Instant Replay has reared its ugly face into a meaningful game, the results, as anticipated, nothing. Alex Rodriguez of the New York Yankees hit a 2 run home run off Tampa Bay Rays closer Troy Percival in the 9th inning of a 6-3 Yanks lead. The umpires, who initially called the ball a home run, discovered after over 2 minutes of review that the call would stand due to a lack of conclusive evidence against-something I have always hated during instant replays.
The final line of the game, 8-4. A Yankees win. While the Rays managed to tack on an extra run, the Yankees did not send their dominant closer to the bump for the bottom of the 9th. It's safe to say the three run lead would have been safe.
So what did instant replay do? Can proponents of instant replay count this as a victory? Unfortunately, they cannot. While the Yankees were able to save Rivera's arm for a night, at this point in the season, that is the least of the ballclubs worries. Although, I suppose if they go on a seven game win streak where each game is separated by 3 runs or fewer, I will eat my words. But what is the likelihood of that?
As I mentioned previously, if 'technology' is so advanced that fringe calls can be made for home runs and fouls, what is the holdup in adding this to balls and strikes?