FORT MYERS, Fla. — If you’ve followed my columns over the years, you know I’m resistant to change in baseball.

Oh, I hear the moaning about this and that and the slowness of the game. But I love baseball just the way it is. I hate that it is using artificial means to “improve’’ things.

I already hate instant replay because I think it adds to the interruption and extension of play more than anything. Oh yeah — we have the technology, so why not use it? Well, why don’t we just ignore the technology?

I long for the days of umpire/manager disputes. That made the game exciting, whether the call was right or wrong. I’d rather see that than taking 2½ minutes for a replay decision to come down from New York. How boring.

To read between the lines of what Tony Clark said to the media after he and his staff met with Red Sox players Tuesday morning, it seems the head of the Players Association feels the same way. He described himself as a baseball “romantic,’’ and while he’s open to new ideas, he doesn’t really want to see many of the suggested ones put in place, especially this bizarre idea of a runner on second base to start the 10th inning that will be tested in the minors.

I like the fact that Clark, 44, the former first baseman, is resisting. Let’s hope he holds his ground and that the players say, “Enough is enough.’’ While Clark indicated that the players were “OK’’ with instant replay — not a ringing endorsement — and the collision rules that protect fielders at second base and home plate, he also made a good point: Many players would like the game preserved. They were taught to slide hard into second. They were taught to try to dislodge the ball from the catcher.

“You grew up playing the game a particular way,’’ Clark said. “You fall in love with the game a particular way. You appreciate and respect that history.

“You also are willing to have conversations on ways to improve, and that will continue with understanding and appreciating that you never want to get so far away from the game itself that those who love the game no longer recognize it.’’

There have been drastic changes through the years. I resisted the American League going to the designated hitter in 1973, but then I liked it. The mound was lowered in 1969 because there weren’t enough runs being scored. That was a huge change, and it took the advantage away from the pitchers and gave it to the hitters.

Clark isn’t all in on the new proposals, but he said, “I find them all fascinating on some level. I say that for no other reason than being a history buff and being someone who respects and appreciates those who came before them as our players do.

“There have been changes that were made and then only lasted a year because of how crazy they may have been. But the truth is, it happens all the time. We’re in a world now where it seems to be happening every offseason. It heightens the sensitivity to it.

“I love our game. I fell in love with our game early on in my career. There are things I respect and have an appreciation for. I could talk baseball all day. Call me a romantic, call me what you want.’’

What about this seeming obsession to speed up the game?

“There’s checkers and then there’s chess,’’ Clark said. “But again, I am a bit of romantic there. There’s so much going on in our game that when it doesn’t look like it, there’s things going on.

“That I will always find fascinating, and that I will enjoy talking about with anyone who is willing to listen. When you’re in the ballpark you’re able to turn and look where you want to turn and look. When you’re watching on TV, it’s more of a challenge when you’re trying to watch some of that.

“I think those are all worthy of more conversation as we look to engage our current fans while educating the new ones and engaging the next generation. When you dig into the details, there are things going on when you don’t think there is — that has value.’’

They try to come up with gimmicks like clocks for pitchers, keeping hitters in the batter’s box, reducing the number of mound visits, reducing the number of relievers you can use in a game, issuing an intentional pass without throwing the four pitches . . .

Pretty soon they’ll propose robots calling balls and strikes. How horrible can this get?

“On automatic intentional walk, I would be OK,’’ said Red Sox manager John Farrell. “If you’re going to give him an intentional walk, send him to first base.

“The one thing we’re seeing as it related to pace of game and so much emphasis on it, I wouldn’t be surprised that in a short period of time — I’m not saying this year — we’re probably going to be looking at a pitch clock.’’

Nooooo!

Baseball is unique. It’s not like the NBA or the NFL or the NHL. There is not and should not be a clock anywhere. Whereas you can pretty much predict the time of game in the other sports, a baseball game could last 2:10 or it could go 4:15. That’s the beauty of each individual game.

There’s no sport quite like it. Trying to artificially tweak it to make it last a shorter period of time is disrupting the natural flow.

I loved Clark’s take on things, and he probably was being diplomatic.

Baseball is one of the few games where you can sit down and watch and let things unfold in a natural way. If it takes a while, who cares? You watch because you love the game. So love the game.

If the game we watched and played growing up becomes unrecognizable, that would be a shame.

Nick Cafardo can be reached at cafardo@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @nickcafardo.