i hate replay

[Cusefan0307]

When I play at the YMCA that type of play is always out on the defender. I'm going to make it known going forward it is off the offensive player!

 

[samspann1]

When I play at the YMCA that type of play is always out on the defender. I'm going to make it known going forward it is off the offensive player!

the defender can also grab the offensive player too, apparently.

 

[AZOrange]

The replay that decided the game felt so wrong to me. The ball flew out of bounds in the direction the Virginia player swiped it. The refs then stopped the game for 5 minutes to see if it flicked the edge of a pinkey as it was flying out of bounds in a direction the Texas Tech player couldn't have possibly sent it.

That's not what we want instant replay for is it? Just feels like an arbitrary and incorrect use for it.

I totally agree with that. And I am no physics teacher but I would bet nearly all out of bounds sequences generally touch the team that the ball is awarded to. Nearly all steals would fall in this category. nearly all rebounds tipped Out of bounds. And if you’re going to look at bat on the replay why not look 10 seconds prior when the Virginia player absolute mugged him with the ball. Intent has to matter here

 

[ForCuseSake]

Overturning the Moretti possession call was tough.

To me the worst call, by far, was Guy tripping over his teammate and Moretti getting called for a foul. There is a ref four feet away on the same sideline with an unobstructed view. Really badly missed call.

Kyle Guy is one of those greasy players who works officials. Replays of the overturned possession call show him pointing toward the sideline as if to request a video review immediately after the whistle was blown.

It was still a great game and doesn't take anything away from UVA's win. I prefer the human element in sports; no amount of video replay is going to eliminate an incorrect decision by a human being blowing the whistle.

 

[CusefanATL]

The replay that decided the game felt so wrong to me. The ball flew out of bounds in the direction the Virginia player swiped it. The refs then stopped the game for 5 minutes to see if it flicked the edge of a pinkey as it was flying out of bounds in a direction the Texas Tech player couldn't have possibly sent it.

That's not what we want instant replay for is it? Just feels like an arbitrary and incorrect use for it.

yeah i totally agree.

i dont knwo if this makes sense - but i dont care who physically touched the ball last in a specific play like this. i only care who altered the ball last and i feel like that is the spirit of the rule or at least it should be.

to me that clearly *should have* been TT ball. now if he bounced the ball off of him, its a diff story. but science says that hunter caused the ball to the left. and it went oob to the left in the exact momemtum and direction that hunter caused.

i bet if we did instant replay AT LEAST 25-30% of oob calls would actually be off the opposite person on a who had their pinky on it last replay.

 

[AZOrange]

Overturning the Moretti possession call was tough.

To me the worst call, by far, was Guy tripping over his teammate and Moretti getting called for a foul. There is a ref four feet away on the same sideline with an unobstructed view. Really badly missed call.

Kyle Guy is one of those greasy players who works officials. Replays of the overturned possession call show him pointing toward the sideline as if to request a video review immediately after the whistle was blown.

It was still a great game and doesn't take anything away from UVA's win. I prefer the human element in sports; no amount of video replay is going to eliminate an incorrect decision by a human being blowing the whistle.

I liked the uva grabbing his head when he and the tech player crashed to the floor going for a rebound and the replay showed his head didn’t come close

 

[samspann1]

I liked the uva grabbing his head when he and the tech player crashed to the floor going for a rebound and the replay showed his head didn’t come close

The replay clearly showed that he didn't hit his head on the floor, yet a number of the people in the GDT insisted that he did.

 

[ROCuse]

Guy is sooo smarmy.

 

[OrangeAl]

I appreciate the chance to get things right with video review, but last night I stayed up as late as possible to watch the game, even into overtime. But, when they spent minutes after minutes scrutinizing that out of bounds call I just went to bed. I just figured I'd find out about it in the morning.

 

[upperdeck]

i would be happy if they gave teams 2-3 replays for the game and use them as you see fit, allow more stuff to be reviewed if they wanted.. same for fball, you get it right you get it back to use again. lets fix the obvious stuff not the stuff that requires super slow mo

 

[PhatOrange]

replay sucks

 

[Tom K.]

I wouldn't be opposed to a complete removal of replay in terms of reviewing calls. Get rid of it entirely and live with the refs whistle. However, the secondary requirement is removal of in-stadium replay or TV broadcast replay as well for spectators.

Replay still fine for highlight plays and posterizations.

 

[Cusefan95]

so where did you come up with the 2 minutes? why not 4 minutes, or 1 minute? the last two minutes is the only part of the game important enough to warrant replay? we can't review a possession call with 2:02 left but we can with 1:58 left? my point is that we either want replay or we don't, putting some arbitrary time limit on it is offensive to the college fan (which guess what the numbers are bad). this idea that only the last two minutes matter is asinine.

It’s still a stupid argument. Yes - it’s going to be arbitrary. If you want, I can say “the perfect is the enemy of the good” repeatedly...although I’m not sure what value there is since you clearly don’t get it. Plus it could be “fixed” with coaches challenges - but replay would still be awful.

Here’s a viable, reasonable, sane argument against replay - if you aren’t using it to evaluate the entire play, it’s worse than not having replay. And since we limit what can be reviewed - use of it is a downgrade. The UVA double dribble, there was an uncalled foul which may have contributed to the DD. If we have replay, everyone sees the foul, the double dribble which is reviewable (in a future ESPN talking heads wanted) gets called - and now the controversy is around an uncalled foul instead. It’s an equally unsatisfying ending at best.

It also destroys the game flow - at the most high leverage point in a game, instant replay is effectively giving teams additional timeouts. That’d be largely irrelevant if you get your wish of instant replay at all parts of the now-6 hour game...but in the compromise position taken to keep game length resonable, it’s an issue.

I’m not a fan of instant replay, but we could give coaches challenges to get around your issue - but any fix to your concern can’t address that judgement calls aren’t reviewable (and it’s a huge can of worms to make them reviewable).

 

[Cusefan95]

I wouldn't be opposed to a complete removal of replay in terms of reviewing calls. Get rid of it entirely and live with the refs whistle. However, the secondary requirement is removal of in-stadium replay or TV broadcast replay as well for spectators.

Replay still fine for highlight plays and posterizations.

I think this is an area where technology has been a major detriment. Virtually every game has close calls, and fans now tend to fixate on those to a much greater degree than in say, 1979. Some of that is also due to a cultural shift toward “victim” mentality...but culture and technology have absolutely made sports less enjoyable.

 

[Delmar]

I am against replay in all sports for all purposes. (Well, maybe it's okay in tennis because the turn around is really fast). The flow gets completely interrupted. Games go on forever. Refs become hesitant because they know they will get reviewed anyway.

 

[FRANKIEFAN]

I think this is an area where technology has been a major detriment. Virtually every game has close calls, and fans now tend to fixate on those to a much greater degree than in say, 1979. Some of that is also due to a cultural shift toward “victim” mentality...but culture and technology have absolutely made sports less enjoyable.

Do you have any idea how awful pass interference being reviewable will be.

QBs are going to intentionally throw deep balls short now so their recievers stop in the DBs path while they are running at full momentum and pick up an easy 15 yards. Why try and complete a throw anymore when you can underthrow it 1 on 1 coverage and pick up a flag well over 50% of the time.

Great post BTW.

 

[Cusefan95]

Do you have any idea how awful pass interference being reviewable will be.

QBs are going to intentionally throw deep balls short now so their recievers stop in the DBs path while they are running at full momentum and pick up an easy 15 yards. Why try and complete a throw anymore when you can underthrow it 1 on 1 coverage and pick up a flag well over 50% of the time.

Great post BTW.

Pass interference is reviewable in the CFL. I listen to a podcast The Waggle which reviews the previous weeks games and previews the upcoming week; at least every other week there was a long conversation about a controversial pass interference call that was reviewed.

I think it’ll be a train wreck in the NFL.

 

[20Plus]

That is incorrect. When Guy asked for the timeout the ball had not left the hands of the rebounder. Video confirmed it but the announcers didn’t even talk about it so most fans missed it. Cuseinseattle and I didn’t.

It is correct there was no player possession or team at that time possession

 

[20Plus]

It is correct there was no player possession or team at that time possession

There’s also a difference from when the player request it and when the ref sees it and grants it! If the player requests it but it’s not seen right then it doesn’t work backwards that way.When the time out was acknowledged by the signal there was no possession

 

[rrlbees]

There’s also a difference from when the player request it and when the ref sees it and grants it! If the player requests it but it’s not seen right then it doesn’t work backwards that way.When the time out was acknowledged by the signal there was no possession

He was a matter of feet from the ref signaling and calling for timeout, while the rebounder still had the ball. The ref missed it. Search YouTube for the replay of that play.

 

[orangehomer]

It’s still a stupid argument. Yes - it’s going to be arbitrary. If you want, I can say “the perfect is the enemy of the good” repeatedly...although I’m not sure what value there is since you clearly don’t get it. Plus it could be “fixed” with coaches challenges - but replay would still be awful.

Here’s a viable, reasonable, sane argument against replay - if you aren’t using it to evaluate the entire play, it’s worse than not having replay. And since we limit what can be reviewed - use of it is a downgrade. The UVA double dribble, there was an uncalled foul which may have contributed to the DD. If we have replay, everyone sees the foul, the double dribble which is reviewable (in a future ESPN talking heads wanted) gets called - and now the controversy is around an uncalled foul instead. It’s an equally unsatisfying ending at best.

It also destroys the game flow - at the most high leverage point in a game, instant replay is effectively giving teams additional timeouts. That’d be largely irrelevant if you get your wish of instant replay at all parts of the now-6 hour game...but in the compromise position taken to keep game length resonable, it’s an issue.

I’m not a fan of instant replay, but we could give coaches challenges to get around your issue - but any fix to your concern can’t address that judgement calls aren’t reviewable (and it’s a huge can of worms to make them reviewable).

the phrase is "don't let perfect be the enemy of good" not "the perfect is the enemy of the good". and you are completely missing my point. which is fine.

 

[pfister1]

Should have reviewed it.

How could they review it? Isn't the rule, a TO is granted when it is recognized by the officials, not necessarily when it is called by the player. Otherwise don't you have to go back and look at all 5 players on the court and the coach to see if anyone is potentially calling a TO?

 

[pfister1]

It also destroys the game flow - at the most high leverage point in a game, instant replay is effectively giving teams additional timeouts. That’d be largely irrelevant if you get your wish of instant replay at all parts of the now-6 hour game...but in the compromise position taken to keep game length resonable, it’s an issue.

I'm not a fan of instant replay and would be ok if it were done away, but does it really destroy game flow? What I really mean is...Yes it interrupts game flow, but isn't game flow already destroyed by the massive number of forced and lengthy timeouts for commercial breaks?

 

[MSOrange]

How could they review it? Isn't the rule, a TO is granted when it is recognized by the officials, not necessarily when it is called by the player. Otherwise don't you have to go back and look at all 5 players on the court and the coach to see if anyone is potentially calling a TO?

Exactly how I feel. Heck we should have had about 2 more seconds back in 1987. Refs are human, believe it or not, and they are trying their best.

 

[Eric15]

I’m not a fan of instant replay, but we could give coaches challenges to get around your issue

I like that idea. Make it very similar to football. Each coach gets X number of challenges per game, you lose a timeout if the call doesn't get overturned, and critical plays in the last 2 minutes are reviewed in the booth.