Comments

Any chance that they'll put this into F-150s anytime soon?

Alright, I need somebody to explain this to me a little bit. Obviously, I'm not the best with this sort of stuff, but I really do want to learn. The planets don't stay perfectly still relative to each other, right? So these "roads" are constantly changing because they're dependent on the "exact points between planets where the bodies exert an equal gravitation pull," right? So that means that these "maps" are only good for a little while and then they can completely change if certain planetary bodies move in just the right way, correct? This doesn't seem like a one-time deal. It seems like it would need to be updated on a moment-by-moment basis.

@vankrugermeer: "eh" was not a reference to the Canadian dialect. Imagine the person saying "the answer seems to be," then pausing and shrugging shoulders saying "eh," pausing briefly again and then saying "not completely." Most often, when I do see references to Canadian dialect with what it appears you think it is, it is typically spelled "ay". Two different sounds. He meant no offense to you or any of the Canadian people.

I believe that baseball needs instant replay and I completely agree that Major League Baseball's plan for instant replay is going to fail miserably, but I think the plan outlined in this article is flat out idiotic. The only thing that made sense was the idea of using the Hawk-Eye system. Of course, tennis is much different than baseball and implementing it to work properly in baseball stadiums (while great in theory) may be impossible at this time. MLB's idea of a central replay "war room" is dumb, but leaving the call in the hands of the very umpire(s) who messed up is even worse. Some umpires in the big leagues would rather say they were right the first time than get the call right. The challenge system serves no practical purpose in either college or professional football. In college every play is reviewed upstairs anyway, so why do they need challenges? In the NFL you need to challenge in order to have any chance of getting the play overturned, but get penalized a timeout for challenging. Penalizing a team for challenging makes no sense because they have no way of knowing what the outcome will be. This definitely includes the idea of adding strikes to the next batter for the team that lost the challenge. Whatever plan eventually gets implemented has to be approved by the owners, GMs, and the player's association. The players will NEVER approve a system that adds a strike to the count. It reduces their chances of getting a hit. Fewer hits means worse statistics. Worse statistics mean lower salaries. There needs to be a replay official in the booth (at the ballpark) that reviews every play and calls down with the decision (instead of a description). No challenges necessary. The only calls that can be reversed are ones that have something objective in question. No ball/strike judgments since they're subjective. Does the guy who wrote this article have any reasonably significant knowledge of the sport, or did he just decide to arbitrarily give his opinion on what may very well be a game-changing issue? Take it from someone who used to play baseball himself and whose father played, coached, and scouted for MLB teams; if done correctly, instant replay can change the sport for the better. But using plans such as those hastily outlined by MLB and in this article, the sport and its public image could enter into a downward spiral very quickly.