Instant Replay...?

[ghst187]

Just asking for everyone's opinion on its utility...

My gripes against it:
1) most importantly: THEY STILL MISS AS MANY CALLS OR OFTEN REVERSE GOOD CALLS. Wasn't the point so that there weren't any missed calls?
2) Totally disruptive to the game.
3) Flat out annoying, adds more commercial breaks...
4) Many refs are letting plays go and making lame field calls knowing a play will be reviewed, makes them more hesitant
5) What about PI calls? PI calls are often the most game-changing calls made during a game. Why not review them, I HATE it when PI is called and it shouldn't have been. Maybe I like defense.

Here's how I see it:
It seems that instant replay has become somewhat of a cop out for a lot of refs or instances. Refs are more reluctant to try to make a call and will subsequently let a play go knowing that a review is coming. Furthermore, two things seem to happen a LOT when they do review a play: 1) they don't reverse a bad call because of "inconclusive" evidence or 2) they overturn a good call on the field. The bottomline is that it seems even with replay, they still get the call wrong and probably just as often as without it.
I watched two games today and both games had calls that the review booth blew worse than the field crew. In the midget's game, Manning gets hit as he throws, the ball lands two yards behind where Eli threw it (hence a backwards pass and thus, a fumble) the Vikings recover. The midgets ask for a review to see if Manning was throwing the ball instead of it being a fumble from his hand. Review overturns the fumble recovery and calls it an incomplete pass even though the ball went backwards.
Hate to say it as I'm happy as hech that the foreskins lost, but I would definitely say that Alstott didn't get that ball across the goaline on the two-point conversion. The booth reviews it and says its inconclusive.
Also, instant replay totally screws up the flow of a game. It ruins momentum and energy (not to mention adds tons of commercial breaks that I must endure). A crowd will get into the ball game and in the waning moments there must be a review of every play. Completely disrupts the energy.

I realize that instant replay is somewhat of a necessary evil. No one wants to lose a game on a bad call if it can be helped. However, I don't think the way its being run is doing much good, more harm than good IMO.
How do we fix it?
It needs to be quicker results, the guys in the booth should have a verdict by the time the ref can run over to the sidelines.
Ease up on reviewing every play under two minutes.
Stop letting the refs defer to instant replay, they should take back the game

 

[Hostile]

I have never liked it and doubt I ever will like it. There are too many potential glitches.

 

[Reality]

I like instant reply and believe it should be used. My biggest complaint is the situational limits imposed on it. I agree with Troy Aikman that if they are going to use it, use it for everything, not just certain calls. Pass interference for example and in all questional fumble situations. I absolutely cannot stand the inability to use instant reply because an official blew his whistle prematurely.

Just say no to premature whistlelation!

 

[Billy Bullocks]

I've had crazy technology my entire life. Anyone under 25 has pretty much grown up with it. I love sports for the human element. I don't like replay. Does it benefit you at times, yes, but it screws you just as much. Let the refs call it how they see it. Its the way it was meant to be played.

 

[playit12]

Just asking for everyone's opinion on its utility...

My gripes against it:
1) most importantly: THEY STILL MISS AS MANY CALLS OR OFTEN REVERSE GOOD CALLS. Wasn't the point so that there weren't any missed calls?
2) Totally disruptive to the game.
3) Flat out annoying, adds more commercial breaks...
4) Many refs are letting plays go and making lame field calls knowing a play will be reviewed, makes them more hesitant
5) What about PI calls? PI calls are often the most game-changing calls made during a game. Why not review them, I HATE it when PI is called and it shouldn't have been. Maybe I like defense.

Here's how I see it:
It seems that instant replay has become somewhat of a cop out for a lot of refs or instances. Refs are more reluctant to try to make a call and will subsequently let a play go knowing that a review is coming. Furthermore, two things seem to happen a LOT when they do review a play: 1) they don't reverse a bad call because of "inconclusive" evidence or 2) they overturn a good call on the field. The bottomline is that it seems even with replay, they still get the call wrong and probably just as often as without it.
I watched two games today and both games had calls that the review booth blew worse than the field crew. In the midget's game, Manning gets hit as he throws, the ball lands two yards behind where Eli threw it (hence a backwards pass and thus, a fumble) the Vikings recover. The midgets ask for a review to see if Manning was throwing the ball instead of it being a fumble from his hand. Review overturns the fumble recovery and calls it an incomplete pass even though the ball went backwards.
Hate to say it as I'm happy as hech that the foreskins lost, but I would definitely say that Alstott didn't get that ball across the goaline on the two-point conversion. The booth reviews it and says its inconclusive.
Also, instant replay totally screws up the flow of a game. It ruins momentum and energy (not to mention adds tons of commercial breaks that I must endure). A crowd will get into the ball game and in the waning moments there must be a review of every play. Completely disrupts the energy.

I realize that instant replay is somewhat of a necessary evil. No one wants to lose a game on a bad call if it can be helped. However, I don't think the way its being run is doing much good, more harm than good IMO.
How do we fix it?
It needs to be quicker results, the guys in the booth should have a verdict by the time the ref can run over to the sidelines.
Ease up on reviewing every play under two minutes.
Stop letting the refs defer to instant replay, they should take back the game

Well I guess I get to be the defender of the Instant Reply...

First let me point this out to the nostalgics out there. 20 years ago refs missed just as many calls. They probably missed even more in fact. We just know ore about them now because of many more camera angles, quicker reply, and many more eyes behind the TV production looking for missed calls and feeding them to the broadcasting booth. These guys are good. There is a reason they always have the holding offender on camera by the time the Ref anouces the violator.

So what that leaves us is the feeling that the refs have gotten worse or that there are more bad calls today. I certainly don't believe that is the case.

So what to do? The outcry from the better informed public at the sheer number of missed calls led us to Instant Replay. We wanted really egregious calls rectified. The point was never to eliminate error from the game! The point was to pick the worst of the bad calls (Guy catches the ball with both feet out of bounds) and try not to penealize the team that was hurt by them. It was also to leave the viewing public the belief that the best team always won, and the Refs did not decide the victor through penalties. In that regard it seems to have worked. We might occasionally complain, but at the end of the day we mostly feel like the team that won deserved to win.

Having said that let me address the two calls you mentioned.

Here is what happened in my eyes... Eli's arm started a foward motion before the pass was knocked by the defender as it was being let go. Because his arm was going foward the rulling was that it was a pass. Because it was touched by the defender it was a "batted ball" and thus not a live ball. It's possible the ball was not tipped, just as it's possible it did not land substantially far behind the point of throwing. That part at least was a very close call. We shouldn't complain about very close calls going the wrong way. Overall I think they made a good decision. I didn't see anything in the replays to suggest it was a really bad decision.

On the second play...

Alscott takes the ball and continues his foward motion eventually turning over on his back on top of a defender as he pushest towards the endzone. From nearly all angles it appears his back is the first to strike the ground (from one very poor angle it looks like his arm might have touched). By the time his back touches the ground the tip of the ball has broken the plane of the goal line. There was a ref right on the goal line watching and making that call. This was the rulling made on the field. Now... one angle that was shown seemed to show that his elbow touched the ground. However this was the worst angle available as it only showed Mike through the mess that was the center of the line. This one really poor shot is not, in my mind, conclusive enough to discount the ref on the scene that made the original call. Perhaps if it had been a better shot they had.. maybe... but I would stand with the original call.

Refs are time limited to how long they can spend looking at a play. It is the same time alloted for a time out and often a teams looses a time out in the process, so that in my mind is a wash. If the call was overturned then I think it was worth the 90 seconds to get the play right. Again this is 90 seconds. If the show goes to commercial break and you have more than 2 commercials then you know that the break was also timed with a regular TV time out. That happens in games where other breaks aren't easily available. (Low scoring games).

I don't think Refs are letting more plays go, but that is a judgement call.

I don't agree that all calls should be reviewable. The idea is that judgement calls will not be reviewable. This actually helps the flow of the games tremendously. It means only plays that are 100% factual in nature (Did the ball cross a line, did the QB's hand start to go foward, did a ball fumble before the knee touched) are challengable, while calls that are contextual are not. I've seen numerous times where cameras flat out lie on contextual calls. An defensive linemen loses his footing while being defended and it looks like a hold for instance. These are calls best left to the refs who are 4 feet away and not to the telephoto lens that only looks at 2 seconds in slow mo.

I think the system works. I actually liked the system before the current 2 minutes booth reviews however. I enjoyed the additional strategy involved with saving your challenge till the most important of moments.

A lot of coaches complain about Instant Review (Billick and Gibbs) but those same coaches would be complaining even more if it wasn't there and a hugely blown call was all over the jumbotron.

 

[Qwickdraw]

I like instant reply and believe it should be used. My biggest complaint is the situational limits imposed on it. I agree with Troy Aikman that if they are going to use it, use it for everything, not just certain calls. Pass interference for example and in all questional fumble situations. I absolutely cannot stand the inability to use instant reply because an official blew his whistle prematurely.

Just say no to premature whistlelation!

Agree 100%.

I love replay and think it helps much more often than it hurts.