Discussion: Should replay reviews by officials go or stay?
Watching one of the 150 years of college football "Greatest' episodes on the WWL, I was reminded how the end-of-game kick-off return by Cal over Stanford ("THE BAND IS ON THE FIELD") included a pitch by a player that was down. In the era of replay reviews, that play may have been overturned. Assuming they got it right on review.
There are a multitude of other plays that may have been reversed upon review - many that are part of the rich history that is college football, so with that in mind, do you like the reviews and would you keep it or was it better when officials didn't have it and you'd like to go back?
I'm of the mind that even with replay, they still get it wrong, so what's the point. Even with reviews, Charles White still scores. I'd rather have it be wrong live and move on, and keep the game moving.
What say you?
October 17th, 2019 at 10:09 PM ^
yes, keep reviews but make them better. i think 'sports' in general are working on that.
mi93, congrats on winning your own drinking game. inspirational.
October 17th, 2019 at 10:30 PM ^
Thanks, xm! It's a commitment to excellence (which is hard to spell after winning my game).
October 17th, 2019 at 11:53 PM ^
Don't just keep em. Change history with em. Missouri beats Nebraska in '97, and there's no Scott Frost grandstanding to steal half of our national championship.
October 18th, 2019 at 9:39 AM ^
I think there needs to be a replay of the replay.... I will review every replay decision, and my call is final.
grim reaper
October 17th, 2019 at 10:10 PM ^
Keep it but speed up the process. Having a ref in the booth full time watching the game via a monitor that is just part of the crew would save so much time. I can’t stand watching a replay on TV, screaming at my tv at an obvious call and then it takes a solid minute before the refs on the field have eyes on it.
October 17th, 2019 at 10:32 PM ^
The AAF, while short lived, did a good job with booth replays in my opinion. And it was cool to hear their stream of commentary as they communicated with the refs on the field.
October 17th, 2019 at 10:33 PM ^
But isn't that how it works now? When the replay official 'buzzes' the ref, it's because they've seen something to give them pause.
To your point, the challenge is that the ref still has to go review the Zapruder film before making the final decision. If the replay official had the authority to make the final call, that would speed up the process.
October 18th, 2019 at 9:13 AM ^
Guy in the booth has like 3 55"+ HD TVs and sees something. Then a 60 year old man has to run over to an Kindle-Fire-sized screen, his eyes probably have black spots from excursion, first 30 seconds are him catching his breath. Then have you ever tried to watch a video on your screen in the daylight? It's horrible conditions!
Why do we make things so damn hard?
October 18th, 2019 at 9:19 AM ^
I'm probably half-way between your position, OP, and the "give someone with all the angles the autonomy to review quickly and make a call" position. The current situation is the worst of both worlds: a belabored review that ruins player and fan experiences — and is wrong at least 50% of the time anyway. The "incontrovertible video evidence" thing (or whatever they're calling it) is a standard that nearly rises to the level of a courtroom proceeding, but worse, because it lacks impartiality.
If you're reviewing more plays, and it takes forever to review them, and you're asking a person to admit their own fault on national TV, with a burden of proof that's very difficult to meet — that's a bad recipe. It's a human game played by humans. I'd be OK with training and paying refs better, improving their accountability, and suffering the consequences for the overall experience.
October 18th, 2019 at 1:32 AM ^
The refs suck. Let the announcers call the replay. They seem to have more views of the play and actual game knowledge and understand the rule book better than most refs anyway.
I kid, of course. Or do I?
October 18th, 2019 at 9:32 AM ^
Also, that process, applied specifically to touchdowns — the money shots of the game of football — step all over the joy and cinematic quality of the moment. It takes refs from the level of, say, registrars of marriage licenses and turns them into wedding officiants with veto power. The idea of having to wait for 35 seconds to a minute to officially celebrate the handful of great moments the game affords is bad practice for players and viewers. Nobody shows up or tunes in to watch refs.
October 17th, 2019 at 10:11 PM ^
First of all, we can't really tell if that Cal player was down when he lateraled the ball. Just before his knee touches, the ball may have been coming out.
Second, I think the phantom TD by Charles White would definitely be overturned since the evidence is crystal clear that he fumbled it well before the goal line.
I think replay is worth it, since the technology is available. It's important to get the calls right, especially the big calls. But I do agree that the officials still get the calls wrong sometimes even with replay, which makes it even more infuriating.
October 17th, 2019 at 10:35 PM ^
You may be right on First and Second, but just this season, the TD catch by Iowa last week was less of a catch than Ronnie Bell's at Wisconsin. So what's right? And would they have gotten the first two?
"But I do agree that the officials still get the calls wrong sometimes even with replay, which makes it even more infuriating." This is the crux of my angst with replay. They still get it wrong more than they should.
October 18th, 2019 at 8:18 AM ^
For years, the picture of White's fumble was displayed in Crisler along with some other football memorabilia stuff. The goal-line view clearly shows the ball was out at the 2 yard line. I watched it live, and remember well the indignation and contempt when everyone in the world saw what the goal-line official failed to acknowledge.
October 18th, 2019 at 10:48 AM ^
I used to work at Crisler when I was in school. I'd see that photo and get incensed every time.
October 17th, 2019 at 10:17 PM ^
I think having someone in the booth fixing obvious bad calls is the way to go. The AAF did this and it was smooth and wasted little time.
I remember Michigan getting screwed at ND in the early 2000s with no replay. I think it was Carlye Holiday was given a TD and replay clearly showed he had fumbled like 2 yards out.
You can’t not have replay. It would cause mass hysteria. Dogs and cats living together level shit.
October 17th, 2019 at 10:26 PM ^
Everything will be fine until dickless turns off the power grid.
October 17th, 2019 at 10:27 PM ^
Quit drinking and go to bed.
October 17th, 2019 at 10:35 PM ^
Yes, it's true. This man has no dick.
Well that's what I heard.
October 17th, 2019 at 10:35 PM ^
Beat me to it
October 17th, 2019 at 10:35 PM ^
It’s true, this man has no dick.
October 17th, 2019 at 10:17 PM ^
With reviews, TJ duckett doesn’t get a chance to receive a TD pass because the clock ran out. (Yes I know the clock operator has been replaced so that wouldn’t happen now, but stick with me)
I am mostly in favor of replay, but shit! After overturning PSU’s Iowa touchdown last week? I don’t know man. Can you imagine if they’d have lost on a last second fg? Holy shit the mayhem.
The number of times the replay gets it wrong is ludicrous. I’m starting to lean toward no more reviews. But keep the challenges. You get three challenges each game. Get them all turned your way, get a 4th. But get 3 regardless. That way an obvious fuck up can be corrected.
October 17th, 2019 at 11:16 PM ^
I’m not sold on replay just cause they still get it wrong a lot. Why defer to the on the field call when the replay official likely has a better chance to be more accurate?
The other thing that drives me nuts is the max on challenges. If you are going to have the ability to challenge, and you get it right, why should you lose the opportunity to challenge another call? Not that I want more interruptions but if the officials are wrong you shouldn’t lose your ability to challenge. It should be you have unlimited challenges as long as you are right. But fail once and you lose the ability to challenge any more.
October 18th, 2019 at 7:48 AM ^
I think part of the issue is that they actually don't defer enough to the call on the field. I will continue to beat the drum for a replay system where someone can watch the play at full speed from several angles and then make a decision. This weird frame-by-frame thing isn't what replay was instituted to police, it was for the massive, obvious blown calls that had no recourse previously.
October 17th, 2019 at 10:18 PM ^
October 17th, 2019 at 10:20 PM ^
Reviews have to exist. It's too important to get calls right. I wish the burden of overturning a call was preponderance of evidence rather than indisputable evidence, though. There is no reason, in my mind, to give primacy to humans making coin flip calls with imperfect views in fractions of a second. I have a lot of respect for refereeing; I can only imagine how difficult it is. I think we can maintain the dignity of refereeing without giving their impulsive calls so much weight. I think it undermines the dignity of the refereeing (and the game) when calls go the wrong way because of arbitrary rules about reviews.
October 18th, 2019 at 10:51 AM ^
If it's important to get calls right, then every call should be reviewable. If not, then you get the debacle that was the Green Bay phantom win. (I hate Brett Favre Jr; boycott State Farm!)
October 17th, 2019 at 10:22 PM ^
Reviews are great and should stay obviously but they should be quicker. NON BIASED Viewers at home can often determine the correct call by watching their 50inch flatscreens before the refs even get to the sideline for the review
But Im sure the reason they take their time is just so we can watch more commercials
October 18th, 2019 at 9:30 AM ^
This is the real problem, isn't it?
My initial thought on this is that if the replay official can't come to a decision in 30 seconds, or maybe even 15,then the call on the field should stand. Replay should only be for overturning obvious bad calls in important situations.
So for "did he fumble or was his knee down" type questions, the replay official gets 2 slow motion replays, then he is immediately told to either uphold the call or reverse it. No putting 3 seconds back on the clock, no worrying about which hash mark the ball should be spotted on, just communicate one of two things to the ref: "his knee was down at the 4, no fumble" or "ball came out, defense recovered at the 7." That's it. 30 seconds to review and communicate the findings to the ref, who never has to leave his position on the field.
October 17th, 2019 at 10:26 PM ^
I’d rather integrate more technology and get rid of officials wherever possible
October 17th, 2019 at 10:34 PM ^
Laser first down markers would be a start
FIRST DOWNS WITH FREAKING LASER BEAMS!!!
October 17th, 2019 at 10:40 PM ^
I'm listening. How would you do it? Aside from replacing 10-yard chains with laser-eyed cats.
October 17th, 2019 at 10:47 PM ^
Hard pass on that.
October 17th, 2019 at 11:28 PM ^
I was considering a diary post on such a topic.
Various technologies exist to sense different inputs. Mapping an electrical field into the field of play with sensors in the football would determine first downs and TDs even under a pile of players. Flexible capacitive sensors on elbows and knees to determine player down. Number of players on the field and on and on. So the rote but often difficult stuff would be automated and the zebras can concentrate on fouls.
There will always be traditionalists though, who will claim it would make the game sterile.
October 18th, 2019 at 6:51 AM ^
That would help because you can then create a 3D image of the ball in space relative to the goal line or other line to gain without visual obstructions (I.e. player bodies). It would be a kin to both soccer’s goal line technology and tennis’s Hawkeye system.
October 17th, 2019 at 10:32 PM ^
That is just a terrible take. It's like saying because antibiotics don't work against 100% of infections we should get rid of antibiotics.
The appropriate improvement that should be taken with replay is to enforce a clear and convincing standard to overturn calls. You do this by allowing a maximum of two looks at replay. If it's not obviously wrong after two viewings, you stand with the call on the field. If you're looking at it 3+ times in super slo-mo and squinting your eyes, that's inherently a sign that it's not obvious enough to flip. MAYBE in the last two minutes of each half you switch to a de novo review and give as many replays as the reviewer wants.
October 17th, 2019 at 11:11 PM ^
Ouch.
Your opening comparison is interesting, but I'd politely argue not on point (without telling you you're terrible). Antibiotics serve a greater social good, if deployed appropriately. The ability of bacteria to become resistant suggest that willy-nilly deployment of antibiotics is a bad idea. Ergo, they still serve a purpose - when used properly, in the right proportion, at the right moment. Which, interestingly enough, is the course correction you seem to offer, counselor.
Reviews, while intended to improve the game's integrity, aren't necessarily adding to the integrity of the game. You can change the approach to reviews, which may speed up the decisions, but you're dealing with the same judge and jury. Some referees are proving resistant to the visible data in front of them. In essence, we're getting smarter in the deployment of antibiotics but not in replay deployment as referees still get calls wrong. Those game delays have the bonus potential of adverse impacts on the flow of the game.
There were two memorable reviews in the Iowa-Penn St game and one could argue they got both wrong. That's not as successful as penicillin.
October 17th, 2019 at 11:43 PM ^
Give them a break! It took scientists about 15 years to figure out how to fully utilize penecillin. *checks calendar*. On second thought, we might wanna figure this replay thing out soon...
October 18th, 2019 at 9:39 AM ^
Yeah, there are 2 issues here: #1 is the issue with replay itself (I posted my thoughts on this upthread), and #2 is the issue with replay officials.
Almost all replay officials in every conference (including the NFL) are retired on-field officials. Often 70 years old or more, often people who are good friends with the officials on the field. I have long thought that using ex-officials who have slowed down too much to keep up with the play on the field was a terrible idea.
They need to rotate in aspiring officials--ones who are candidates for an on-field assignment in the conference. People with quicker minds, a desire to get things right, and an awareness that poor performance would be disastrous for their officiating career. The current replay officials seem to have none of those things.
October 17th, 2019 at 10:33 PM ^
We should review whether officials should stay or go.
October 17th, 2019 at 10:40 PM ^
Galarraga should be listed with the only perfect game with an asterisk.
October 18th, 2019 at 2:11 AM ^
This will always be my argument when someone starts bemoaning how replay takes too long, or isn't perfect, etc. If replay existed, Galarraga is in the Hall of Fame, instead of being fucked out of it by Jim Joyce's incompetence.
Officials exist in every sport to get the call right. If this system helps ensure that the correct call gets made, I'm fine with another 15 minutes of game time. No, it's not perfect - no system is. But it's certainly better than having to watch a mistake stand.
October 17th, 2019 at 10:45 PM ^
It needs to be very strongly emphasized to the review officials that there needs to be INDISPUTABLE video evidence to overturn a call. If you've found the best angle and looked at it twice and still can't decide, then it is NOT indisputable. Uphold the call on the field and get the game going again.
October 18th, 2019 at 12:11 AM ^
I fundamentally disagree with this take. Replay should be used to maximize the number of times the call is ultimately correct. The current approach is set up to get calls wrong by design.
I’d rather take a civil case approach to replays rather than a criminal approach...ie, preponderance of evidence makes the calls instead of beyond reasonable doubt.
October 18th, 2019 at 5:56 AM ^
Yup. I hate their CIA level attempt at analysis where maybe at this one angle, it looks like his knee may actually be down so lets change the call! Replay was instituted to protect against the most obvious mistakes. Take for instance the Ronnie Bell catch against Wisconsin when that stupid ref thought there was a tiny chance he didn't get his hand under and wiped a 30 yard pass.
October 18th, 2019 at 11:11 AM ^
Well in those cases the replay officials are seemingly forgetting that to overturn it has to 100% conclusive.
October 17th, 2019 at 10:51 PM ^
All officials should be independent from leagues. Especially replay officials.
October 17th, 2019 at 11:06 PM ^
A lot of good points here. I would add that blatantly obvious missed calls caught on replay should also be reviewable. I dunno, maybe a RB gets tripped by a player on the ground and ends up fumbling as a result. Clear penalty results in turnover, caught on film. Not that such a play has ever occurred...
October 17th, 2019 at 11:12 PM ^
Lavert got away with a trip the week before. A little karma maybe.