate

Gil Imber said...

I like this except for the half point stuff. Just award higher points for other things and make it 1 point for the replay stuff.

Gil Imber said...

good idea...and like joe said, i too believe there will be less EJs

Gil Imber said...

Thanks for the feedback so far, all. Above docket has been updated.

Gil Imber said...

I recognize this one may be unpopular, but I propose that UEFL participants have a limited number of challenges during the season.


A simple example:


3 challenges:
UEFL overturns: win challenge, 3 challenges left.
UEFL upholds: lose challenge, 2 challenges left.


I think this will assist in more strategic challenges on ejections and provide time for the UEFL appeals board to drink a beer here and there, as opposed to having to review obvious calls that will be upheld (well, as often).


Another solution is the challenger losing a point per failed challenge.

Gil Imber said...

I like it...and/or a minimum number of people must propose a challenge per call?

Gil Imber said...

In comparison to Scott's suggestion, I would amend Rule 6, Section 1 to require a particularize pleading, instead of a mere "charge" or "reason."

The amended wording could be something to the effect of: "The word 'challenge' or 'appeal' must be included in this post, and the challenger must cite the particular rule or evidence in support of the challenger's position."

Also, I'd suggest adding a statute of limitations on challenges: perhaps 24 hours after the ejection is posted. This may assist the Appeals Board from being overburdened by an unnecessarily large docket.

----------------------------

On other issues, I would suggest that the "Approved Ruling" on 6-2-b-5-b be more firmly incorporated into the rule. The language of the "Approved Ruling" states "may," instead of must. Thus, unintentionally (or perhaps because the Approved Ruling was overlooked by the Board - it was not cited in any opinion), the Appeals Board rejected the intent of the Approved Ruling in Ejection 116: Carapazza 3 (2013). I would advise that the Ruling be re-written as an actual rule, stating, "After an initial argument, an ejection from the dugout for undoubtedly arguing the same play must be considered irrecusable."

Perhaps consider this the "Carapazza Exception" to the "DiMuro Rule;" that is, no "visit" is required when a subsequent argument about the same call/play warrants an ejection after the first visit concludes.

I would also like to see a rule change in 6-2-c, more thoughtfully addressing who is the "calling umpire" in situations like Carapazza 3 and Ejection 31: Scott Barry 1 (2013). Although Turducken's opinion respectfully addressed my comparison, I disagree with the statement "A dead ball call cannot be reversed," and the conclusion of his opinion relying on 9.02(c) Comment. As we have witnessed under 9.02(c) itself (I believe in a Gardenhire EJ this season, even), and soon will witness even more (w/ instant replay), dead balls can be reversed. In regards to his 9.02(c) Comment argument, I believe the burden of proof for determining who the calling umpire is should be "readily apparent" (as used by the UEFL Interpreter in Barry 1), not "clear and convincing."


This, as well as my rationale in the comments of the Carapazza ejection, could be useful in crafting the language: I just don't have time to write it out right now.

Gil Imber said...

Thank you for another fantastic write-up. It is always great when you can not only be informed, but also entertained I’m sure you had fun writing this post.

www.imarksweb.org

Post a Comment