It's not an instant success

An old major league umpire friend feels that, with instant replay off and running in Major League Baseball as of tomorrow, momentum will mount so that everything in dispute eventually is reviewed. He thinks that once this thing starts, it's going to be a runaway freight train. The first time a bad call is made in a World Series game on a bang-bang play at the plate, what do you think will happen?

Manager X will cry, "We have the technology; why didn't we review it and get the call right?"

And he'd be correct.

It's like saying we have a cure for the common cold, but we're only going to use part of it on sniffles. Coughs and sore throats will not be cured. Fact of the matter is, none of this should have been introduced in the first place. Have umpires done that poor a job in the history of baseball that we have to introduce technology to do part of their jobs? And why does it have to be introduced in late August? Was there a hue and cry for replay that I missed somewhere?

With the announcement by commissioner Bud Selig yesterday that a replay system will be implemented - for "boundary calls" only - all of a sudden the game is dramatically changing with a little more than a month of the regular season left.

Technology is a wonderful thing, but not all aspects of life and sport are better off with it.

Pretty soon robots will replace umpires. The ball will have a device in it that beeps when it's thrown out of the strike zone. The strike zone will be defined by lasers that paint a box for the pitcher. Runners will have tracking devices on their uniforms to detect whether they've reached the base before the ball.

There are all sorts of possibilities, I suppose. But before this technology was introduced, those crazy things weren't remotely possible. Now who knows?

Baseball has become the last major sport to adopt instant replay in some form. Great.

Is there anything more boring than watching a football official go under the camera hoodie to watch a replay?

Thankfully, there aren't many of these "boundary calls" - determining whether a batted ball went over the fence, or whether it was fair or foul. But when they come, they seem to come in bunches.

I understand that in some new stadiums, the area between the top of the wall and over the wall can be sketchy. It just seems to me that over time, umpires would come to know these ballparks. Certainly, a blown home run call is maddening to the fans and the teams, but it keeps the human element alive. And over time, these calls do balance out.

Vice president of umpires Mike Port insists that in new stadiums that have colorful signage, lines here and there, shortened foul poles, etc., it can be difficult for umpires to discern fair from foul, homer from no homer. "Ultimately, umpires want to get the call right," said Port.

We knew this day was coming. At general managers meetings the last few years, there had been growing sentiment to at least explore replay. The old guard was opposed to it, but as some of the younger GMs began to take over committees, it became clear that replay was moving toward adoption. In November, GMs voted, 25-5, to use the technology.

"I believe that the extraordinary technology that we now have merits the use of instant replay on a very limited basis," Selig told the Associated Press. "The system we have in place will ensure that the proper call is made on home run balls and will not cause a significant delay to the game."

Selig said he will continue to be opposed to unlimited use of instant replay.

"I really think that the game has prospered for well over a century now doing things the way we did it," Selig said.

Precisely my point.

While this appears to be a quick turnaround, the process has been going on for some time. Twenty-nine of the 30 major league ballparks have been wired to receive feeds from MLB headquarters in New York. The last (unspecified) ballpark will be ready soon.

The crew chief will determine whether a play needs to be reviewed, and he will get the feed from New York, from different angles. The crew chief will overturn the call only if there is "clear and convincing evidence." And don't you dare argue the replay decision - you'll be automatically tossed for it.

Port has been making the rounds, trying to make sure all the umpires understand the procedure. While a manager or player might suggest to a crew chief that a play be reviewed, it will be up to the umpires. Port said that if all four agree on a ruling, there will be no review.

The managers I've talked to are split on doing this so soon. A few weeks back, Terry Francona wasn't crazy about seeing new rules put in play during the middle of a season. Information overload, he thought.

A few of his manager friends feel the same way, though there are others who feel replay is long overdue and you might as well get some of these calls right, as long as there is minimal disruption.

But what if the ump is looking at several different angles and time is ticking away?

Supposedly, the monitors have been tested in a few stadiums already, with clear results. We'll see. Port said the reviews will be "2-2 1/2 minutes" tops.

Times may be a-changing, but I still prefer that people make the calls on the field.

Nick Cafardo can be reached at cafardo@globe.com