Another Blown Call...Expansion of Instant Replay in MLB Long Overdue

     Memorial Day. Boston. Tigers vs. Red Sox. Bottom of the second. Two outs and a runner on second. Mike Aviles swung with two strikes on him. He missed. It wasn't even close. Tiger catcher Gerald Laird caught the missed ball cleanly. No bouncies. No dropsies. Replays confirm this. Mike Aviles was not called out however. His clean swing was ruled a foul tip by plate umpire Jeff Nelson, and the clean catch wasn't clean because the ball was in the dirt first according to first base umpire Bill Welke. So, what should have been the end of the second inning became a rally for the Red Sox who scored three runs, which, incidentally, was the number of runs that the Tigers lost by that day. All courtesy of bad officiating.
     Jim Leyland, the Tigers manager, wants some accountability. Tiger fans, most of whom are still irate over Jim Joyce's bad call at first base that cost Armando Galarraga his perfect game two years ago today, want what most baseball fans want...Recourse.
     Wish granted. Sort of. While the latest officiating debacle did not instigate next season's expansion of instant replay, it did underscore the necessity driving it and prompted much discussion, as well as speculation, about the specifics of the expansion and how it will impact the game.
     According to ESPN's Jayson Stark, who appeared on the Mike and Mike radio show the day after said debacle, there is a strong possibility that, under the expanded instant replay, appeals of calls pertaining to fair vs. foul balls and caught vs. dropped balls would be decided by a panel of umpires from a central location. It is believed to be a plan that would satisfy its opponents by allowing final determinations to be made by umpires in a system that would create more jobs for them. It would also satisfy arguments that an already lengthy game would be subjected to unnecessary delays since the umpires on the field would remain there while others reviewed the play being appealed. So, the proposed solution to the problem of bad officiating is meant to satisfy the same officials whose inability to make the right calls in obvious situations necessitated an expanded system in the first place? Not exactly the accountability that I think Mr. Leyland was talking about.
     Or necessarily the recourse that the fans were hoping for. Mr. Stark tells us that the expanded system next season will be "introductory" and limited in its scope. It could be further expanded, he says, to cover "all sorts of calls after a year or so" pending successful negotiations. Translation:  A year from now the Tigers will still be getting hosed on the same calls that cost them a game against the Red Sox on Memorial Day and one of their pitchers a perfect game two years ago. BUT they can hope for some fairness the following year, or the year after, should negotiations favor expanding instant replay to include reviewing plays involving clean swings vs. foul tips and runners being called safe when the ball clearly beats them to the bag.
     It's also probably important to note that no amount of expansion of the instant replay will resolve issues involving calls open to interpretation to the satisfaction of everyone. Trapped balls and fan interference, for example, may or may not be ruled correctly initially or on appeal, which makes overturning a correct ruling a distinct possibility. Is it just me, or does it seem like the expansion has the potential to create more problems than it solves? Oh wait. How silly of me. Of course it does. I know this because I see it every fall when Michigan plays football.
     To sum up...It's pretty clear that an expansion of the instant replay is needed, but the expansion being negotiated is insufficient and seems to be tailor made for the people responsible for the mess requiring its solution. Jim Leyland has been preaching "patience" to Tiger fans who had hoped for a better start this season. I guess we're going to need it because, while a sufficient expansion won't solve all the Tigers problems (stranding WAY too many base runners, for example) it would have given them the win that they earned on Memorial Day.
     So, tell us what you think. Are you in favor of an expansion of the instant replay? If so, is the proposed solution sufficient? Or do you want human error to continue to determine the outcome of the game? You've seen it. It's fair game. Let's talk about it.