But we really saw it take a turn for the worse this series against the Nationals.

Larry Vanover, a 21-year MLB veteran umpire, made a few key questionable calls in this series. The first actually benefitted the Mets when Adam LaRoche was called out at second base in the first game of the series on a play that really wasn’t close at all.

However, during Wednesday’s game, the strike three call to Jason Bay was a monstrosity. The pitch was well into the left-handed batter’s box, and of course it came at a time when the Mets were mounting a rally.

Before even getting into the terrible call, you have to feel for Bay. A big hit in that spot could have gotten him going, but instead the bat was taken completely out of hands. Thanks for that Larry!

Too many times, we have seen the umpiring of a game decide the outcome. Now I’m not saying that if Vanover hadn’t punched out Bay that Bay would have come through. But hopefully Vanover looks at the replay of the pitch to see just how far outside it was.

That leads me to the point of the post: instant replay. It’s been debated and discussed countless times not only in this forum but all around the league.

Early in the offseason, MLB Commissioner Bud Selig mentioned the possibility of expanding instant replay—which right now is just for home runs—to include fair vs. foul calls and trapped balls. However, the league decided to hold back on the expansion for the 2012 season.

But in Vanover’s case, we’re talking about balls and strikes, which the league would never agree to review. Just think: After every single pitch, one of the managers is calling for a ball vs. strike review. The game would take 10 hours.

Detractors of instant replay argue that being able to review a call takes away from the sanctity of the game since an umpire’s judgment has determined close calls for years. Then again though, seeing a batter take “strike three” that is almost a full foot off the plate has put me over the edge. That is what is truly taking away from the sanctity of the game.

I’ll admit, I don’t have the answer for finding a medium between correct calls and a game that lasts forever. But I do know that I would rather see a system in which the correct call is made even if it has to be reviewed.

What if baseball adopted a system similar to football? You get two “challenges” per game, and if you win both, you get a third. Naturally, some plays cannot be reviewed—like balls vs. strikes—just like in the NFL.

Home run calls wouldn’t have a separate review system and would instead be included in all plays that can be challenged.

For example, looking at Vanover’s call at second base on Monday, Davey Johnson would throw out his red flag, and the entire umpire crew would go have a look to make the correct call. Pretty simple right? Especially for a play like that, the umpires really would only have to see the play one more time in slow motion to realize the call needs to be reversed.

I’m curious to hear some other opinions on this or if anyone can add to this discussion. How can this system be figured out?

For years, the thought of instant replay in baseball remained just a thought, as Selig and his cronies stressed “human error” as part of the game.

Fair or Foul?

Umpires had been making good and bad calls since the game’s inception, so why did the current administration need to change anything?

However, once the NFL adopted its instant replay program, the technological aspect of sports changed drastically. Coaches could challenge a disputed call, and later, every disputed call with less than two minutes remaining is automatically challenged.

And new this season, every scoring play is now reviewed, even the obvious ones.

Though it changed the game, the right calls were being made. As a result, the emphasis shifted from luck in getting a favorable call to actuality. Did the receiver actually make the catch or did the runner actually break the plan on the endzone?

After seeing how instant replay affected football and after a string of seasons with overall poor umpiring, Selig introduced the first facet of MLB instant replay, which allowed the umpires to review if a ball is or is not a home run.

That has been a successful first step, but just this past Tuesday, Selig announced that the league “will enlarge replay a little bit.”

He said he didn’t want every single call to be reviewed, and that doing so would hurt the sport.

But that’s all that was said.

In an AP report from April, the review of fair or foul calls and trapped balls was a topic of MLB’s discussion, but it was decided not to implement that this season.

Still, it looks as though we will see extended instant replay in 2012. Maybe managers will be able to challenge safe or out calls. Or even if a balk call is actually a balk.

The question is where do we draw the line?

Baseball games take three hours as is, so reviewing all these blown calls would prolong the game even further. There are dozens of calls in every game that can technically be disputed.

I’m on the fence about this whole issue. I’m all about seeing a fairly officiated game (especially if the Mets fall victim to a bad call), but I also respect that human error is part of the game.

For all the times the Mets have suffered from a bad call, they likely have been the beneficiaries of bad calls. It all evens out in the end.

The problem is that if the expansion of instant replay continues, we may get to the point where every single pitch can be reviewed as being a ball or a strike. That’s highly unlikely, but I hope you get the point.

Depending on what MLB officials agree upon for the new instant replay procedures, they need to take a firm stance and say that’s it.

The game must progress as is, because if this trend continues, we will see robots on the field umpiring games.

What are your thoughts?