New Columnist

[hughgs]

We've been over this a few times in the thread (see Clipsfan's discussion posted at 1:15) and I don't think anyone is convincing anyone else. You trust a subjective human view made with a fraction of a second who also has to be conscious of 10 players, the clock, the coaches, etc. I trust the numerous objective camera angles which give us the ability to freeze, slow down, compare multiple angles, and review at our leisure. Let's agree to disagree, okay?

I didn't say I didn't trust the camera or that I trusted the human view, just that your argument that the camera always has a better vantage point is wrong. I completely agree that the different views can give you more information, but the key is whether the camera has a better vantage point than the ref. You explicitly said in your previous post that the camera has a better vantage point than the ref and I'm pointing out that your assumption is wrong.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

I didn't say I didn't trust the camera or that I trusted the human view, just that your argument that the camera always has a better vantage point is wrong. I completely agree that the different views can give you more information, but the key is whether the camera has a better vantage point than the ref. You explicitly said in your previous post that the camera has a better vantage point than the ref and I'm pointing out that your assumption is wrong.

Ah. I can see where the disconnect is then. I was mainly addressing Feldspar's statement that "Personally, I distrust technology for the most part. I'm much more likely to trust a guy who is a few feet from the play at looking at the line" and attempting to answer Feldspar's question as to why I generally do trust technology rather than human perception. When in doubt I trust the camera. When in doubt Feldspar (and you, I assume) trust the person. There's room in the world for both of us.

[calltheobvious]

We've been over this a few times in the thread (see Clipsfan's discussion posted at 1:15) and I don't think anyone is convincing anyone else. You trust a subjective human view made with a fraction of a second who also has to be conscious of 10 players, the clock, the coaches, etc. I trust the numerous objective camera angles which give us the ability to freeze, slow down, compare multiple angles, and review at our leisure. Let's agree to disagree, okay?

At any one moment, no individual official is responsible for nearly as many things as you list.

[hughgs]

Ah. I can see where the disconnect is then. I was mainly addressing Feldspar's statement that "Personally, I distrust technology for the most part. I'm much more likely to trust a guy who is a few feet from the play at looking at the line" and attempting to answer Feldspar's question as to why I generally do trust technology rather than human perception. When in doubt I trust the camera. When in doubt Feldspar (and you, I assume) trust the person. There's room in the world for both of us.

You're putting words in my mouth. At no time did I state that when in doubt that I trust the person. And I'm willing to bet that Feldspar's argument follows mine. That technology can only give you more information, but rarely (in basketball) does it have a better vantage point than the ref. Hence, one must count on the ref to make the correct call. If you're ever been a referee for a sport that requires calling in versus out you'll understand.

My question to you would be how you would change things to handle to out-of-bounds situation that's being discussed. If you're going to make the argument that it should've gone to the camera then I think you need to show us how the camera had a better angle than the ref.

[feldspar]

You're putting words in my mouth. At no time did I state that when in doubt that I trust the person. And I'm willing to bet that Feldspar's argument follows mine. That technology can only give you more information, but rarely (in basketball) does it have a better vantage point than the ref. Hence, one must count on the ref to make the correct call. If you're ever been a referee for a sport that requires calling in versus out you'll understand.

My question to you would be how you would change things to handle to out-of-bounds situation that's being discussed. If you're going to make the argument that it should've gone to the camera then I think you need to show us how the camera had a better angle than the ref.

I agree with you, but I'll also add the caveat that this whole discussion, in my opinion, is pointless. Technology has grown by leaps and bounds even in the last 10 years, and we still use humans to officiate sports contests. I don't see it ever changing, no matter how much people who don't understand officiating--and are thus routinely ticked off by "bad calls" such as GU/NOVA-- clamor for it.

Another way to explain it, DevilCastDownfromDurham, is, in order to satisfy your trust of technology over humans, why don't we just put the three guys in stripes up in a booth with all the replay, zoom, slow-mo equipment imaginable. Let's say that money is not an issue. Would you prefer that over human beings on the floor, as close as you can possibly get to the play?

[SilkyJ]

Way to complex for an old curmudgeon like me.

let me try it again. Login before you post/read threads by going to the login at the top right of your browser page.

Then when you want to quote someone, look at the button directly to the right of the "quote" button. click that on each post you want to quote, and then go to the bottom left of the browser and click post reply.

[Taco]

Still waiting to hear why t-ing up DeMarcus was such a great call

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

First off, hughgs, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I quoted Feldspar directly and was primarily responding to that point. To the extent that you differ, I don't mean to lump you together.

Another way to explain it, DevilCastDownfromDurham, is, in order to satisfy your trust of technology over humans, why don't we just put the three guys in stripes up in a booth with all the replay, zoom, slow-mo equipment imaginable. Let's say that money is not an issue. Would you prefer that over human beings on the floor, as close as you can possibly get to the play?

We've wandered pretty far from the original issue (was the column enjoyable), but I'll take a stab at this one. The main issue with technology today is the delay factor that allenmurray alluded to. If there was some sort of instant response version, perhaps like in tennis for the lines, I'd 100% prefer it over humans. Machines aren't distracted by crowd reaction, other players, indigestion, and the myriad of other things that all people are subject to. They also (as I understand your hypo) get multiple angles on a play, can zoom in to see detail, and perhaps most importantly, can take the time to assess and review a situation, rather than being forced to make a snap judgment in the heat of the moment.

Of course we have no technology like that, so we instead have hard working, knowledgeable and good people who do the best job they can. Naturally they make mistakes, but we live with that since they are human beings. Sort of like J.J.'s shooting, it ain't perfect, but it's the best we have and you live with the misses since he hits so often.

Returning to the play that started the discussion (or rather prompted the column that started this discussion), I can live with the call. Like a J.J. miss, it's the cost of using the best system we have for in game calls. The next morning, when we're discussing whether or not it was the right call, however, I'll take the slo-mo/every angle look over the split-second "one camera" impression every time. Proximity is, to my mind, much less important than perspective (many angles) and time to review. Since every camera indicated that this was, at best a VERY close call, the official either was incorrect (i.e. thought this was an easy call which was shown to be incorrect by the replay) or recognized that it was a very close call, but trusted that split-second impression enough to blow the whistle with that time and in that spot. I recognize (sort of) why an official would do that, but I don't agree with it.

[feldspar]

Since every camera indicated that this was, at best a VERY close call, the official either was incorrect (i.e. thought this was an easy call which was shown to be incorrect by the replay) or recognized that it was a very close call, but trusted that split-second impression enough to blow the whistle with that time and in that spot. I recognize (sort of) why an official would do that, but I don't agree with it.

Once again, you're assuming that the cameras, whatever their angle, had a better view than the official. I really disagree with that.

Second, I disagree with your use of the term "impression." If the official literally saw the player's foot on the line, I don't consider that an "impression." I consider that knowledge.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

Once again, you're assuming that the cameras, whatever their angle, had a better view than the official. I really disagree with that.

Second, I disagree with your use of the term "impression." If the official literally saw the player's foot on the line, I don't consider that an "impression." I consider that knowledge.

And I think those two disagreements really define our different takes on that foul call. Not sure either of us is going to persuade the other, but it's neat to see where our respective perspectives (try saying that mouthful three times fast ) come from.

[mapei]

I really hate where replay cameras and announcers' second-guessing has taken us. Officiating has now become what people watch and remember rather than sport. It's ridiculous.

I would much rather live with human error and get on with the game.

[feldspar]

And I think those two disagreements really define our different takes on that foul call. Not sure either of us is going to persuade the other, but it's neat to see where our respective perspectives (try saying that mouthful three times fast ) come from.

Good enough. I think we're definitely at the "agree to disagree" stage.

I enjoyed the discussion.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

Good enough. I think we're definitely at the "agree to disagree" stage.

I enjoyed the discussion.

Agreed. I enjoyed it as well.