In your last paragraph I agree with everything but the last sentence, which I strongly disagree with, but I suppose we can leave it there. I do think though that we are beginning to see, and will see more in the near future, pro leagues tweaking their replay rules so that less time is spent on super close calls, and most replays are used to correct obvious mistakes. The wording of the rule in MLB this year is clearly intended to achieve this.
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 3:07 AM, JW <[email protected]> wrote: > > All of the players and officials are color blind, but the TV > > audience is not. In the game 99% of the balls are blue or red, but 1% are > > green, so occasionally a team is "incorrectly" given points for scoring a > > green ball. In such a scenario, would it really make sense to change the > > scoring based on how a non-color blind viewer in New York saw it on an > > instant replay? > > In the spirit of the question, once the participants realize that some of > the balls are green ("That's why there's a section about green balls in the > rule book,") they can change the green balls to blue (or red, if they > prefer), adopt a rule that treats green balls like blue for the purpose of > scoring (which seems to be the status quo), and/or change the color or > striping of the green balls so participants can distinguish them. What the > league doesn't want is a championship that's decided when a green ball is > incorrectly considered the winning score, everybody but the participants > knows it immediately, and fans of the losing team go on forever about how > they were cheated, or start watching bowling instead. > > Generally, we agree on more than we disagree about. My point is that as > technology marches on, and as it's available to everyone else, it should be > available to officials, too. You're right about how nobody wants to wait 45 > seconds for a pitch to be called electronically, but if it can be done in a > second, and it's more accurate than home plate umpires, there's an obvious > place for the technology. If it's capable of making real distinctions that > human officials can't, that's a feature, not a bug. > > -- > -- > TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "TV or Not TV" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
