The Argument for Instant Replay

Last night was a great night for sports. The Stanley Cup game 3 was being played in Philadelphia while at the same time a perfect game was being thrown by Armando Gallaraga in Detroit. Yet there were stark differences in these two events. Gallaraga was robbed of a perfect game by a badly blown call after 26 consecutive outs as you can see in the video.
Look at the video for yourself and you will see that he clearly made the out before the runner tagged the base.
In contrast the Stanley Cup used instant replay to review two possible goals to make the right call. The first call was proven to be a goal as shown in the video.
This goal was not obvious to the referees or the viewing public, but it is indeed a goal since the puck was on edge. The nice part about instant replay is the multiple camera angles allowed for the referee to see the puck cross the line completely in all three dimensions. The second goal that was reviewed was equally important and ended up being reversed. It was of outmost importance that the winner be the team that legitimately scored the most goals. This policy is in force during the entire season.
The same cannot be said for MLB. Baseball has been particularly slow to adopt instant replay whereas the NHL adopted it in the early 90's. Baseball has suffered recently from some pretty bad calls made by umpires in the right location. Last year in the divisional series the Twins were subjected to a bad call that affected their chance at making the world series. Last night a base runner was called safe when it seems that he was out with the umpire in a position to make the right call. It is time for Bud Selig to institute instant replay on most major calls not just home runs. The only area where instant replay should stay away is on strikes and balls. The system would be instituted very simply by having a war room that would monitor all the games and if a call is blatantly bad the umpires would be called to instant replay. If umpires are not good enough maybe they should be replaced by robots using computer vision to identify the players an the ball. I don't want the game to devolve into a set of reviews for each play because that would destroy the game.
Every time that the expansion of instant replay is brought up there is a discussion of how to institute it. The simplest and fairest method would be to have reviews of calls decided by a war room in the commissioners office. I intend for instant replay to be a method of correcting egregious officiating errors. I don't intend for it verify whether every runner is safe or out. This would make the game too long due to numerous and lengthy reviews. Also the umpires will get the call correct about 90% of the time and a few bad calls are always going to be part of the game. I absolutely abhor a challenge method as that requires strategy on the managers part as to when to use the allotment of reviews. More importantly we, the baseball fans in America, cannot let a squabble over the method of instituting instant replay delay its implementation. If Bud Selig would like I am more than willing to write the press release to announce the implementation of instant replay.