Buck tradition, Bud; add instant replay

COMMISSIONER BUD SELIG is believed to be against an instant-replay system that would be used to judge fair and foul balls and which would make it a lot harder for umpires to rob hitters of legitimate home runs.

Selig's opposition to a common-sense solution is all you need to know, really, to understand why a replay system would be beneficial to big-league baseball.

If you'll recall, Selig once opposed drug testing players, a laissez-faire approach that landed him and some of baseball's biggest names in front of congressional committees and mucked up the record book for all time.

A general rule of thumb: Check what Bud thinks, then go the other way.

I imagine Selig this week mulling over the replay issue as he watches a baseball game on his 15-inch black and white Zenith, while simultaneously dialing his rotary phone and leafing through a copy of "Look" magazine.

Compared to Bud, "60 Minutes" curmudgeon Andy Rooney is a wild-eyed futurist.

After a recent spate of bad decisions by umpires on boundary calls, baseball has agreed to experiment with the replay system in October... in the Arizona Fall League, where no decision is worth a second look. The technology exists to use replay for the coming postseason, but that timetable is much too fast for baseball's traditionalists.

Ah yes, tradition. It's the final refuge of the fuddy-duddy baseball fan. The alarmist reaction of traditionalists is the most predictable aspect of the instant-replay discussion.

Until fairly recently, it was baseball's custom to turn a blind eye to steroids. We saw how that worked out.

Once, doubleheaders were a tradition, too.

So were World Series day games.

There was a shameful time when baseball wielded tradition like a nightstick to keep black players out of the game.

Now Selig's water carriers argue that a replay system would rob fans of the ballpark tradition of watching managers and umpires square off in spittle-spraying, nose-to-nose arguments.

But since a limited replay system wouldn't overturn decisions at the bases or be used for balls and strikes, managers would still find ample opportunities for kicking dirt, throwing hats and stomping around like temperamental 2-year-olds in a sandbox.

Apparently, traditionalists just love this stuff.

Human error will always be part of the game, of course, but to listen to replay opponents, you'd think potentially game-changing mistakes were something for baseball to cherish, not weed out.

How would you like it if your tax accountant ran his business that way?

During the regular season, when there are so many games - too many, really - no one call or final score appears to influence the balance of power.

But postseason baseball should be different. That's when the best memories are created, the most is at stake and the greatest concentration of fans is watching.

The common complaint that a review would take up too much time and that it would interfere with baseball's precious rhythms is laughable. No other team sport incorporates so much dithering and fiddling into every game.

Just as there's no reason technology shouldn't be used to help umpires get home run calls right, only a stubborn adherence to tradition is keeping baseball from implementing an instant replay procedure for this season's playoffs and World Series.

Some day, Selig will get the message.

When he does, most likely it'll be delivered by Western Union.