The Sports Thread

[Matt]

Oh yeah, Satan Carmona. He's been superb.

 

[cookiecutter]

You know Faust does not refer to Satan but instead the man who made the deal with Mephistopheles.

 

[Matt]

I did not know that.

 

[skeptik]

The double in last nights game that appeared to be hit off the rail could very well have been a home run, but you can't tell from the replay. It happens quite a bit with safe / out calls when it comes to stolen bases.

I don't suppose you could actually provide video evidence of any?

Either way, reviewing the video three or four times from different angles would require a delay of game that Baseball simply does not need.

Not really, they fucking do that in between batters.

Regardless, getting the call right takes primacy over all other matters, including length of. There is nothing more important or essential to sporting officiating than making the right calls. If you disagree with this then you're a worthless faggot that should die[/1337 debate skills]

 

[King Richard]

Might as well just remove all forms of a referees in all types of athletics then to eliminate human error.

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

He should probably get it. Who are the other AL candidates?

The only other rookie who has a shot at beating Pedroia is Brian Bannister, who's a starting pitcher for the Royals. He is being ignored because he plays in Kansas City.

I don't suppose you could actually provide video evidence of any?

Try turning on fucking Sportscenter, they're playing it about every nine seconds.

Not really, they fucking do that in between batters.

This is a fucking retared point because it assumes that all reviews can be completed within the time it takes for the next batter to step into the box. Unless you want to require that all the reviews are finished in that time, it's an intrusion on the game because play must be stopped. Video reviews can bring the game to a grinding halt, and videos often don't make the call any easier.

Case in point, the last NHL playoffs. I can't remember both the teams, but I believe one was the Sabres. A video was used to review a call on whether or not a goal had been scored. The video didn't help one bit and it brought the game to a grinding halt.

Oh, and were are you going to find this infallable reviewers who can look at a video of any play and make every correct call within seconds? There is the possibilty for human error with or without video, but with it there is the issue of watching the fucking tape over and over and over.

Regardless, getting the call right takes primacy over all other matters, including length of. There is nothing more important or essential to sporting officiating than making the right calls.

Obviously the calls need to be right, and the vast majority of the time they are. Even the close calls are almost always right. The issue of bad calls could be better solved by cracking down on the bad umpires.

And don't forget that calls can be and sometimes are changed on the field. Without video. And I can't think of an instance where a call was made incorrect after a meeting of the Umpires. The point here is that there is very little need for something as intrusive as video review.

If you disagree with this then you're a worthless faggot that should die[/1337 debate skills]

No, sorry, but once again you are wrong. If you actually think there should be replay in baseball you should fuck off and take your dim witted opinions with you.

 

[skeptik]

You're a fucking idiot for thinking that I said ANYWHERE that all reviews should happen within the time that it takes for a batter to walk up to the plate.

Any wrong call whatsoever should be grounds for looking into a change of the system. Like the Rockies game. A critical game directly deciding which team will make it to the playoffs where a runner didn't tag the base and was called safe. This could have been solved by video replay and entirely justifies having it, so fuck you and your mother.

I can't recall the specific instance, but I've seen the wrong call made before after a convening of referees. You know why? Because they couldn't go back and look at the fucking video. Dumbass.

The very fact that wrong calls are made, coupled with the fact that most wrong calls could be corrected by review, in itself, justifies the installment of a minor and as unintrusive as possible system of review. If there is a questionable call, take a second to look at the play and see if the call was right and adjust accordingly. Very simple.

 

[cookiecutter]

And don't forget that calls can be and sometimes are changed on the field. Without video. And I can't think of an instance where a call was made incorrect after a meeting of the Umpires. The point here is that there is very little need for something as intrusive as video review.

Earlier this year JD Drew hit a home run off the top of the Green Monster but it was ruled a double. That was an incorrect call. Same thing happened to Gabe Kapler a few years ago. Both after the umps had meetings

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

You're a fucking idiot for thinking that I said ANYWHERE that all reviews should happen within the time that it takes for a batter to walk up to the plate.

Forget much?

Not really, they fucking do that in between batters.

Any wrong call whatsoever should be grounds for looking into a change of the system. Like the Rockies game. A critical game directly deciding which team will make it to the playoffs where a runner didn't tag the base and was called safe. This could have been solved by video replay and entirely justifies having it, so fuck you and your mother.

And the video isn't conslusive! It appears that Holliday didn't touch the plate but you can't be sure by looking at the video. How long do they have to watch it for you to be satisfied?

The very fact that wrong calls are made, coupled with the fact that most wrong calls could be corrected by review, in itself, justifies the installment of a minor and as unintrusive as possible system of review. If there is a questionable call, take a second to look at the play and see if the call was right and adjust accordingly. Very simple.

And you have yet to propose one. You're pretty fucking dense if you don't get this by now, but unless you want to place of very short time limit for video review (which would make it useless for the difficult calls that would actually need it), then it's intrusive.

 

[skeptik]

Forget much?

Fail at reading comprehension much? I said that they show replays 3 or 4 times in between the time that it takes for a batter to walk up to the plate. I said nothing else. I said earlier that most review decisions can be decided in the time it takes for a batter to walk up to the plate, and this is still true, but nowhere did I say that this is when and how long it should take.

And the video isn't conslusive!

Yes it is.

And you have yet to propose one. You're pretty fucking dense if you don't get this by now, but unless you want to place of very short time limit for video review (which would make it useless for the difficult calls that would actually need it), then it's intrusive.

I never said it wasn't intrusive, dickinmouth. I said that it's necessary. I don't give a fuck if it's intrusive if it means making sure what's supposed to happen happens. I'm not here to fucking design and orchestrate its implementation because it's not going to happen anyway. I'm just saying that I think it should be implemented and it would benefit far more than it would hinder.

 

[Belligerent]

I can't wait until the faggot ass Cubs lose tomorrow and eventually choke like usual. I can't take these gay rallies anymore in Chicago. People don't realize that they aren't going to make it past the 1st round of playoffs

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

Fail at reading comprehension much? I said that they show replays 3 or 4 times in between the time that it takes for a batter to walk up to the plate. I said nothing else. I said earlier that most review decisions can be decided in the time it takes for a batter to walk up to the plate, and this is still true, but nowhere did I say that this is when and how long it should take.

There's quite a huge fucking difference between the TV broadcast showing the replay between at-bats / pitches and a panel of reviewers watching the replay for officiating purposes. Are you honestly that dense?

During a video review the game must be STOPPED. This is not so for when the TV broadcast decides to show the video, since they can show it all they want and play continues, and they can stop showing the video whenever they want regardless of whether or not they reach a consensus about it. Half the time they come back from the video and play has already resumed. If this still doesn't make sense to you, you should probably kill yourself because you are almost too stupid to breath.

Yes it is.

No, it isn't.

I don't give a fuck if it's intrusive

Most people do give a fuck if it's intrusive, which is why it hasn't been implemented.

 

[skeptik]

Holy shit, way to 1) completely not understand what I'm saying and 2) make implications about what I'm saying based off of your misunderstanding of what I'm saying.

Yes it fucking is you cock monkey.

Fuck those people because they're wrong. Are you the type of person who supports the death penalty even though innocent people die in the process?

 

[Matt]

I'm against instant replay in baseball.

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

Holy shit, way to 1) completely not understand what I'm saying and 2) make implications about what I'm saying based off of your misunderstanding of what I'm saying.

What the FUCK does showing the replay between at-bats have to do with reviewing calls? I assumed you meant "they should do they reviews between at bats because the TV shows them anyway" since that is the only way that TV replays could possibly relate to this topic, and of course I had no trouble assuming that you believed that, because "it's completley retarded" doesn't seem to stop you from believing something.

I also considered that you may have meant "the game is delayed in between batters", but that is too stupid.

Yes it fucking is you cock monkey.

No it isn't, ass clown.

Fuck those people because they're wrong.

Actually they are correct. Their correctness is supported by the fact that you disagree with them.

Are you the type of person who supports the death penalty even though innocent people die in the process?

A.) No.
B.) How the fuck is this even remotley relevant?

 

[skeptik]

No, you saying that something is completely retarded doesn't stop me from believing in something.

I brought up replays between batters simply to show that it doesn't take long to determine most calls and thus won't have a very significant impact on the game. I'm not sure why you couldn't understand this in the beginning, as it was pretty simple.



YES IT FUCKING IS, you're just saying it's not to support your fucking argument you faggot. He CLEARLY did not touch the fucking plate and the game should be continuing to this day, as we speak.



It's called an analogy you shithead. Just as the death penalty should be rejected on the basis that judges makes the wrong call in certain situations and leads to the death of an innocent person, so should review be implemented on the basis that the umpires make the wrong call in certain situations and leads to the altering of the game. I'm sorry, but "OMGZ THE GAME WILL BE FIVE MINUTES LONGER" is not a very good argument. In fact, it's completely fucking SHIT. Getting the right call supercedes all other concerns.

 

[cookiecutter]

This is like watching my parents fight

 

[Matt]

My parents hardly ever fight at all and when they do it's never around me.

Fucking ace.

 

[skeptik]

Nick, just agree with me. I'll give you candy and music.

 

[The Ozzman]

and by 'music' he means his entire collection