The Human Element in Baseball: Who Cares?

(Photo by Jim McIsaac/Getty Images)

With the plethora of blown calls this postseason, fans, analysts, and players alike are all shouting for the introduction of instant replay into Major League Baseball. As well they should be.

It seems like such an obvious win for the game, doesn’t it? Even a limited version of instant replay would ensure that critical, game-changing calls are made correctly. We’re not talking about challenging balls and strikes here, just the one or two plays that occur in every game that even the most seasoned umpire has difficulty judging in real time.

Why, in the name of Lou Gehrig’s ghost, would anyone not want the umpire to get that call right? Because it would potentially extend what is already a time irrelevant sport? Because it would call into question the integrity of the grand old game?

No? So what then?

Ah, that’s right—to preserve the, oh so cherished human element that apparently only exists in the magical world of Major League Baseball. I, for one am tired of hearing about the “human element”. What does this even mean?

Why would a human element be an important part of a game that celebrates the nearly super-human qualities of its athletes?  Aren’t these two views impossible to hold simultaneously?

And, if we aren’t concerned about making sure the calls are accurate, then why don’t we just go to playground rules where the players are calling their own shots? Sound ridiculous? That’s because it is! But that is essentially what people seem to be advocating for. That is the ultimate expression of the human element is it not?

It has always been my belief that something can truly be understood when you explore what that specific entity is good for. In this case, I will use this philosophical approach to prove that by not implementing instant replay, we risk moving away from baseball’s true essence.

Fundamentally, what are umpires good for? Umpires are good for ensuring that the rules of baseball are upheld, so as not to violate the spirit and intent by which they were written.

What are rules good for? Rules are good for ensuring that the objective of an intended outcome is understandable, reasonable, and achievable.

If the rules of baseball are not being enforced and ultimately upheld, you would therefore not actually be playing the game of baseball. Instead, you would be playing an entirely different game governed by a different set of rules, whereby foul balls are to be ruled as fair and fair balls are to be considered foul.

This is why ensuring umpires are making the correct call absolutely falls in line with the spirit and intent by which the rules of baseball were written. Had the people responsible for creating the rules of baseball wished for a different outcome, they would have simply written the rules as such to direct play towards the intended result.

Since we know that the intent of baseball is to have fair balls be called fair, and foul balls to be called foul, wouldn’t the same rules that govern the sport necessarily imply that everything within our power should be done to ensure they are enforced as such?

Of course they do!

Therefore, the implementation of instant replay would not be violating the essence of the game of baseball, but rather would be embodying the spirit with which the game was intended.

Which would also mean that the same people fighting the institution of instant replay in the name of baseball purity are actually the sport’s most transparent violators.

Ah, the beauty of irony.   

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?