With the technology we have today, why do we even want/need umpires?

Question

I know I am in the minority here thanks to all of the baseball "purists", but I honestly would rather see a computer behind the plate calling balls and strikes than an umpire.  They have the technology, they used it a few seasons back to track the ump's strike zones.  I would like to see that technology taken a step further.  Set up a standardized strike zone and let the computer determine if the ball was in the zone or not.  Nothing ticks me off more than an ump calling one pitch at the knees a strike and the next one a ball, nevermind the fact that the ump the next night will do the exact opposite with pitches letter high.  Not to mention the numerous plays at 1st, shots down the line, homeruns, etc. that could could all be called correctly very easily with a 30 second look at the tape.  

Give me a reason to keep fallible umpires when they can be replaced with infallible technologies.  

(Speed of the game is the only legitimate reason I can think of)

James D · Accepted Answer

It would probably be the same reason NFL hasn't gotten rid of their Refs, the game would NOT be the same if there wasn't a human body on the bases and behind the plate.  Besides, umpires like myself make the game interesting, bulls*ittin with the catcher, the batters.  In between inning shootin the bull with the coaches.  You need real life eyes on the feild.  Use a computer for homeruns, that's it!!!

First L · Answer

I am not a baseball "purist" but I think that umpires are just part of the tradition of baseball. Just because there are all kinds of technology in NFL games, the referees are still a critical part. Speed of the game is a legitimate reason, because imagine what would happen if you had to review EVERY pitch that was close. That would be a lot of pitches. Baseball is a flawed game, yes, but sometimes thats what makes it interesting, tough calls changing the game, etc. However, I do believe in review for home runs and other calls, but you can't just let this technology take over the game. It supposedly is "America's Pasttime", right?

Anonymous · Answer

My first thought was the speed of the game.  MLB is already getting annoyed that games are taking way too long.

Other than that, one would have to wonder if you get the exact camera angle to decide if the runner is safe or out amidst a cloud of dust.

I'm against instant replay in baseball.  It would take up way too much time.  I would endorse it if they only used it every once in a while.  Like when that 12 year old robbed the Orioles in the playoffs 15 years ago.

Utter Chaos · Answer

Taking 30 seconds to make a call will make the games too long.  Also, all of those plays at second on a force play where the fielder "sometimes" touches the base and the runner "sometimes" slides at the base instead of at the fielder.  How is a robot going to determine if the runner interferred with the throw or not?

sup · Answer

I agree but I don't think the idea of an umpire being out of the game all together is realistic .  I think a cool idea would be that each team can challenge a few pitches per game just like they do in tennis. How much better is tennis now that they have the hawk-eye? You don't see all the stupid outbursts like you used to.

MisterRoddy™ · Answer

I think the people like the imperfection of the umpires strike zone

Anonymous · Answer

i think it comes down to tradition,part of the game is disagreing with the umps calls, relying on them to make close calls, etc...
it would take out part of the human aspect of the game

timjim · Answer

Who is going to call a close play at the plate when a runner comes in spikes flying?

Anonymous · Answer

the difference between balls and strikes many times depends on how the catcher frames the pitch

The Sophisticated One · Answer

Because Human Error is a part of sports, wheather it be a player or an official.

Trending News

With the technology we have today, why do we even want/need umpires?

15 Answers