In case you missed it, the Reds recently admitted to intentionally delaying their radio broadcasts a few seconds so that viewers at home could listen to Marty Brennaman and Jeff Brantley instead of the television announcers. 

Seems like a no-brainer, right?

Not quite, because allowing the TV signals to catch up with the radio waves means that all the headphone-toting fans at the ballpark hear the action much longer after they see it with their own two eyes. 

From the Cincinnati Enquirer: 

Fans who bring radios to Great American Ball Park may experience up to a nine-second delay between what they see and hear.

"It's not as an enjoyable an experience, if they tell you on radio about the action after it happens. What's the use of bringing a radio to the game?" says Mary Lynn Knochelman, 47, from Delhi Township.

The delay has been obvious at the ball park during this homestand. On Tuesday night, as Adam Dunn coasted into second base with a double, radio announcer Thom Brennaman was just announcing that Dunn had hit the ball.

In another instance, catcher David Ross was already in the dugout by the time announcer Jeff Brantley called a third strike on the radio.

I've often wondered in the past why radio broadcasts won't intenionally sync up to television feeds and the reason I've been most presented with is because it'd mess with the fans at the park.

But since I never bring a transistor to the game and because I like the Cubs TV guys better than the radio guys, I'm not really sure which side to support here. (To tell you the truth, my main wish is for football broadcasts to match so that you could listen to a local description instead of the national guys from Fox or CBS.)

But what do you think? Faced with the constraints of technology, should the radio broadcasts be serving the people watching the game at the park?

Or the many more (Nats' viewership excluded) who are watching at home?

A big BLS head nod to Spitting Seeds for the link (via Brew Crew Ball)