'robot' meaning 'automated/non-human', a common English idiom especially in non-technical contexts

Bad calls are not “soul”. There’s plenty of flair and tradition and flavor in baseball.

If the viewers didn't know it was a blown call, there wouldn't be a problem. That's how baseball worked for 100 years.

But now when the viewers can see the pitch in 1000fps 8K slow motion, they expect better from the umpires. The entire premise of sports relies on the assumption that the rules are adjudicated correctly.

Look at it from the other direction. If there was a contest between two athletes or teams and it was adjudicated without bias, would you think "You know what would give this more soul? A flawed judge with poorer vision, who may or may not have been pressured or baited before the game to influence their decisions!"

Review systems for cricket and tennis seem to have enabled more crowd involvement and anticipation in the lead up to a decision being revealed.

if a baseball is the width of two or three baseballs away from the "zone" (dynamic based on player usually), then providing a way to challenge the call (it was called a strike when it is clearly a ball) is completely fair and retains the soul of the game. Baseball is really a game of fairness. There's no "buzzer beaters" or timed sessions. Everyone has their chance per inning to impact the game. In a game of relative fairness, adding more strict honesty when it comes to something like this will only improve the game.

I'm a huge fan of the automatic balls and strikes challenge system baseball is going to adopt.

Awful calls need to be struck from the game and this should do that. Tonight my Blue Jays had a double taken away on a foul call and a ball 2 inches off the plate called a strike in the same at bat with the bases loaded. Between this and the horrible reviews last week it feels like the fix is by MLB to keep us from winning the division.

Unlike tennis where in and out have always been strictly defined and we just didn't have the technology to enforce it, baseball has always involved the human element to the strike zone and some umpire judgement on whether the pitcher hit the spot or just got lucky and what a given batter's zone is. I want some of that to stay, with catchers holding game-long discussions about the zone with umpires, and batters having their own sense of the zone.

I don't want full automatic balls and strikes, so I like the challenge. There is some new strategy on when to deploy it and who can be trusted to recognize a missed call. It leaves some room for a pitcher and catcher to work a corner over a few innings to expand little by little.

I think as long as they use the limited challenge system, framing skills can still co-exist and matter.

I only hope they don't switch to a system entirely governed by an automated strike zone without umps.

It'll allow the "human element" many players still prefer along with some level of framing, while keeping umps honest (there are way too many egregious calls these days).

It is almost impossible to fully remove that voice in the back of your head that will question if you were cheated. Because the fact is at the end of the day sports are played by humans and humans make mistakes, humans are susceptible to bribes, humans are susceptible to threats and there are many other factors that could influence or force cheating by players or bad calls by the officials.

There are literally countless incidents of people cheating. So my suggestion is to hope it doesn't happen but also just avoid making bets if you are not comfortable with the fact that you may lose.

How did you come to that conclusion that this is a function of betting? As a baseball fan, this feels like a long overdue feature (at least in the world of video review challenge). I think it's simply going to make the game better. MLB is losing to the NFL/NBA, and they need to put out a better product.

Is sports betting new?