Get Rid of Instant Replay or Change the Standard

[SoCalDukeFan]

I have now seen three times when the replay pretty clearly showed the refs made the wrong call, but it was not overturned. Oregon's last score in the ASU game, guy was out of the end zone, Max did not fumble, Miami guy was down. Evidently with what they were viewing at the time, none of these met the standard of "indisputable" but they certainly met a standard of say "clearly." With more time and more views certainly the last one meets the standard of "indisputable."

Personally I would just get rid of it, at least for college football. If not, change the standard.

Of course, getting the competent replay officials would also be a nice start.

SoCal

[captmojo]

lskfdsjgoi tjguv,wanker, oijjlkvkvlijrgln,WANKER! KMFKSLIFJClkxrmfxlkgmlgm


Blind replay people!


More to come.

[Indoor66]

I have never liked replay in any sport. Part of sport is referees. Part of sport is humanity. Replay attempts to alter that relationship - and it fails.

Now we argue about the call and the replay call! That's REAL progress! :confused::mad::rolleyes:

[arnie]

I have now seen three times when the replay pretty clearly showed the refs made the wrong call, but it was not overturned. Oregon's last score in the ASU game, guy was out of the end zone, Max did not fumble, Miami guy was down. Evidently with what they were viewing at the time, none of these met the standard of "indisputable" but they certainly met a standard of say "clearly." With more time and more views certainly the last one meets the standard of "indisputable."

Personally I would just get rid of it, at least for college football. If not, change the standard.

Of course, getting the competent replay officials would also be a nice start.

SoCal
Totally agree. If we lost without replay involved, I would hardly blame officials. Very difficult to make live close calls, very easy to watch replay in slow motion and make the right call.

[DU82]

One problem is that if the official blows his whistle, the play is over regardless of what really happened. So they basically hold their whistle now to "let the play go on".

So, let's say the official watching the Miami player's knee hit the ground sees that correctly, but it was close so he decides to hold his whistle. While he thought the knee was down, by holding his whistle, he changes the basic call that has to be overturned. Instead of knee down, the default that has to have conclusive evidence to overturn is now that it wasn't.

One major change should be that this ref needs to signal his call, without stopping the play. Hard to manage, perhaps, but needed if replay is going to be used properly. (And only for certain plays, of course, such as this.)

[weezie]

lskfdsjgoi tjguv,wanker, oijjlkvkvlijrgln,WANKER! KMFKSLIFJClkxrmfxlkgmlgm


Blind replay people!


More to come.

What he said!

[Bob Green]

What he said!

5648

[-jk]

One problem is that if the official blows his whistle, the play is over regardless of what really happened. So they basically hold their whistle now to "let the play go on".

So, let's say the official watching the Miami player's knee hit the ground sees that correctly, but it was close so he decides to hold his whistle. While he thought the knee was down, by holding his whistle, he changes the basic call that has to be overturned. Instead of knee down, the default that has to have conclusive evidence to overturn is now that it wasn't.

One major change should be that this ref needs to signal his call, without stopping the play. Hard to manage, perhaps, but needed if replay is going to be used properly. (And only for certain plays, of course, such as this.)

Huh - they have these yellow thingies they routinely use to signal stuff without stopping play. Doesn't seem too tough...

-jk

[DukeDevil]

5648

COMPLETE BS. Number 2 has one good eye, and that's all you'd need to see the knee on the ground.

[OldPhiKap]

COMPLETE BS. Number 2 has one good eye, and that's all you'd need to see the knee on the ground.

Yeah -- but he is evil.

[oldnavy]

I have fussed about BB games being "over officiated" now for years. Football is becoming the same.

What needs to happen is simplification. If it looks like a catch, then it's a catch, move on, if it looks like he got one foot in bounds then say he did and move on. I watch games now and see catches that Jerry Rice made for years that now would be considered to "not be controlled, through a complete football move, while taking the ball to the ground".... blah, blah, blah!

The search for the "perfect" "error less game" is pure folly and is ruining both BB and now FB with these incessant reviews. The juice just isn't worth the squeeze IMO.

Stop the madness and dial it back. Accepting a bad call on the field occasionally by a ref on a bang bang play is well worth ridding ourselves of this smothering techno nonsense.

And you know what the pathetic thing is? We really haven't eliminated the bad calls, we have just moved them to the replay booth which is just plain infuriating.

[devildeac]

Huh - they have these yellow thingies they routinely use to signal stuff without stopping play. Doesn't seem too tough...

-jk

But you don't/can't use them to signal a knee is down and they did drop one to signal the illegal block in the back that they reviewed and said didn't occur, but the acc office lied/covered their arses and said they didn't review that penalty that they weren't allowed to review anyway. But you knew all that already. :o

[DU82]

Huh - they have these yellow thingies they routinely use to signal stuff without stopping play. Doesn't seem too tough...

-jk

The Yellow thingie thrown represents a foul called. Officials throw their hat in certain situations (I believe specifically if a receiver goes out of bounds, to indicate that once back in bounds, he is unable to first touch a pass.) Something else will be needed, but would need to be separate from the hat, flag, bean bag and whistle that a ref must manage, along with allegedly watching the action on the field (bean bag represents where a return/potential turnover occurs.)

[oldnavy]

No one has explained why the review occurred in the first place.

Once the penalty was called with no time on the clock (I was there as many of you were and there is NO doubt that he announced the penalty), the game should have ended. There is nothing to review once the game has ended.

There is talk of the offense getting a "no timed" play due to a penalty on the offense, but surely this cannot be the rule because if true then offenses could potentially extend games to infinity and beyond simply by committing penalties on every "last" play of the game. Although I am not sure how that tactic would actually work..... oh wait, it just might if they scored and the officials went to review and then picked up the flag.... BUT that could never happen because that's against the rules, right? :confused:

[Scorp4me]

No one has explained why the review occurred in the first place.

Once the penalty was called with no time on the clock (I was there as many of you were and there is NO doubt that he announced the penalty), the game should have ended. There is nothing to review once the game has ended.

There is talk of the offense getting a "no timed" play due to a penalty on the offense, but surely this cannot be the rule because if true then offenses could potentially extend games to infinity and beyond simply by committing penalties on every "last" play of the game. Although I am not sure how that tactic would actually work.... oh wait, it just might if they scored and the officials went to review and then picked up the flag... BUT that could never happen because that's against the rules, right? :confused:

They would only get another play if the defense accepted the penalty and the defense would only accept the penalty if they scored. Once they didn't score the defense would decline and the game would be over.

And I agree if they are going to use replay then there needs to be an alternative. Throw a red flag to show the play should have stopped but was allowed to continue. That way the "call on the field" would be the play was over but was allowed to continue because there was some uncertainty. The problem there is that it is relying on replay to make the call instead of using replay only when it needs to be reviewed. Refs just need to stop swallowing their whistle and make the calls they think need to be made. Never seen a game where they were so afraid of making a call!

[captmojo]

Yeah -- but he is evil.

And, he would lack proper depth perception in addition to the fact that he is evil. A double whammy. ;)

[rsvman]

I have fussed about BB games being "over officiated" now for years. Football is becoming the same.

What needs to happen is simplification. If it looks like a catch, then it's a catch, move on, if it looks like he got one foot in bounds then say he did and move on. I watch games now and see catches that Jerry Rice made for years that now would be considered to "not be controlled, through a complete football move, while taking the ball to the ground"... blah, blah, blah!

The search for the "perfect" "error less game" is pure folly and is ruining both BB and now FB with these incessant reviews. The juice just isn't worth the squeeze IMO.

Stop the madness and dial it back. Accepting a bad call on the field occasionally by a ref on a bang bang play is well worth ridding ourselves of this smothering techno nonsense.

And you know what the pathetic thing is? We really haven't eliminated the bad calls, we have just moved them to the replay booth which is just plain infuriating.

The weird, ironic thing about all this is that the calling of balls and strikes in baseball could very easily be solved electronically, with no replay required, and just take the human element completely out of it, without any slowing down or anything; but that's the one major sport where they don't use replay for that purpose at all. Whatever the ump calls, goes. Period.

I think we're using the technology wrong. I don't think we shouldn't use the technology, necessarily. I think we're just using it wrong.

[oldnavy]

The weird, ironic thing about all this is that the calling of balls and strikes in baseball could very easily be solved electronically, with no replay required, and just take the human element completely out of it, without any slowing down or anything; but that's the one major sport where they don't use replay for that purpose at all. Whatever the ump calls, goes. Period.

I think we're using the technology wrong. I don't think we shouldn't use the technology, necessarily. I think we're just using it wrong.

I agree we shouldn't get rid of the technology, but we seem to have a standard of perfection we are trying to reach, and this seems to be having a paradoxical effect and making games less enjoyable to watch.

For example, watch a NFL game and count the flags.... it has become a cause to celebrate a pass incompletion (if you are pulling for the defense) when there is no penalty flag on the field. You figuratively and often literally hold your breath on each pass play... If you are on offense you now EXPECT a flag on a play no matter how insignificant the contact...

I fear that when BB starts up the refs will have a new "point of emphasis" to "improve" the game (i.e.., can't touch a player 25 feet from the basket, but if you are within 5 feet of the basket and a big man, buckle up!!) ... I expect another whistle fest laden, non-flowing, dead ball slog...

I just wish we could rely more on common sense (if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then it's a duck) vice the over analysis of every stinking call made....

Rant over, sorry...

[TNTDevil]

I agree we shouldn't get rid of the technology, but we seem to have a standard of perfection we are trying to reach, and this seems to be having a paradoxical effect and making games less enjoyable to watch.

For example, watch a NFL game and count the flags... it has become a cause to celebrate a pass incompletion (if you are pulling for the defense) when there is no penalty flag on the field. You figuratively and often literally hold your breath on each pass play... If you are on offense you now EXPECT a flag on a play no matter how insignificant the contact...

I fear that when BB starts up the refs will have a new "point of emphasis" to "improve" the game (i.e.., can't touch a player 25 feet from the basket, but if you are within 5 feet of the basket and a big man, buckle up!!) ... I expect another whistle fest laden, non-flowing, dead ball slog...

I just wish we could rely more on common sense (if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then it's a duck) vice the over analysis of every stinking call made...

Rant over, sorry...Since we've uncorked this genie's bottle...I'll weigh-in. :D

At first I was a huge supporter of VIR in the NFL and then finally in college but, as time as gone on...I've had a change of heart. The reasons are mostly stated in this thread (and one or two others) but, I'll coalesce them here.

First- I think the refs do adjust their calls on the field to incorporate what could possibly be revealed during the VIR. And, the example given above (fear of calling the player down because it, literally, stops the play) is common. Unfortunately for the ref, he's got a fraction of second to decide whether to blow the play dead or not and, potentially, stopping a game-winning play or let it go and hope that the "right" thing happens. But, just as stated above, if the call isn't made then it can't be reviewed. And, if memory serves, "Down by contact" can't be reviewed.

Secondly, the ridiculous level of detail the Replay Official requires in some cases...looking to see if the ball moves as a receiver falls to the ground. There's no way the un-aided human eye could possibly see that in real-time. Ergo, if it looks like a catch it should be a catch. (I'll let lie the whole "ground can't cause a fumble but, it can cause I incomplete pass" nonsense.)

Lastly, the introduction of VIR has (probably) been a net positive for the games but, the process still manages to get things wrong and, to me, that is the biggest problem. I can live with an official missing/blowing a call in the crucible of live-action. Mistakes happen and they are human. But, when you have an unlimited time to look at super slow-mo, Hi-res replay and still get it wrong that's just totally unacceptable. The rules seem to written and, unfortunately, too often interpreted to allow for "benefit of the doubt". (Saying that McCaffrey "fumbled" but, that it was inconclusive that the Miami player still possessed the ball when his knee touched is totally a judgment call, not-to-mention- wildly inconsistent.)

As a long-time fan of Duke Football I've seen us get the short-end of video replays too many time just because (IMO) we were Duke (especially during the dark days not so long ago). And, I'm not totally convinced that this same mentality (by the refs) didn't cost us on Saturday night.

[MattC09]

Since we've uncorked this genie's bottle...I'll weigh-in. :D

At first I was a huge supporter of VIR in the NFL and then finally in college but, as time as gone on...I've had a change of heart. The reasons are mostly stated in this thread (and one or two others) but, I'll coalesce them here.

First- I think the refs do adjust their calls on the field to incorporate what could possibly be revealed during the VIR. And, the example given above (fear of calling the player down because it, literally, stops the play) is common. Unfortunately for the ref, he's got a fraction of second to decide whether to blow the play dead or not and, potentially, stopping a game-winning play or let it go and hope that the "right" thing happens. But, just as stated above, if the call isn't made then it can't be reviewed. And, if memory serves, "Down by contact" can't be reviewed.

Secondly, the ridiculous level of detail the Replay Official requires in some cases...looking to see if the ball moves as a receiver falls to the ground. There's no way the un-aided human eye could possibly see that in real-time. Ergo, if it looks like a catch it should be a catch. (I'll let lie the whole "ground can't cause a fumble but, it can cause I incomplete pass" nonsense.)

Lastly, the introduction of VIR has (probably) been a net positive for the games but, the process still manages to get things wrong and, to me, that is the biggest problem. I can live with an official missing/blowing a call in the crucible of live-action. Mistakes happen and they are human. But, when you have an unlimited time to look at super slow-mo, Hi-res replay and still get it wrong that's just totally unacceptable. The rules seem to written and, unfortunately, too often interpreted to allow for "benefit of the doubt". (Saying that McCaffrey "fumbled" but, that it was inconclusive that the Miami player still possessed the ball when his knee touched is totally a judgment call, not-to-mention- wildly inconsistent.)

As a long-time fan of Duke Football I've seen us get the short-end of video replays too many time just because (IMO) we were Duke (especially during the dark days not so long ago). And, I'm not totally convinced that this same mentality (by the refs) didn't cost us on Saturday night.

On the McCaffrey "fumble" play, the official certainly assumed that the replay official would get it right so he just let it happen. If he had been paying attention, he would have seen that there was a clear recovery by Miami and should have defaulted to completed pass/receiver was down. In that review, if it's determined the ball came out, Miami would still be awarded the ball because of a clear recovery.

More universally, officials refuse to make calls in certain instances because they fall back on the replay booth to cover for them. The final play was a perfect example of 7 men on the field punting the responsibility to the replay official or assuming that the play would work itself out rather than being the guy to make the call. The hesitance/cowardice on their part to make the call is unacceptable. There's no excuse for 7 guys to miss the block in the back that wasn't called.

Another fault with replay seems to be that the booth sometimes abuses its power to make up for missed calls. Vernon had a TD called back in the monsoon game against Maryland, despite it being clearly a touchdown, likely because there had been a missed OPI near the line. The review led to the officials saying the runner's knee was down (no mention of where since his knee was down on the goal line) and the ball would be spotted at the half yard line. Last season, there was a similar case of Jamison Crowder having a TD ruled out after what could have been a missed OPI. I would be willing to bet that the booth official reviewed the block. Why else was there a second review after announcing the runner wasn't down (lol)?

[oldnavy]

On the McCaffrey "fumble" play, the official certainly assumed that the replay official would get it right so he just let it happen. If he had been paying attention, he would have seen that there was a clear recovery by Miami and should have defaulted to completed pass/receiver was down. In that review, if it's determined the ball came out, Miami would still be awarded the ball because of a clear recovery.

More universally, officials refuse to make calls in certain instances because they fall back on the replay booth to cover for them. The final play was a perfect example of 7 men on the field punting the responsibility to the replay official or assuming that the play would work itself out rather than being the guy to make the call. The hesitance/cowardice on their part to make the call is unacceptable. There's no excuse for 7 guys to miss the block in the back that wasn't called.

Another fault with replay seems to be that the booth sometimes abuses its power to make up for missed calls. Vernon had a TD called back in the monsoon game against Maryland, despite it being clearly a touchdown, likely because there had been a missed OPI near the line. The review led to the officials saying the runner's knee was down (no mention of where since his knee was down on the goal line) and the ball would be spotted at the half yard line. Last season, there was a similar case of Jamison Crowder having a TD ruled out after what could have been a missed OPI. I would be willing to bet that the booth official reviewed the block. Why else was there a second review after announcing the runner wasn't down (lol)?

Good points.

Like I said, dial it back several notches.


I do not need perfection to enjoy the game, but the attempts being made to ensure no errors occur is pushing the game(s) in the wrong direction.

[oldnavy]

They would only get another play if the defense accepted the penalty and the defense would only accept the penalty if they scored. Once they didn't score the defense would decline and the game would be over.
And I agree if they are going to use replay then there needs to be an alternative. Throw a red flag to show the play should have stopped but was allowed to continue. That way the "call on the field" would be the play was over but was allowed to continue because there was some uncertainty. The problem there is that it is relying on replay to make the call instead of using replay only when it needs to be reviewed. Refs just need to stop swallowing their whistle and make the calls they think need to be made. Never seen a game where they were so afraid of making a call!

Thanks for the explanation, but I still have a problem with this rule.

Under this scenario, they scored so we would have to accept the penalty. So let assume that they wouldn't have scored without the penalty, block in the back, hold, whatever... What is the rationale to give them another play in which they have another chance to score? Is the 10 second run off a pro rule only?

It make perfect sense if the penalty is on the defense. You wouldn't want the defense to benefit from a violation that prevents the offensive team from scoring.

Am I wrong in thinking this (an untimed play) benefits the penalized team WAY more than it does the team that had the penalty occur against them? I mean, they get to do the razzel dazzle all over again, and I can't see why they should have that option.

For example, let's say that an offensive receiver catches a pass in the end zone from one yard out with no time left, however he came open and caught the pass because his teammate tackled the defender who was in position to intercept or bat the ball down right as the ball got there and undoubtedly end the game. Why should the offense be given a second chance to score (albeit from the 11 yard line vice the one) in that situation when the defense would have ended the game right there if not for the foul???

[DukieInKansas]

Thanks for the explanation, but I still have a problem with this rule.

Under this scenario, they scored so we would have to accept the penalty. So let assume that they wouldn't have scored without the penalty, block in the back, hold, whatever... What is the rationale to give them another play in which they have another chance to score? Is the 10 second run off a pro rule only?

It make perfect sense if the penalty is on the defense. You wouldn't want the defense to benefit from a violation that prevents the offensive team from scoring.

Am I wrong in thinking this (an untimed play) benefits the penalized team WAY more than it does the team that had the penalty occur against them? I mean, they get to do the razzel dazzle all over again, and I can't see why they should have that option.

For example, let's say that an offensive receiver catches a pass in the end zone from one yard out with no time left, however he came open and caught the pass because his teammate tackled the defender who was in position to intercept or bat the ball down right as the ball got there and undoubtedly end the game. Why should the offense be given a second chance to score (albeit from the 11 yard line vice the one) in that situation when the defense would have ended the game right there if not for the foul???

On one of the threads (I've lost track), someone indicated that the receiving team is considered defense on a kickoff or punt. Can't find that anywhere but it makes sense if you think of the kicking team still being offense as they were the offense on the prior play.

[oldnavy]

On one of the threads (I've lost track), someone indicated that the receiving team is considered defense on a kickoff or punt. Can't find that anywhere but it makes sense if you think of the kicking team still being offense as they were the offense on the prior play.

Yea that is a bit confusing, but the point stays the same... the greater benefit is reaped by the offending team rather than the team offended, if that makes sense.