Argument: Instant replay will take too long

We already see it with boundary calls: The umpires need to go to the review station, then they need to watch the footage of the play several times, then they need to weigh whether the footage is convincing enough to meet the requisite burden of proof, and then they need to return to the field and signal their decision. In the meantime, tens of thousands of fans are sitting in the stands waiting, millions of people are watching at home, the pitcher is becoming less limber, and any momentum to the game is completely lost. It’s often noted that baseball is a slow sport. “Baseball has no clock,” the saying goes. [1] Instant replay will slow down an already-slow game.

[1] William Deresiewicz, “Metaphors We Play By,” American Scholar, June 6, 2011, http://theamericanscholar.org/metaphors-we-play-by/ .

Candidate 1: "Proposition is not arguing for all calls to be made via instant replay. Balls and strikes, for example, are best left to umpires because they are regarded as more subjective, and because there is no video equipment that consistently renders results that are widely viewed as accurate.

Besides, the human element that really matters is that of the players. The umpires’ human element might be substituted for making sure that the players’ human element is what decides the game. The point of the baseball game is for players to win or lose the game, not for umpires to win or lose the game. A baseball game played by robots but umpired by people would have lost its “human element,” but the same certainly would not be said about a baseball game played by humans and officiated by robots (or even just human beings who occasionally consult video footage and interpret it in their human minds)."
Candidate 2: "If a play is part of a longer sequence of events, then don’t use video review for that play. Only permit it for when the ball is dead or play stops immediately upon the conclusion of the play. Continuation plays can easily be placed outside the scope of instant replay.

Also, there’s no such thing as “normative” calls on a play. If an umpire deems a “phantom tag” sufficient for an out, he is making an incorrect call. The rules do not allow for phantom tags. If instant replay puts an end to this practice, so much the better."
Candidate 3: "Baseball looks a lot like the game played 100 years ago. But it also looks very different in many crucial ways. Minorities can now play. The height of the mound has been changed. Night games are now played, with the help of lights. Technology—from the material of bats to the shape of gloves to the design of cleats—has evolved. Even the composition of baseballs is different. If all these things can change without eliciting much objection, then why would instant replay violate a tradition? And even if it did, it’s not clear that that tradition is a valuable one (as opposed to a neutral one or even a downright undesirable one). [1]

[1] ZombieMonta, “Why baseball purists are dead wrong about instant replay,” Inhistoric, Sept. 5, 2011, http://www.inhistoric.com/2011/9/5/2405135/why-baseball-purists-are-dead-wrong-about-instant-replay ."
Candidate 4: "Baseball is indeed a slow sport, but instant replay will simply replace—rather than add to—other aspects that contribute to its snail-like pace.

First, every time there is a controversial play where the umpire might have made a bad call, a player or the manager will come out and argue with the umpire. This arguing takes up about as much time as a video review would. But with a video review, there would be no arguing; everyone would know the umpires got it right.

Second, when an umpire is not certain about his call, he often will confer with the other umpires in a collective attempt for them to arrive at the correct decision. This, too, takes time, and this, too, can be replaced with instant replay, which has the added virtue of being more accurate.

Third, not very many plays will require instant replay, so even if there is a dilatory effect, it will be relatively small.

Finally, if baseball’s pace is such a concern, then MLB should first pursue a host of other steps to speed the game—time limits for pitchers, batters, arguments, seventh-inning stretches, between-inning warm-ups, etc."
Candidate 5: "Even if instant replay will not result in 100% accuracy, it will improve the chance that any individual reviewed call will be made correctly. In the status quo, umpires make their calls as if they’re certain, so projecting false certainty really should not be a major concern for the Opposition. What video review will do is ensure that the umpire can be at least as confident about his call as the managers, coaches, and millions of viewers watching at home"

Baseball is indeed a slow sport, but instant replay will simply replace—rather than add to—other aspects that contribute to its snail-like pace.

First, every time there is a controversial play where the umpire might have made a bad call, a player or the manager will come out and argue with the umpire. This arguing takes up about as much time as a video review would. But with a video review, there would be no arguing; everyone would know the umpires got it right.

Second, when an umpire is not certain about his call, he often will confer with the other umpires in a collective attempt for them to arrive at the correct decision. This, too, takes time, and this, too, can be replaced with instant replay, which has the added virtue of being more accurate.

Third, not very many plays will require instant replay, so even if there is a dilatory effect, it will be relatively small.

Finally, if baseball’s pace is such a concern, then MLB should first pursue a host of other steps to speed the game—time limits for pitchers, batters, arguments, seventh-inning stretches, between-inning warm-ups, etc.
