Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1

    What do you think of college bball instant replay?

    I guess its good to get late game call right. And since its just the last 2 minutes or something its not that bad, but they seem to take forever.

    Basically AZ got a free timeout, of course the play did not work.

    Do you like replay in college bball or not.

    Thanks
    SoCal
    Last edited by Bob Green; 03-30-2014 at 06:13 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCalDukeFan View Post
    I guess its good to get late game call right. And since its just the last 2 minutes or something its not that bad, but they seem to take forever.

    Basically AZ got a free timeout, of course the play did not work.

    Do you like replay in college bball or not.

    Thanks
    SoCal
    it is so unimaginably slow...and most of the time it seems that you can't tell the difference on the OOB calls anyway..."was that fuzzy pixel his finger touching the ball?"

    ugh...either speed it up or ditch it.


    "If you don't address the things you're not doing well when you're winning the winning will eventually stop."

    -David Cutcliffe

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    it is so unimaginably slow...and most of the time it seems that you can't tell the difference on the OOB calls anyway..."was that fuzzy pixel his finger touching the ball?"

    ugh...either speed it up or ditch it.
    The really frustrating thing is they go to replay and they're limited in what they can review. Okay, yes, on review the ball is out off Wisconsin. We can see that clearly; it went off that Badger as he's being tackled from behind to no call. So, yeah, we can call the ball out of bounds, but not the clear foul on replay.

    And the use of the monitor on the elbow rule is just ridiculous.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN.
    I like it, but the on-court officials shouldn't be the ones doing the reviewing. Have someone "upstairs" reviewing the plays.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    raleigh
    Quote Originally Posted by luburch View Post
    I like it, but the on-court officials shouldn't be the ones doing the reviewing. Have someone "upstairs" reviewing the plays.
    i agree with you on this subject….let a "head official" make the call and pipe it down to the guys on the floor…
    "Either they're going down, or we are! Kirk out!"

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by luburch View Post
    I like it, but the on-court officials shouldn't be the ones doing the reviewing. Have someone "upstairs" reviewing the plays.
    That could work, but I think it should be left to a fan vote. If you think Wisconsin should have the ball, tweet now with "#badgers."

    They could also have sponsorships: "This review was brought to you by Preparation H."

  7. #7
    Seriously. With a bigscreen not those monitors.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by FireOgilvie View Post
    That could work, but I think it should be left to a fan vote. If you think Wisconsin should have the ball, tweet now with "#badgers."

    They could also have sponsorships: "This review was brought to you by Preparation H."
    with the seeming majority of fans, commentators, and message board posters who don't actually understand the rules, i'm not sure i'd support such a decision


    "If you don't address the things you're not doing well when you're winning the winning will eventually stop."

    -David Cutcliffe

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chapel Hill
    Quote Originally Posted by luburch View Post
    I like it, but the on-court officials shouldn't be the ones doing the reviewing. Have someone "upstairs" reviewing the plays.
    Yep. Having the guys on the floor make judgements on their OWN calls would be silly. It should be done the way they do it in football. I also think coaches should be given one or two challenges on calls per game.
    Love, Ima

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Lewisville, NC
    Review it upstairs and put a time limit on the darned process!

    If a decision has NOT been made in 2 minutes, then the original ruling stands. Isn't the idea to overturn only when there is strong proof? If they can't find strong proof in 2 minutes, that should be the end of it. A 5 minute review -- absurd.

  11. #11

    End of Game Flow Disrupted Too Much

    Now in addition to all of the timeouts and fouling in the last couple of minutes we have to take what seems to be 5 minute + breaks to look at plays over and over again. The video reviews seem to be getting longer and longer. I agree with the poster who said a decision should be made in under 2 minutes of review. The end of games is getting just too long. While waiting for the decision on the Wisc - U of A game my dinner got cold. If the U of A had made the last basket there would have been another round of video review to see if he got the shot off before the end of the game. The last 3 seconds of the game would have taken 15 minutes!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Southern Pines, NC
    Instant replay has been in use longer than we think. Anybody know when the first photo finish was used to determine the winner of a horse race? That's probably the origin of the whole thing. Can you imagine how long it took to get that right? Let's give them some time to dope this out.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Summit County, Colo.
    It's counterproductive when they spend three minutes reviewing how much time should be left after a score, especially considering the free timeout almost always benefits the team that was just scored upon.

    Do this: Establish a minimum margin of error of 0.4 seconds. This is consistent with the rule that you can can't capture and hold the ball for a shot if there's less than 0.4 on the clock (it has to be a deflection or alley-oop). Anyway, if the discrepancy between the displayed clock time and the theoretical correct time is less than 0.4, there's no change. Refs look at the monitor once, or even eyeball the shot as it happens, see the difference is less than 0.4, we play on.

    This doesn't completely eliminate the problem, and creates one new rather minor one, but really clock review should be saved for larger discrepancies of a second or more. We don't care if the clock is a second off for the first 38 minutes of the game, anyway.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by roywhite View Post
    Review it upstairs and put a time limit on the darned process!

    If a decision has NOT been made in 2 minutes, then the original ruling stands. Isn't the idea to overturn only when there is strong proof? If they can't find strong proof in 2 minutes, that should be the end of it. A 5 minute review -- absurd.
    I completely agree, and I would lower it to 1 minute for the call decision. If the time is affected by said call in some way or you have to review the time as well, then it can and should be done in under 2 minutes. If you can't see a change in a minute, then there was not an adequate amount of incontrovertible evidence.

    I'm glad that they're trying to get calls right, but you can't completely halt the game.
    Whatever the hell "it" is, Jabari found it.

    -Roy "Ole Huck" Williams

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    It depends on how it is used, but for the most part I don't like it. I would like it used on calls such as out of bounds. Did the ball really go off of our leg, or did the other team tip it? I don't like seeing it used for the "flagrant foul" call, even though it has sometimes gone in our favor. Even though it is not men's bball, or our team, the UNC women recently set a perfect example.
    In their first round game, and down a ton, UT Martin shoots and misses a foul shot. Diamond DeShields (grrrrr) falls to the ground, grabbing at her neck. No call is whistled by the ref, but since there is a player down, they stop play. During the stoppage, the refs review the footage, watch DeShields totally flop as a UTM player's arm brushes her neck as she goes for the rebound, and the refs call a flagrant one.
    So the play goes from being a complete no-call, to a flagrant one. After that, and UNC's subsequent made free throws, the momentum and the game totally changed, allowing the Heels to squeek out a victory. Thanks to that play, they are now in the Elite Eight.

    So factual calls, such as out of bounds, yes, subjective calls such as fouls and charges (they are still subjective even in slo-mo), no.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  16. #16
    As a technology geek, I'd prefer to see sensors in shoes relative to 3 point line, out of bounds, 3 seconds, lane violations, etc. Proximity sensors between players for 5 second calls.

    Intelligent fabric that lit up from handprints would be pretty cool but I suspect the rate of fouling would make the game hard to play and watch.

    Football is another sport that technology could enhance and remove some of the human error.

    Capital expense or operational expense aside for sports oriented technology, the biggest reason it won't happen is removing human error removes some of the human element (the drama?) out of sport.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by fuse View Post
    As a technology geek, I'd prefer to see sensors in shoes relative to 3 point line, out of bounds, 3 seconds, lane violations, etc. Proximity sensors between players for 5 second calls.

    Intelligent fabric that lit up from handprints would be pretty cool but I suspect the rate of fouling would make the game hard to play and watch.

    Football is another sport that technology could enhance and remove some of the human error.

    Capital expense or operational expense aside for sports oriented technology, the biggest reason it won't happen is removing human error removes some of the human element (the drama?) out of sport.
    That's a cool thought. What is the system they use in tennis for line calls? That might work.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Summit County, Colo.
    Any reason we couldn't go to the nfl's system, where each coach gets a certain number of challenges, and if you lose the challenge it costs you a timeout? You could even challenge if you have no timeouts remaining, it becomes a bench technical if you lose. For clock issues, again, you wouldn't win the challenge unless the adjustment is greater than a certain minimum.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    I DVR the games and start watching about halftime. I FF through the stoppages so they're not wasting MY time.

    That being said, I don't like the current implementation. Games are too slow already.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-17-2013, 07:52 PM
  2. Historic day for instant replay in MLB
    By Jarhead in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-19-2013, 12:20 PM
  3. Instant Replay in Archery?
    By EarlJam in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-07-2008, 08:54 AM
  4. Will instant replay hurt baseball?
    By 2535Miles in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-27-2008, 08:23 AM
  5. Replay
    By godukecom in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-04-2007, 06:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •