That replay in the Buffalo Colts game was just another loss for replay in a long string of ridiculous replay calls. If they can’t get it right, why bother keeping it? They need to fix the system.
replay that is a kick to the nuts is that it is meant to get things right, but each crew holds a different standard as to what constitutes an overturn.
And the league hasn't helped. The standard used to be conclusive proof. But that's changed over the years to be whatever the opinion is of the guy under the hood. Far too many borderline calls are overturned without proof and far too many are kept with the initial ruling even though it is wrong.
When a replay review is initiated, Senior Vice President of Officiating Alberto Riveron, or a designated senior member of the league’s officiating staff, will examine the play in AMGC in New York.
Two replay field technicians — stationed at each 20-yard line on the sideline — will walk onto the field with hard-wired Instant Replay Tablets.
The nearest technician will give the Referee a headset, so the Referee can communicate with designated senior officiating staff in AMGC. The technician will hold the Instant Replay Tablet, allowing the Referee to review replay videos.
After the review, Alberto Riveron or another designated senior member the officiating staff, will make the final decision on the review and the Referee will announce the decision in the stadium.
If anything they should get rid of NYC handling the replay and let the on the field officials handle it again. Link - ( New Window )
They introduced it recently in soccer and after a couple years everyone hates it, making the same complaints we hear about usage in the NFL.
I say scrap it altogether and use more money to train and pay officials. Sometimes they're going to miss calls, but I think it's better than what we've got now.
Rewatch the play. His ankle was down when he was contacted. The announcers were focused on the knee (and that was close), but his ankle is still down.
Replay is not perfect, but it is still better than no replay system at all. Let's say the refs blow 5 plays a game and the correct call is made twice on review. Thats 2 times more than no replay
Rewatch the play. His ankle was down when he was contacted. The announcers were focused on the knee (and that was close), but his ankle is still down.
Replay is not perfect, but it is still better than no replay system at all. Let's say the refs blow 5 plays a game and the correct call is made twice on review. Thats 2 times more than no replay
They introduced it recently in soccer and after a couple years everyone hates it, making the same complaints we hear about usage in the NFL.
I say scrap it altogether and use more money to train and pay officials. Sometimes they're going to miss calls, but I think it's better than what we've got now.
Wrong. Instant replay works just fine in baseball. They look at replays in a NYC location and have no problem making the right call, even if it means correcting the on-field umps.
Part of the problem in football (which doesn’t seem to happen too much in MLB) is the “not enough to overturn” bullshit.
Ask a ref or an ump in any sport to watch the replay and make the correct call and they’ll get it right 99% of the time. Then ask them to watch the same replay and give their opinion on whether there is enough to overturn the call and you end up with a lot of bad calls.
What’s “enough” is different for everyone. Just make the right call and don’t worry about whether you have to overturn the call on the field.
it seems to me like saying the courts don't always get it right, and sometimes dramatically so, so let's eliminate courts and let the cops judgement be final.
replay should be judged solely on the calls that were overturned, because if the call was not overturned, then replay could be considered to have had no part in the play. So, looking ONLY at plays that are overturned, how many of THOSE plays have turned out to be correct? I don't have any metrics on hand but my sense is that overturned calls have a pretty good batting average. I think most agita is created by calls that were not overturned, so it would be the same result if replay didn't exist.
Rewatch the play. His ankle was down when he was contacted. The announcers were focused on the knee (and that was close), but his ankle is still down.
Replay is not perfect, but it is still better than no replay system at all. Let's say the refs blow 5 plays a game and the correct call is made twice on review. Thats 2 times more than no replay
No it wasn't.
And this is the issue with replay right before us...two people looking at a replay and coming up with a different outcome.
Replay was never meant to decide the play that involves mili-frames. It was designed to reverse the obvious.
As said above, having a central control (like the NHL) is the way to go. But has we have seen, even the NHL system leaves us scratching our head.
Also good points about the courts...we don't eliminate something just because it's not perfect.
The biggest complaint toda is why the play was not AUTOMATICALLY reviewed. In the final 2 minutes, no team should have to call a TO (to get a review) or get to hurry up (and bypass a review)..............
RE: Seems to work pretty well in college football...
replay should be judged solely on the calls that were overturned, because if the call was not overturned, then replay could be considered to have had no part in the play. So, looking ONLY at plays that are overturned, how many of THOSE plays have turned out to be correct? I don't have any metrics on hand but my sense is that overturned calls have a pretty good batting average. I think most agita is created by calls that were not overturned, so it would be the same result if replay didn't exist.
overturned calls should have a 100% correct batting average. they don't, which is the main reason people get upset.
In comment 15116351 markky said:
[quote] In comment 15116298 River Mike said:
Quote:
replay should be judged solely on the calls that were overturned, because if the call was not overturned, then replay could be considered to have had no part in the play. So, looking ONLY at plays that are overturned, how many of THOSE plays have turned out to be correct? I don't have any metrics on hand but my sense is that overturned calls have a pretty good batting average. I think most agita is created by calls that were not overturned, so it would be the same result if replay didn't exist.
overturned calls should have a 100% correct batting average. they don't, which is the main reason people get upset. [
I don't know about 100%, maybe in theory, but not in any human endeavor, but I agree the accuracy should be very high. And I don't have any problem at all with people getting upset with a blown overturn call, but to say that's enough to call for elimination of replay is silly IMHO.
The biggest problem with instant replay is the “indisputable evidence” rule. When it’s clearly obvious a call should be overturned using logic, it can’t be.
There should be 5 or 7 officials sitting in an office in NYC and each get a vote if a call should be overturned. They have 2 minutes to make their call. Majority wins.
field officials hands, they only protect themselves. Booth official, independent of the field officials, needs to make the call.
That was a clear fumble and recovery by Buffalo. They will need to explain why it was not. If they cannot, they need to be fined.
It's at least arguable that Poyer (I think that was his name) touched the receiver with his left hand to the receiver's back while he was down.
I did not see a clear shot that showed he was not contacted with that left hand after the receiver brought his knee off the ground.
Call stands is not the same as we're sure we got the call right. I agreed with the ruling of stands.
But there are many, many instances where replay has overturned a clear miscall on the field. Happens almost every game. The benefits of replay far outweigh the occasional headscratcher where the fans have a different opinion of what they saw (and the fans are more often incorrect anyway). If replay went away tomorrow people would have far more hissy fits than they do now, and they'd be right.
Anyone who watched Jake Reed boot the Giants out of the playoffs, I think that was 1997...yeah, no Giants fan who saw that should advocate the abolition of replay.
Rewatch the play. His ankle was down when he was contacted. The announcers were focused on the knee (and that was close), but his ankle is still down.
Replay is not perfect, but it is still better than no replay system at all. Let's say the refs blow 5 plays a game and the correct call is made twice on review. Thats 2 times more than no replay
That's nice to hear but an ankle being down doesn't mean shit in the NFL. Here's the actual rule:
Quote:
If, after contact by an opponent, any part of a runner’s leg above the ankle or any part of his arm above the wrist touches the ground, the runner is down.
Rewatch the play. His ankle was down when he was contacted. The announcers were focused on the knee (and that was close), but his ankle is still down.
Replay is not perfect, but it is still better than no replay system at all. Let's say the refs blow 5 plays a game and the correct call is made twice on review. Thats 2 times more than no replay
No it wasn't.
And this is the issue with replay right before us...two people looking at a replay and coming up with a different outcome.
Replay was never meant to decide the play that involves mili-frames. It was designed to reverse the obvious.
First, "two people looking at a replay and coming up with a different outcome" is NOT the issue with replay "right before us".
The only reason their opinions on that specific replay differed is that one poster was unaware of the rule and thought that an ankle touching the turf was considered down by contact. NFL refs know the rules, so they should be able to get the call right.
I do agree with your assessment that the NFL replay system was "designed to reverse the obvious" but that's why the system doesn't work as well as it should.
As I mentioned in my previous post... ask a group of people watching the game on TV (especially if they were NFL officials) to call a play after watching the replay and they'll almost always get the call right. But when you require them to make a non-quantifiable judgment on whether there is "irrefutable evidence" and "enough" to overturn the call on the field, that's when the replay system fails.
How exactly does one measure "enough" and "irrefutable evidence"?
Why not just watch the replay and correct ALL bad calls?
What makes the initial call so damn sacred that it can only be overturned based on the un-measurable, subjective opinion known as "irrefutable evidence"?
This is the reason why the retired refs on NFL broadcasts are made to look so foolish when they offer their opinions on a replay. The broadcast refs are calling the play as they see it and they're almost always getting it right. Meanwhile the game refs watch the replay and call it whatever way they want and use the "not enough to overturn" excuse as their fallback.
It should be simple. Watch the replay and get the call right. They're stopping play anyway, so I don't care if they have to slow it down and watch it frame by frame to make the right call.
Real time while his boss looks at the play is a terrible optic. Riveron should just get a buzz, tune in to the replay and make his judgement based on no prior or outside knowledge. If at the end of replay he cant tell and wants to ask what the initial call was, Id be fine with that.
I dont like the idea of scrapping replay altogether. I DO think replays of personal fouls should be added though. Specifically "blows to the QB's head" so the ref can see if a hand just grazed it.
And the league hasn't helped. The standard used to be conclusive proof. But that's changed over the years to be whatever the opinion is of the guy under the hood. Far too many borderline calls are overturned without proof and far too many are kept with the initial ruling even though it is wrong.
No reason for them to botch any replays, and it happens on a weekly basis
That was a clear fumble and recovery by Buffalo. They will need to explain why it was not. If they cannot, they need to be fined.
NFL has centralized replay. Alberto Riveron makes the final call.
Two replay field technicians — stationed at each 20-yard line on the sideline — will walk onto the field with hard-wired Instant Replay Tablets.
The nearest technician will give the Referee a headset, so the Referee can communicate with designated senior officiating staff in AMGC. The technician will hold the Instant Replay Tablet, allowing the Referee to review replay videos.
After the review, Alberto Riveron or another designated senior member the officiating staff, will make the final decision on the review and the Referee will announce the decision in the stadium.
If anything they should get rid of NYC handling the replay and let the on the field officials handle it again.
Link - ( New Window )
I've been calling for that for years.
It's way too logical!!
Quote:
Replay official in NYC, adopt the NHL system.
NFL has centralized replay. Alberto Riveron makes the final call.
I didn't know that. Why then do they have the ref look at the play too? Seems counterproductive. Just have the word come from NY
I say scrap it altogether and use more money to train and pay officials. Sometimes they're going to miss calls, but I think it's better than what we've got now.
Replay is not perfect, but it is still better than no replay system at all. Let's say the refs blow 5 plays a game and the correct call is made twice on review. Thats 2 times more than no replay
Quote:
In comment 15116127 RodneyHamp said:
Quote:
Replay official in NYC, adopt the NHL system.
NFL has centralized replay. Alberto Riveron makes the final call.
I didn't know that. Why then do they have the ref look at the play too? Seems counterproductive. Just have the word come from NY
Ref gives his input
Replay is not perfect, but it is still better than no replay system at all. Let's say the refs blow 5 plays a game and the correct call is made twice on review. Thats 2 times more than no replay
No it wasn't.
That replay was close enough that they felt that the original call could not be overturned.
I didn’t think it was an absolute that reasonable doubt should reverse the call
I say scrap it altogether and use more money to train and pay officials. Sometimes they're going to miss calls, but I think it's better than what we've got now.
Wrong. Instant replay works just fine in baseball. They look at replays in a NYC location and have no problem making the right call, even if it means correcting the on-field umps.
Part of the problem in football (which doesn’t seem to happen too much in MLB) is the “not enough to overturn” bullshit.
Ask a ref or an ump in any sport to watch the replay and make the correct call and they’ll get it right 99% of the time. Then ask them to watch the same replay and give their opinion on whether there is enough to overturn the call and you end up with a lot of bad calls.
What’s “enough” is different for everyone. Just make the right call and don’t worry about whether you have to overturn the call on the field.
Quote:
Rewatch the play. His ankle was down when he was contacted. The announcers were focused on the knee (and that was close), but his ankle is still down.
Replay is not perfect, but it is still better than no replay system at all. Let's say the refs blow 5 plays a game and the correct call is made twice on review. Thats 2 times more than no replay
No it wasn't.
And this is the issue with replay right before us...two people looking at a replay and coming up with a different outcome.
Replay was never meant to decide the play that involves mili-frames. It was designed to reverse the obvious.
As said above, having a central control (like the NHL) is the way to go. But has we have seen, even the NHL system leaves us scratching our head.
Also good points about the courts...we don't eliminate something just because it's not perfect.
The biggest complaint toda is why the play was not AUTOMATICALLY reviewed. In the final 2 minutes, no team should have to call a TO (to get a review) or get to hurry up (and bypass a review)..............
This. They very rarely seem to get it wrong.
overturned calls should have a 100% correct batting average. they don't, which is the main reason people get upset.
[quote] In comment 15116298 River Mike said:
Quote:
replay should be judged solely on the calls that were overturned, because if the call was not overturned, then replay could be considered to have had no part in the play. So, looking ONLY at plays that are overturned, how many of THOSE plays have turned out to be correct? I don't have any metrics on hand but my sense is that overturned calls have a pretty good batting average. I think most agita is created by calls that were not overturned, so it would be the same result if replay didn't exist.
overturned calls should have a 100% correct batting average. they don't, which is the main reason people get upset. [
I don't know about 100%, maybe in theory, but not in any human endeavor, but I agree the accuracy should be very high. And I don't have any problem at all with people getting upset with a blown overturn call, but to say that's enough to call for elimination of replay is silly IMHO.
There should be 5 or 7 officials sitting in an office in NYC and each get a vote if a call should be overturned. They have 2 minutes to make their call. Majority wins.
That was a clear fumble and recovery by Buffalo. They will need to explain why it was not. If they cannot, they need to be fined.
It's at least arguable that Poyer (I think that was his name) touched the receiver with his left hand to the receiver's back while he was down.
I did not see a clear shot that showed he was not contacted with that left hand after the receiver brought his knee off the ground.
Call stands is not the same as we're sure we got the call right. I agreed with the ruling of stands.
But there are many, many instances where replay has overturned a clear miscall on the field. Happens almost every game. The benefits of replay far outweigh the occasional headscratcher where the fans have a different opinion of what they saw (and the fans are more often incorrect anyway). If replay went away tomorrow people would have far more hissy fits than they do now, and they'd be right.
Anyone who watched Jake Reed boot the Giants out of the playoffs, I think that was 1997...yeah, no Giants fan who saw that should advocate the abolition of replay.
Replay is not perfect, but it is still better than no replay system at all. Let's say the refs blow 5 plays a game and the correct call is made twice on review. Thats 2 times more than no replay
That's nice to hear but an ankle being down doesn't mean shit in the NFL. Here's the actual rule:
NFL Rules - Down By Contact - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 15116147 TrueBlue56 said:
Quote:
Rewatch the play. His ankle was down when he was contacted. The announcers were focused on the knee (and that was close), but his ankle is still down.
Replay is not perfect, but it is still better than no replay system at all. Let's say the refs blow 5 plays a game and the correct call is made twice on review. Thats 2 times more than no replay
No it wasn't.
And this is the issue with replay right before us...two people looking at a replay and coming up with a different outcome.
Replay was never meant to decide the play that involves mili-frames. It was designed to reverse the obvious.
First, "two people looking at a replay and coming up with a different outcome" is NOT the issue with replay "right before us".
The only reason their opinions on that specific replay differed is that one poster was unaware of the rule and thought that an ankle touching the turf was considered down by contact. NFL refs know the rules, so they should be able to get the call right.
I do agree with your assessment that the NFL replay system was "designed to reverse the obvious" but that's why the system doesn't work as well as it should.
As I mentioned in my previous post... ask a group of people watching the game on TV (especially if they were NFL officials) to call a play after watching the replay and they'll almost always get the call right. But when you require them to make a non-quantifiable judgment on whether there is "irrefutable evidence" and "enough" to overturn the call on the field, that's when the replay system fails.
How exactly does one measure "enough" and "irrefutable evidence"?
Why not just watch the replay and correct ALL bad calls?
What makes the initial call so damn sacred that it can only be overturned based on the un-measurable, subjective opinion known as "irrefutable evidence"?
This is the reason why the retired refs on NFL broadcasts are made to look so foolish when they offer their opinions on a replay. The broadcast refs are calling the play as they see it and they're almost always getting it right. Meanwhile the game refs watch the replay and call it whatever way they want and use the "not enough to overturn" excuse as their fallback.
It should be simple. Watch the replay and get the call right. They're stopping play anyway, so I don't care if they have to slow it down and watch it frame by frame to make the right call.
Just get the call right.
Just look at the Tampa game - Brady TD pass, which look liked a TD live. Replay clearly showed it wasn't. There are a lot of plays like that.
He keeps his job because the NFL is fine with that.
Which makes improving the system a bigger problem than just replacing the person.
Then in the last minute of the game, on a call that's a game-decider, Al does it his way.
That's what gets people's attention and it was a widespread reaction in the main media.
cbs sports - ( New Window )
I dont like the idea of scrapping replay altogether. I DO think replays of personal fouls should be added though. Specifically "blows to the QB's head" so the ref can see if a hand just grazed it.