ESPN.com already does this for games. It says exactly where the strike zone is and where the pitch is. It wouldn't make any more or less mistakes than an umpire.
Safe or out calls at first base, or any other force play is easily attainable by a computer.
No. First, ESPN does not do as you suggest. The K-zone is NOT a two-dimensional box as seen on TV. And if your original post is suggestive that the location of the catcher's mitt is somehow involved in the determination of strike or ball...then your premise is completely false. (I suspect that you know that and hope you are only referring to the timing of the call and not the determination of the call.) Secondly, how do you suggest modifying the K-zone per the individual height of the batter to comply with the "objective" nature of the strike zone? Who gets to make the balk calls, and from what angle? Who enforces the batters box? Where do you place the computers to achieve 3-D clarity and what happens when the catcher moves to begin a throw to a base prior to the arrival of the ball? Who gets to determine catcher's interference? Who gets to determine whether or not a runner tags up appropriately? Would there be a "neighborhood" play on a potential double-play at second base? Who grants a timeout prior to a quick pitch? Precisely how does a "computer" make an out call at first base? By sound of ball in mitt v. touch of base by foot? What if the first baseman merely slams his fist into the mitt prior to the arrival of the runner? What if the first baseman is pulled off the bag? Who makes that call? Finally, if your rationale is that the computer will be no worse than a human umpire, you'll need a much better standard to convince me that such a change is worthy of serious consideration.
IMO: Baseball is perhaps the least appropriate sport for computer intensive rules interpretation. And, I wonder how you feel about the same premise for basketball and football? Could not an all-seeing computer "call" holding on a LT? After all, there is a definition of "holding" that could be thought of as "objective" in your strict sense of the word. Could an all-seeing computer call a foul in basketball strictly according to the "objective" nature of a "foul"?
