advertisement

Benetti: Offering instant replay explanations is the right call

An excitable child runs ahead of his grandfather in the supermarket. The little guy snatches a box of cereal off the shelf and tosses it in their cart.

Grandpa scowls and says, “Don't do that.”

“Why?” the tyke asks.

“Because I told you so.”

We've all heard that explanation. A good bunch of us have used it. It's a timesaver. It also gets the point across — what you just did is not acceptable.

That said, “because I told you so” leads to more “because I told you so.” Without a true explanation, the child doesn't know why the behavior was wrong. The “why” lets the child analogize to other, similar circumstances. “Why” is designed to eliminate future confusion and foster connections.

An Associated Press report this week suggests that Major League Baseball is moving closer to “why” and away from “because I told you so” when it comes to its instant replay system. Baseball is seriously considering having umpires explain replay results verbally. This shift is superb news for the game.

Currently, here's the system's workflow: Umpire makes call. Manager uses a challenge or asks for review. Crew chief puts on headset, talks to umpires in New York replay facility. Crew Chief signals call to entire stadium (i.e. safe or out) without explanation.

Here's a non-exhaustive list of people who can use an explanation:

1) Players: The idea of rules is to guide on-field decisions. If players don't understand what they did wrong, they're likely to make the same or similar mistakes again.

2) Managers: They are, in part, on the field to help players make the proper choices. Without explanation of a rule application, managers are more likely to mispeak when they try to teach players. In addition, an explanation will inform the manager's next choice to challenge or not.

3) Fans: We watch sports, in part, because they're organized and relatively easy to understand. Without knowledge of how rules work, we're more likely as fans to be disenchanted with the game and flip somewhere else.

4) Umpires: Without an explanation, umpires come under higher scrutiny. An explanation, in a way, separates the umpire from the substantive decision that's been made. It makes it more difficult for the three groups above to say, cynically, “____ has it in for us.”

The major cost is time. It's time well-spent, though, in educating people about the game and its rules.

On April 7, the White Sox challenged a play in which a fan touched a ball down the left-field line. The runner on base at the time was granted home plate initially, as is the umpire's discretion. The Sox challenged whether or not the runner should have scored (whether or not a play this subjective should be reviewable is another issue entirely).

When the review ended, the crew chief took off the headset, pointed home and the run scored. That was all.

Imagine if the crew chief had, hypothetically, said:

“After review, it was determined that, because the runner was more than halfway to third base when the ball was touched, he very likely would have scored.”

That would have at least indicated a standard for all of us to follow along with in future circumstances.

Here's hoping this week's report is a signal that baseball is soon to give us these useful explanations.

• Jason Benetti is a play-by-play broadcaster for the Chicago White Sox, as well as ESPN. Follow him on Twitter @jasonbenetti.

Article Comments
Guidelines: Keep it civil and on topic; no profanity, vulgarity, slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked. If a comment violates these standards or our terms of service, click the "flag" link in the lower-right corner of the comment box. To find our more, read our FAQ.