For anyone who has been watching the Major League Baseball postseason this year, the public outcry to institute a more expanded use of instant replay should come as no surprise.

Last week alone, we witnessed countless incorrect calls that could have been overturned in a matter of minutes.

MLB Commissioner Bud Selig, willing to risk blown calls in the postseason and World Series, is demonstrating a lack of sensitivity towards the fans by refusing to use instant replay for questionable umpire decisions.

The fact is that MLB is trying its hardest not evolve with technological advances that would make play calling more accurate.

In today’s game, players are faster, have quicker reflexes and hit the ball harder. Bang-bang plays happen instantaneously leaving the naked eye unable to discern what happened first. This is why MLB needs to expand instant replay.

Why is Selig completely against the idea of having a backup plan for missed calls?

As reported by ESPN in November 2005, Selig responded to the public’s demand for instant replay, saying that errors are part of the game.

“Yes, we had some incidents that certainly need to be looked at. So I’m not minimizing them,” he said. “But do I believe in instant replay? No, I do not. Human error is part of our sport.”

Four years and several hundred blown calls later, his stance has not changed.

In an Oct. 23 interview with chicagonow.com, Selig reasserted his position.

“I understand every time there’s a bad call it sets the media off, but am I concerned enough to begin inserting the instant replay? No, absolutely not,” he said.

For the purpose of correcting mistakes that affect the outcome of a game, I am shocked by Selig’s candid approach to sweep the entire issue under the rug.

My biggest concern stems from his apparent lack of concern. I have no doubt that if Selig opened the conversation and worked on creating an instant replay protocol, MLB would find a productive way to address baseball’s shortcomings while limiting in-game delays.

We are in the age of high-definition television, slow-motion video playback and about five different cameras all watching the same play from different angles.

Why isn’t it acceptable for MLB to try to do its best to make the right calls anymore?

On Oct. 15, Selig shed some light into the reasoning for his stance against replay.

“Do I think we need more replay? No,” he said. “Baseball is not the kind of game that can have interminable delays.”

Interminable delays?

It is called instant replay for a reason. The first word signifies that it is within its nature to be quick and easy.

And MLB games already experience delays due to commercial breaks. These delays have been deemed acceptable because they provide something instant replay cannot: the influx of millions of dollars in additional revenue.

In minor league baseball as well as spring training games that are not televised, the time between innings is much quicker.

If that is not enough of a television-instigated delay, then consider the fact television networks have direct influence over MLB’s postseason schedule. This arrangement usually hinders the play and increases the length of the postseason due to longer periods of idle time.

In years past, before television was the all-powerful master of the universe, two teams would meet in the World Series as soon as both had won the previous round. There was no rest. There was no time off. There were no interminable delays.

The World Series of today is slated to start on a specific day. No matter how soon the other series is over, game one of the World Series does not change.

Meanwhile, instant replay is ignored because it provides no financial incentive to motivate Selig into action.

Selig’s wait-and-ignore-the-problem approach to expanding replay will not produce any significant action until it is too late and some poor team is left wondering what would have been.

Stamati Horiates can be reached at [email protected]