When I was young and innocent, I remember often being frustrated whenever officiating robbed student athletes of their rightful achievement. So after witnessing the officials last night refuse to make the correct call after video replay (objective proof of their intent), I was reminded of a quote from Orwell. And after reflection, I've realized how sad it is that I've just come to accept intentionally incorrect officiating as something that cannot be changed.
"WHEN I read of the goings-on in the House of Commons the week before last, I could not help being reminded of a little incident that I witnessed twenty years ago and more.
It was at a village cricket match. The captain of one side was the local squire who, besides being exceedingly rich, was a vain, childish man to whom the winning of this match seemed extremely important. Those playing on his side were all or nearly all his own tenants.
The squire’s side were batting, and he himself was out and was sitting in the pavilion. One of the batsmen accidentally hit his own wicket at about the same moment as the ball entered the wicketkeeper’s hands. ‘That’s not out,’ said the squire promptly, and went on talking to the person beside him. The umpire, however, gave a verdict of ‘out’, and the batsman was half-way back to the pavilion before the squire realized what was happening. Suddenly he caught sight of the returning batsman, and his face turned several shades redder.
‘What!’ he cried, ‘he’s given him out? Nonsense! Of course he’s not out!’ And then, standing up, he cupped his hands and shouted to the umpire: ‘Hi, what did you give that man out for? He wasn’t out at all!’
The batsman had halted. The umpire hesitated, then recalled the batsman to the wicket and the game went on.
I was only a boy at the time, and this incident seemed to me about the most shocking thing I had ever seen. Now, so much do we coarsen with the passage of time, my reaction would merely be to inquire whether the umpire was the squire’s tenant as well."
With news that the roster is set except for a Caris decision, it seems that if he comes back we'll have a legit shot at a deep run in the tourney. I got to wondering, what past or present player could we add to get us over the hump and get us the title. I was thinking a dominant center at first, but I would have to go with Lee Humphries. I was living in gainesville when they won their first title, the dude was clutch, especially in the tournament, they never would have won those 2 championships without him. Just think what he could have done in Beilein's system, he may hold all the NCAA 3-pt records instead of just 2 of them.
As the title suggests, Instant Replay is Of The Devil.
In the average person's imagination, Instant Replay serves a single purpose: to make games more fair. In fact it does no such thing. At the expense of human enjoyment (by prolonging games, often seemingly interminably) it simply offers a placebo effect: because we have instant replay, things must be better than if we did not have it.
This is not, in fact, the case.
Human ingenuity has brought us incredibly accurate slow-motion replay. Thanks to technological genius, most people with functioning vision clearly saw the Duke player's finger deviate from its natural position in a splayed hand configuration due to its contact with the ball. And yet, in utterly predictable fashion* the refs stuck with their original decision: Duke ball.
The "tell" of slow-motion replay and its status as opium for the barely-sentient mainstream sports-consuming masses is the fact that it only applies (for out-of-bounds decisions) in certain time periods. As we all know, two points scored at 13:40 count the same as two points scored at 1:32. And yet, for some reason, out-of-bounds decisions become critical in the last two minutes of the game. So critical, in fact, that refs must review them (and then ignore the slow motion evidence).
Instant replay is a crude tool, selectively applied for no good reason, which has no significant positive effect on the accuracy of rule application in sporting events, or at least not enough to counterbalance its annoyance effect as an interruption to the flow of the game. It is, when all is said and done, Of The Devil.
* Not at all meant to be an anti-Duke comment: refs get it wrong all the time and probably not, in the long term, in Duke's favor. The point of this rant is that instant replay doesn't really improve things enough to justify the boredom of waiting for the final verdict.
I'm puting the O/U at 5.5 years.
Really wanted Duke to lose, but history remains unchanged: The last two B1G schools to win an NCAA basketball championship are Michigan State and Michigan.
And the last two B1G schools to win an NCAA football championship are Ohio State and Michigan.
Where do I sign up to be an instant replay official?
I mean... how can you be so bad at your job? How many times have we seen conclusive evidence not be recognized? Is there a vision test?