Replay Lies
It happened in the national title game. It actually happened twice: a screen of ref butts huddled over a monitor, poring over frame-by-frame replays of a routine, uncontroversial basketball play. Once they let the routine, uncontroversial basketball play stand. Once they said this was not Texas Tech basketball:
This clip is even better. Guy fouls Moretti and they overturn the out of bounds call. ♀️ #gamechanger pic.twitter.com/I4oPCLKIRu
— Karen Gregory (@karen_gregory) April 9, 2019
Michigan fans everywhere exclaimed I KNEW IT to normies around them, descending into paranoid spittle-flecked rants met with either polite incomprehension or, in certain cases, the nearest human saying "blarp" and falling over because they are drunk and/or an infant.
[After THE JUMP: blarp *falls over*]
This is because they were overwhelmed with dread, having been on the pointy end of another one of these worse-than-pointless review sequences last year. Michigan was down 70-69 to Purdue. Charles Matthews drove to the rim; Dakota Mathias swiped at the ball from behind.
After literally seven minutes of review the ball was awarded to the Boilers, game over.
Your author in the aftermath:
This was insane for many reasons.
One: I spent 39:54 watching a great basketball game between two good teams exchanging haymakers, and then I spent the rest of my life watching the back of a ref.
Two: any replay that takes that long surely falls in the realm of the disputed and should not be flipped.
Three: that call would never be made at any point during the first 39:54 because it does not matter if an offensive player who has been stripped of the ball going to the basket has his finger on the ball a nanosecond after the defender. The basketball rule book functionally reads "if a player is stripped going to the basket it's his team's ball unless it hits his leg or foot."
Applying a different standard to a late game possession isn't correcting a call, it's getting it wrong in the name of pedantry.
This is why Michigan fans not even watching the game felt a disturbance in the force when the monitor was activated. We have now reached peak replay: a long delay in the national title game to get a call wrong. Referees helplessly watching a reach-in foul they now cannot call and being forced to make a call they would not make if not forced to go to the monitor.
The solution here is to accept that sometimes the more you look, the less you really know and either eliminate replay for these sorts of things or put a hard cap on the amount of time that refs have to review. It can be 30 seconds. Buffalo Wild Wings can run another commercial about how they don't have any plates and every surface in their restaurant-type edifice is unexplainably sticky.
But since that's not going to happen, someone stick this in the rulebook:
"If a defender hits the ball in an attempt to dispossess the offensive player and the ball goes out of bounds as a result, the offense retains possession unless the ball hits a part of the offensive player's body other than the hand or hands the ball is in when contact is made."
Thus routine, uncontroversial basketball plays can resume being routine and uncontroversial even in the last two minutes.
I had said that on reddit last night and some salty UVA fans got mad at me for pointing out the obvious. If you're going to say it's the defenses ball when the defense pokes the ball out but it is touching the offensive players finger for a fraction of a second longer, then functionally poking the ball out is an automatic turnover for the offense. That's going to happen the vast majority of the time when the offensive player has his whole hand on the ball and the defensive player pokes it out - it is almost necessarily going to roll off the offensive players hand last. Does that really mean it's a turnover? No, because that's insanity. That ball is given to the offense every last time as long as you don't stare at a replay monitor for ten minutes
I post the something similar on umhoops last night. This is insane and defies every common sense. The Basketball has never been played this way.
On the other hand, they never replay the calls (and no calls) on fouls, which are the real problem. I also propose that the ref's pay should be determined by replays on their performance after each game. They get a base, but large proportion of their compensation is based on their performance.
Anyone who has played any high school basketball knows this.
The stereotypical example is when a defensive player slaps at the hand of the offensive player. Ball goes out of bounds. Everyone knows the offensive player hit it last because the defender hit all hand. However, you call it out of bounds off the defensive player because everyone watching knows that for fairness' sake you either give the ball back to the offense or call a foul. A foul is dumb, so you give the ball to the offense.
Yeah, I call it "playground" rules. If the call is uncontroversial and wouldn't even be argued by the most ardent arguer at the playground, it is the offenses ball. ESPECIALLY when this would be the call 100% of the time in the first 38 minutes of the game and no one would bat an eye.
The really sad thing about last night's call is that I don't even think it was indisputable (whereas the Charles Matthews call was a bit more concrete). It was not certain to me that Moretti's finger was last to touch. It probably did go off him but if you're a ref you can easily say that it was indisputable and literally NO ONE would have ever complained.
Now everyone is complaining except UVa fans. That's an insane result of a replay.
^^^. This is it. They have completely biffed the standard for reversals. That is the primary issue. But nobody who can stop it or fix it is speaking up and it is having really bad consequences at all levels.
I mentioned the same thing last night.
It was blurry, you couldn't definitively say it was off the TT guy's pinky last. Not to mention, it was an overhead shot so you don't have the best angle to say if the pinky was touching or not.
The call went against the spirit of the rules of basketball, AND against the spirit of replay's utility (only change something if it's obvious). It is beyond dumb. It'd be easier to accept a ref getting something wrong because they're fallible humans watching a fast sport happen in realtime...
It's especially hilarious because there was one obvious thing that replay could have corrected in this case, but the rules don't allow it.
Just wait until they apply instant replay to the Civil War. We'll see how Virginia fans feel about it then.
The South committed massive recruiting violations from West Point
Confederacy's win at the Battle of Bull Run has been vacated
Which one?
100% agree with this. It's even more frustrating because for 38 minutes that call goes one way and then totally changes in the last 2 minutes. Your wording seems clear and perfectly in line with the intention of the game.
or, once a play is reviewed, it can be reviewed for any and all calls. the goal is to call the game correctly. if a foul call was missed, that would be incorrect and subject to correction.
Reviewing for missed fouls would be awful in practice.
Every close game would have a likely enough chance to end in a 20 minute ref show debacle.
let coaches challenge the calls, twice a game.
and tie ref's compensation to the review after each game.
There are enough stoppages as it is. Adding in the specter that any play in basketball may be reviewed for a challenged foul or missed foul would be miserable.
Brian's whole post is a great example how attempts to make the game more "fair" can make things worse.
I agree in general. However, in a play like this where the play is being reviewed and there is clearly another violation involved that should take precedence it would be most reasonable to enforce the first violation.
Otherwise, here the tripping call is the most egregious officiating error because it violates "perhaps" the most fundamental rule of officiating, "Don't make a call you did not see!" But more troubling is that the official is in perfect position to make the call-so the question becomes, "Why did he make that call?".
April 10th, 2019 at 12:32 AM ^
That would be like watching Wisconsin basketball.
I understand what you are saying but this is a really bad idea. You can't review every play of a game, and you have to have refs in sports to make judgment calls. That is what the refs are for. You cannot delegate fouls calls to an "eye in the sky" and you cannot review every call. It seems like there are two options right now - eliminate instant replay or just concede that it is going to ruin sports and move on.
that is not what i'm saying. i am not saying make every call reviewable. you can have a handful of reasons to review a call. but once you are reviewing a call, it should be reviewable for all potential calls. that doesn't increase the time spent reviewing. so, hypothetically, you can review a determining that a ball was out of bounds, and while looking at the replay for that issue, determine that a foul should have been called.
it's all about balancing time spent on replay with the correctness of calls. i'm arguing that when you already are spending time on replay, the balance shifts such that all calls should be reviewable, even if they weren't in the first instance.
OK, I get what you are saying now. (I still don't agree but thanks for the clarification).
Michigan grad Rich Eisen proposed on his show that college basketball adopt the coaches challenge option. He proposed you get 1 per half and if you are right on the two, then you get a third challenge. This would minimize the use of video but the coaches can use it for anything (dispute that Guy was fouled or tripped, etc.).
Seems like the only way we can marry video review and a fast paced game.
I thought of this, too, but replays would probably be even longer. After looking at whatever caused the replay in the first place, they'd then need to watch all the footage to see whether there was a foul they missed. The example from last night is a relatively simple one, but you can imagine situations that will be much more complicated. Or, how do you even determine how far back to look for fouls?
It's a slippery slope where each review requires re-watching the entire game up until that point looking for a missed call.
The problem is that review has not improved correctness of calls at all. The desire to correct mistakes has made sports worse through replay. Referees should be given more leeway to quickly conference in game to possibly reverse egregious mistakes without replay. At this point we should be focusing on reducing commercial time and improving flow in all sports. Instead we get more ads and stupid over correction in the form of targeting and hook and hold among other things that replay has brought with it.
Shocks me that nobody (local media) remembers it from the MSU game... Teske has it knocked out of his hands, reviewed, overturned.
Gets forgotten because the refs blew the Poole foul a couple minutes later.
Oh I was screaming "Last year Purdue" the entire time but yeah I didn't see as big of a reaction about that one
YES! Thank you. I knew there was another and couldn't remember if it was Montana or what.
30 second cap and replays at regular speed. Maybe allow still images for in/out of bounds and 3 point calls.
You’ll get the egregious missed calls correct and eliminate the epistomological “what really is time/where does a body end?” questions that currently pervade replay.
This has been my proposed solution as well although I would give them one minute, not 30 seconds. And I really like the "regular speed" idea as it would force the call to be REALLY obviously wrong for them to overturn.
I think that would eliminate a ton of this bullshit. You've got a limited amount of time and if it isnt painfully obvious to you it was wrong the call stands.
Now....not discussed so far was the "foul" called when the dude just tripped and fell down. How do we get the officials to stop anticipating foul calls and force them to actually SEE the foul before blowing the whistle?
Yes Mr. Official who incorrectly called Trey Burke for a foul in the 2013 NCAA tourny because you anticipated something that didnt actually happen, yes I AM looking at you.
I don't think it's a time limit thing. I saw that pinkie finger on the ball the FIRST time I saw the replay. I knew when they went to the monitor BEFORE the replay that it was probably off the Texas Tech guy. Not because I'm smart, but because of the Matthews play Brian posted and the Teske vs. MSU play mentioned above.
I've learned that that's how it happens when somebody slaps the ball out of your hand, your hand is usually last to touch it. While Nantz and the boys were babbling about his foot or something, I could already see that ball rolling off of Moretti's(?) little digit.
It has to be a change in the ruling. If that call was allowed last night, I'd be able to spot that and overturn it within 30 seconds because I now know what I'm looking for. Time limit won't change the problem. (won't hurt either, but I think you get my point)
I think they could easily reach the right ruling within the current structure of replay if they would just really enforce the "indisputable visual evidence" threshold. Like on the Teske play, it would be really easy for the refs to say "yeah, it kind of looks like it went off of Teske last but that is simply too close to call and we cannot see every single angle or rotation of the ball." The Matthews play is the same thing, just don't get "microscopic" with the review. That is the biggest issue to me. The "indisputable visual evidence" standard was created for a reason, but they are not enforcing that standard in rule or spirit. They review everything "de novo" and make reversals based on little more than hunches.
I think that they should do what every red blooded anerican would do -sue the bastards. Then appeal the decision so that the game might be decided in three to four years. Would also be good for the economy we could have a whole new class of lawyers
I see we're going to keep having this argument. The issue is not with the standard of indisputable visual evidence. As OP said, it was crystal clear who the ball went off last after 1 or 2 replays. It's simple physics...the ball is very very likely to roll off your finger when somebody pokes it away from you.
The fix is what Brian is suggesting, which is to change the rules to account for that give the refs permission to align their replay reviews with the spirit of the game.
I don't fully agree with the full speed idea - sometimes it's necessary to slow down things because humans have limits. I would, however, not be opposed to the idea of a "limit" to how slow you can slow it down. Maybe half speed at most. If it's still not clear, then stick with the original call and move on.
100% agree with this. Refs get a max of a minute at whatever speed they damn choose. Then the monitor goes off and they have to decide.
then they will need a replay of the replay to see if the monitor shut down too soon.
This is good. Golf actually got this right eventually. They used to slow things down and zoom in and players were getting penalized for things that couldn’t have reasonably seen because the ball oscillated one dimple or something. Thankfully, golf changed the rule. They now say if it has to be slowed down and zoomed in then it’s not a penalty. Similar logic should be applied here.
Replay is a mess. And all levels just keep on adding to it without any clarification on its most basic purposes and principles. Instant replay has become the old crazy guy who does not know he is old and crazy so he just keeps saying incoherent things while you smile-nod politely before getting out of the elevator at the next possible floor. That is instant replay.
WTF is blarp?
That was a great competitive game,
If you watched it on tape and turn off the sound and fast forward thru the blarp.
Why would you turn off the sound? There are only so many chances to hear Raff and he is not going to be around forever. His "Texas Tech with a little man-to-man(!)" was legendary last night.
I don't know--I expect Raftery will be around forever, kind of like Keith Jackson.
Sorry, I've got some late-breaking news for you . . . .
This is my instinct, too: if the defender pokes it and it grazes the o player, the D player still created the momentum. But you also have situations where the ball is going out of bounds and one player or another throws it off of the legs of the opponent--what then? Just need to have a clear rule and then not ruin games with long deliberations.
He writes the entire proposed rule at the end of the post. I don't see why that rule could not work verbatim.
Brian's wording might need a little tweaking. There are plays when the defender knocks it out and the offensive player then makes a reaching motion and clearly touches the ball again (usually with the same hand) after the defender has touched it. It can still be the defender's momentum that knocked it out of bounds.
If it's sufficiently clear, those are called defense's ball by the ref without replay and I don't think anyone has a problem with that. What bothers people (at least me) is that the Mathews or Moretti play always gets called offense's ball live (and stays that way the first 38 minutes), but gets called completely differently with replay.
Right, and--I should have been more explicit--what if it just grazes some other part of the body or clothes?
I think that the refs are actually trying to be MORE consistent, even though fans a) revolt at the long delays and b) instinctively feel that a ball that the defender is the primary force behind should still be the other team's, grazed hand, clothes, fingertips, or not.
I think Brian's wording could take shelter in "and the ball goes out of bounds as a result." If the offensive player reaches for the ball a second time and hits the ball, the ball went out of bounds as a result of that, not the defensive player hitting the ball.
Not on the type of play I'm thinking of. The defender knocks the ball loose and it is clearly going to go out of bounds. Acting on instinct (because if he had time to think, he'd probably let it go out of bounds), the ballhandler grabs at the ball a split second later and grazes it. It continues to bounce out of bounds. This actually happens fairly often.
The situation I describe has always been a clear call -- defense gets the ball, at least if the ref sees what happened. To me the difference is that the ballhandler attempted to regain possession after having the ball stripped from his hand and touched the ball last. What happened last night was not that.
I think the right language would be somewhere along like this unless a player make a deliberate attempt to retrieve the ball after deflection, the ball will be awarded on whoever touches the ball last.
Last night I had just been telling myself, "Self, you know you rag on the NCAA a lot, but give them credit for putting on a fantastic basketball tournament every year."
And then the end of this game happens. Can all the millions be scrambling their brains?
Since that Purdue game, I know it is surprising, but i have given this some thought, too. I think they need to give the refs some room for judgment. There should be something that essentially says "if you see what you thought you saw, stick with the call that you would normally make". i.e. yes, I saw the defensive player swipe the ball out, that always stays with the offense. Brian's specific language works for this play, but what about the next situation that isn't covered. Give the ref an out to make the 'right' call.
Comments