larger view

By now we have heard all the propaganda by every media outlet pushing the change for instant replay to be implemented in Major league Baseball. However, with every decision there are pros and cons that must come with this decision. Some will argue for the implementation of instant replay saying that Major League Baseball is the only major league sport without instant replay besides soccer. The NHL, NBA and the NFL all have instant replay.  Being a baseball purest. I just don't agree that baseball should adopt this idea as well.

Despite the feelings I share with many other baseball fans,  last night ushered in a new era of instant replay in Major League Baseball.

In an interview back in May on ESPN Radio New York, Bud Selig stated that instant replay was an issue he was strongly thinking about and a decision would be made for the 2009 season. So why the end of the 2008 season?

Does the decision to implement instant replay so late in the season make sense? Or better yet fair? What about blown calls that happened back in July? Those same game changing moments may likely have a different outcome now that umpires have the opportunity to review those types of situations. Nonetheless, instant replay is here and most likely here to stay.

So now the question is how should it be used, not should instant replay be used?

There are several arguments that have been made.Traditionalist want America's pastime to remain the same and others can argue that baseball is already long enough. The way replay in baseball need to work, is that there has to be a system. In my opinion it should be like the NFL. Coaches have 2 challenges per game and the same should be done for baseball. You can not challenge balls and strikes, but you can challenge fair or foul balls, home runs or not. There should be a 2 minute time limit for a review.

What up about the "human element" that is involved in the game. The umpires are the first and only word when it comes to making calls out on the field. A bad call on a bang-bang play or different strike zones among umpires could definitely change the course of a ballgame but that is the way the game has been played for a century and a half. Traditionalists would argue that baseball is as old fashioned a sport as you can get and the game should continue to be played in the same fashion. I believe that Once instant replay is used by Major League Baseball or one set of calls then when will it end? Will replay be used only on close plays at the plate or determining if a ball was actually fair or foul? What if, in the bottom of the ninth of a close game, a pitch is called a ball that appeared to be a strike? Will that be reviewed?

Even I agree that obviously there are times when instant replay would be beneficial to the game.  However, I still stand behind the umpires and that the ruling on the field stands.Except for those rare instances, the field is the place to make decisions, and the umpires are the people to make them.

The game has lost its fire and intensity.

What next? Why don't we speed up the game while we're at it, maybe put a clock on the pitcher. Kind of like a shot clock in basketball that gives the pitcher a 15-20 second time limit.

 In 1987,  I think New York Times columnist  Dave Anderson said it best when addressing the issue of  instant replay in Major League Baseball: “Baseball has accepted two high-tech horrors that detract from the game already, artificial surfaces and domed stadiums. Why not instant replay?"