May 26 2008
Instant replay in baseball? A case for the human element
Art is, fundamentally, a human expression. And its object is beauty.
That seems to be something that this piece for FOX Sports by Michael Rosenberg misses. He starts his article with:
There are two sides to this argument. One is that instant-replay cameras have no business poisoning the glorious game on the emerald diamond, which has been decided exclusively by human beings since the days of Cap Anson, and it is blasphemy to even consider it.
The other side says this: a ball hit over the fence should be a home run. Also: Cap Anson was a racist.
In other words, this is an argument between hearts and brains.
I’m going with the brains.
To start, let’s examine some basic logic. Cap Anson played baseball way back before instant replay. Cap Anson was a racist. Therefore, we should allow instant replay. I mean, seriously? This is worse than one of the gimme questions on the LSAT and nothing short of a cheap shot at irrational motivation. Any argument starting on this footing is unsure of itself, if not downright flawed.
Now, the other side of this is a matter of judgment. Rosenberg frames it as a dichotomy between hearts and brains; a more accurate view would be between human hearts and brains on one side and the heartless ‘brains’ of computers on the other.
Does the absence of instant replay in baseball mean some wrong calls are made? Damn right it does. But let me clue you in, Mr. Rosenberg, to one of nature’s hidden but eternal secrets: perfection is boring. What would be exciting in a game where every play is a mere physical exertion to meet known standards of technical observation? Baseball is a beautiful sport, a quintessentially American one, and it is so because of its distinctly natural and human element. Wooden bats, leather gloves, dirt, grass, and human judgment all come together for a display of camaraderie, sportsmanship, and human performance – both in those playing and in those judging. Of course no one goes to a game to admire the fine referee skills of the umpire, but they sure do want to see if the second baseman can make him think he got that tag. To quote the illustrious Mr. Burke:
Beauty in distress is much the most affecting beauty. Blushing has little less power; and modesty in general, which is a tacit allowance of imperfection, is itself considered as an amiable quality, and certainly heightens every other that is so. I know it is in every body’s mouth, that we ought to love perfection. This is to me a sufficient proof, that it is not the proper object of love. Who ever said we ought to love a fine woman, or even any of these beautiful animals which please us? Here to be affected, there is no need of the concurrence of our will. (A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful, III.IX – “Perfection not the Cause of Beauty”)
To remove this human element would deprive baseball of its beauty. Next would be sensors under home plate to call balls and strikes. Then maybe sensors in the baseball to tell us whether each hit is fair or foul and where it will land as soon as it leaves the bat. After all, why go through all that suspense and exhilaration of waiting to see if your team’s bottom of the ninth, 2-out shot to left field is going to stay inside the foul pole? Better to get a head start to the parking lot. You did just pay $9 for an automatically dispensed mass-produced domestic beer.
Ah, but now Mr. Rosenberg waxes philosophical and shows his true colors:
So now I’m a little wary of a group that waxes poetic about Cracker Jack and hot dogs and the great American game. I get sick of hearing people talk about the natural beauty of baseball — then cite, as evidence, food that is full of artificial ingredients.
Seriously, what’s the big deal here? Other than sentimentality, what is the argument against replay? Baseball replays won’t slow down the games, like NFL replays do, because there just won’t be that many. Maybe one in a game. At most, two. Often none.
Ah, yes; the old “your tradition is flawed so let’s scrap it all” argument. My, how this idiocy keeps coming back. Haven’t I dealt with this before? As for the charge of sentimentality, I readily welcome it! Would that more people in this post-modern world of ours were more sentimental. Then we might have an appreciation and care for the beautiful and sacred. Mr. Rosenberg seems to have his teleology mixed up. For if baseball were simply about winning and exactness, as he presumes it to be, he would be right. But it’s not and he isn’t. Baseball is about human excellence, friendly competition, the place where character meets physical virtue. Leave your TV at home, sir.
But in one last desperate plea, Mr. Rosenberg implores us:
Ask yourself this: if you were inventing baseball today, would you incorporate instant replay for home run calls?
The answer is unequivocally yes.
And that’s exactly why we shouldn’t change it. Baseball wasn’t invented today. We didn’t create it. Baseball is bigger than, older than, grander than you or me. Who are we to change it? Do we think we know better than this piece of American heritage? I submit that if baseball were reinvented today, nay if any sport were created today, it would be quite boring. Likewise, were we to scrap our Constitution tomorrow and write something knew, I venture it would be a dismal failure. Let us at least ride the coattails of a greater generation until we can reform our own.
(CC) 2010
this is a bunch of Bull****. If you want, i can write the same disecting article about you and make you sound like a F****ing retard. You are useless. Replay will actually help someone, unlike this piece of **** article.
Wow. Eloquently put, sir.
Amen! Seriously, thank you, so much, for this fine post. If baseball can get us through the Depression and the Great War (not to mention the hell that was the Sixties) without replay, surely, we shall overcome the woes of the modern age without surrendering to the pernicious demons of modern technology.
Here, here.
I think you’re focusing on the wrong things here… If you take your emotion out of this article, I’d be interested in reading it again. Certainly some of your points are valid, but you’re clearly not picking up the right parts of Rosenberg’s argument.
“To start, let’s examine some basic logic. Cap Anson played baseball way back before instant replay. Cap Anson was a racist. Therefore, we should allow instant replay. I mean, seriously? This is worse than one of the gimme questions on the LSAT and nothing short of a cheap shot at irrational motivation. Any argument starting on this footing is unsure of itself, if not downright flawed.”
Do you really think Rosenberg (or any proponent of Instant Replay for that matter) bases their argument on “Also: Cap Anson was a racist”? I don’t think so. Rosenberg is writing a journalism article, not a thesis on the subject. Articles written with this style will inevitably contain sarcastic comments that contribute to entertainment value of the reader. While this comment may have been somewhat inappropriate and I personally don’t find entertainment in jokes regarding racism, I am quite sure that Rosenberg’s argument is not based on this comment. If you’re going to write a serious argument dissecting another’s opinions, make sure you know what they actually believe.
“Baseball is a beautiful sport, a quintessentially American one, and it is so because of its distinctly natural and human element. Wooden bats, leather gloves, dirt, grass, and human judgment all come together for a display of camaraderie, sportsmanship, and human performance – both in those playing and in those judging.”
This is beautiful and eloquent and truer words were never spoken. But you lost me in the coming paragraphs…
“Next would be sensors under home plate to call balls and strikes. Then maybe sensors in the baseball to tell us whether each hit is fair or foul and where it will land as soon as it leaves the bat.”
Nobody wants this. Rosenberg argued for nothing of the kind. I understand your point is that the snowball effect may happen if technology is introduced, but your argument loses its footing by the fact that the majority of instant replay supporters don’t want to see technology overrun the game of baseball. Sure, I’ll bet there are some folks that would like to see a manager be able to throw his “challenge flag” for a close play at first, or be able to overturn any number of less-crucial calls in a game with a quick look at video replay. Gross. I agree, and I think most do, this would ruin baseball. I agree, the ocassional missed call because of a ‘deceptive second baseman’ or a pitch that may or may not have caught the outside corner makes the game intriguing and that much more organic. But, there’s a difference between these kinds of frequent plays– the kind that write the story of a baseball game– and the rare event of a potentially-game-deciding homerun that was so close to clearing the wall that nobody could possibly be sure of the correct call. Do you really believe that taking a quick second look at these rare events, which (to quote Rosenerg) occur “maybe one in a game. At most, two. Often none” would distract from the hundreds of other events in the game which contribute overwhelmingly to the outcome?
To close, indeed we watch baseball games to celebrate human triumphs and failures. The umpires are a crucial part of this, and this contributes to the excitement. But at the end of the game, we remember which TEAM triumphed and which team failed. We remember outstanding catches and superlative batting performances. Shouldn’t these events be the ones which remain in our memory? Or should we be forced to walk away from the ocassional game with the memory of an umpire controversy stuck in our heads? I submit that permitting very-limited replay of homeruns would keep umpires in the background where they belong, while simultaneously allowing the human element to maintain control of the game.
Corey, your points are well taken. I think you’re right that people aren’t arguing for all of the technological invasion I’m wary of – yet. But I do feel it is prone to the “snowball” risk, or the slippery slope argument as its often called. I think history has shown that harmful innovations often sneak into various institutions not as the result of radical progressives, but by incremental and seemingly innocuous changes that we later regret. I can easily see us getting to the point I described above (albeit, far into the future – I hope) and looking back on something like this and saying to ourselves, “If only we hadn’t yielded to that first change…” But regardless, thank you for your comments.
Oh, and regarding the racist comment part, I agree that I don’t think Rosenberg or any other proponents completely base their argument on such grounds. But Rosenberg’s inclusion of this anecdote added nothing rational to his general argument and was in poor taste. He was trying to be provocative; but if his argument is really sound, he should have no need for provocations.
Thanks again,
Mark
I’d agree with your comments (and wanted to make sure we left the Cap Anson comment out of the argument:) ).
I guess it depends on how susceptible we believe baseball is to the “seemingly innocuous changes” of technology. In this regard, I guess we differ and I would be content to agree to disagree. It seems to me that Bud Selig is incredibly careful and mindful of this, and thus I have confidence that the “slippery slope” of technology could be avoided, at least while he’s manning the ship.
The whole “human element” argument in baseball is just plain, um, STUPID.
Why? Well, it’s simple. The human element of the game is the P-L-A-Y-E-R-S, not the officials.
Sugary, cavity-inducing diatribes like the following always lazily skip over that one PLAIN fact:
“Baseball is a beautiful sport, a quintessentially American one, and it is so because of its distinctly natural and human element. Wooden bats, leather gloves, dirt, grass, and human judgment all come together for a display of camaraderie, sportsmanship, and human performance.”
In any sport, the officials have ONE purpose: To get the call right. The notion that mistakes should not be corrected, and that all should just live with the fallout (not because it’s right, but because it’s baseball) Is just plain silly.
CeeCee, what is our purpose, as humans? Is it not to get things right? But when we fail, do we not hope for forgiveness? Do we not forgive the ones we love? And do we not shun as cold and inhuman those who obsess only over always being right and fail to see the beauty in life, human flaws and all?