NCAA Instant Replay Discussion

[Best Buckeye]

Instant replay is not turning over the bad calls, clearly one already tonight. If it cannot turn over the clearly bad calls then what is the real use of the system?

I would have to say that it does correct quite a few bad calls so in that vein it works great

 

[OSU_Buckguy]

Instant replay is not turning over the bad calls, clearly one already tonight. If it cannot turn over the clearly bad calls then what is the real use of the system?

is tonight's game the only one you've watched this season?

seatbelts don't save everyone's life. therefore, we should scrap seatbelts altogether.

 

[methomps]

How so? The only way the replay system can possibly be a detriment is if a correct call is overturned, which, if it had ever happened, we'd definitely know. It'd be all over ESPN. So the only plausible result of replay is either neutral with no effect on the game, or a benefit with an incorrect call being overturned.

I've got no doubt that the system could stand to be tweaked. But with almost zero chance of overturning a correct call, replay can only be a plus.

There have been a couple times where replay has overturned correct calls. There are ways it can hurt: affecting the way refs call plays, killing momentum, and inconsistently correcting calls for one team while failing to do so for the other.

 

[HailToMichigan]

There have been a couple times where replay has overturned correct calls. There are ways it can hurt: affecting the way refs call plays, killing momentum, and inconsistently correcting calls for one team while failing to do so for the other.

I can't ever remember seeing replay overturn a correct call. Won't say it's never happened - obviously I haven't seen every football game played - but wouldn't we hear about it in both eardrums if the call on the field was obviously right but overturned by replay? Especially if it was a play of importance to a game?

I don't care if replay "kills momentum", momentum is all in the mind anyway. It can also kill momentum to take time and measure for the first down, but I don't think anyone wants to stop them doing that. I'd rather see them get the call right than worry that one team has momentum and we'd hate to see that stopped. And replay might be a momentum killer, but so is an incompletion call on 4th down - especially if the call is wrong. So it evens out. Plus, the refs can much more easily call a game inconsistently in favor of one team than the replay can, because the refs are affected by the heat of the moment. Replay is not. I would say that replay, on balance, evens out more inconsistencies than it creates, so again, it evens out in the end.

 

[sandgk]

is tonight's game the only one you've watched this season?

seatbelts don't save everyone's life. therefore, we should scrap seatbelts altogether.

Of course it isn't the only game I have watched this season, nor the only one since this thing came into existence.

But, tell me honestly, where you hoping replay would make correct calls stand up - or instead provide a good mechanism for overturning bad calls.

For me it was much more the latter - and the present system is failing that test.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

The system simply should ensure the right call is made, whether it be by the officials on the field or up in the replay booth.

The on-field officials have a tough enough job, and they will miss calls on rare occasion (for the vast majority of times, they get calls right). There is no excuse for a replay official to not overturn an obviously missed call, or conversely, to overturn a clearly correct call. If a replay official should do either, then he needs to be held accountable, whether by fines or outright dismissal from replay booth duties.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

is tonight's game the only one you've watched this season?

seatbelts don't save everyone's life. therefore, we should scrap seatbelts altogether.

I have 0 faith in the replay system. Every time there is a call like the one tonight in the VT game, I completely expect the replay to get it wrong.....and it usually comes through for me.

In your situation, it seems to me like the seatbelts are saving 5 peoples lives and everybody else is dying.

 

[jwinslow]

The system is not rooted in common sense.

For one, if a play is truly questionable - and the game can afford a brief break (ie not late 4th qtr) - take 5 seconds to rewatch the replay once more. How many dozens have time have we all watched an obvious replay which took minutes to confirm the obvious? Or a clearly controversial call which we had time to watch on replay and scream at the refs to stop the clock, only for them to not do so.

A 5-10 second pause for a couple of replays is all that's needed to determine whether to take a deeper look. If they can't seem to do this swiftly enough, have them watch the ESPN feed.

Two, there have been way too many calls overturned where the evidence was not remotely conclusive... imo.

Three, they still seem to struggle with the fundamentals, like not blowing a fumble dead.

 

[methomps]

May I also remind everyone of OU/UO where the replay crew couldn't even be bothered to notice that Oklahoma recovered teh f'ing ball.

 

[Zurp]

May I also remind everyone of OU/UO where the replay crew couldn't even be bothered to notice that Oklahoma recovered teh f'ing ball.

I thought that was something that couldn't be reviewed?

Regardless of the specifics of that particular case, I think my major beef with instant replay is that too much isn't reviewable. The big deal from this year is the game between UConn adn someone last week. Crap - I can't remember who it was. But the punt returner raised his arm, caught the ball, and took advantage of the fact that the punt coverage team thought he was calling a fair catch. He scored a touchdown, and the final score was within 7 points. Apparently, it isn't reviewable.

Another problem I have is the coach's challenge. Supposedly, EVERY play is reviewed. Why, then, do the coaches get a challenge? If it's because the other team realizes there might be a challenge, so they try to snap before the booth can challenge, maybe the coach can stop the play, first. But it seems as if too many times the booth won't challenge because they think the coach should use a challenge.

 

[HailToMichigan]

I thought that was something that couldn't be reviewed?

Regardless of the specifics of that particular case, I think my major beef with instant replay is that too much isn't reviewable. The big deal from this year is the game between UConn adn someone last week. Crap - I can't remember who it was. But the punt returner raised his arm, caught the ball, and took advantage of the fact that the punt coverage team thought he was calling a fair catch. He scored a touchdown, and the final score was within 7 points. Apparently, it isn't reviewable.

Another problem I have is the coach's challenge. Supposedly, EVERY play is reviewed. Why, then, do the coaches get a challenge? If it's because the other team realizes there might be a challenge, so they try to snap before the booth can challenge, maybe the coach can stop the play, first. But it seems as if too many times the booth won't challenge because they think the coach should use a challenge.

It was Louisville.

I'm definitely in favor of expanding the list of plays that can be reviewed. Really, it ought to be a list of things that can't rather than things that can. I can see where it could be a problem if a replay official decided there was holding and called a play back, something like that, so maybe it ought to be written that the replay booth can review a certain list of plays (touchdown catch or out of bounds? that sort of thing) but a coach can challenge whatever he likes as long as he's specific about what he wants looked at ("#78 was holding on that play"). I like the coach's challenge and I don't think it should be limited to one per game....miss a challenge, lose a time out, that's plenty limiting right there.

 

[xcrunner]

Personally I love the instant replay system... But it just needs a few changes, most of which have already been listed.
1) Competence. There is some downright incompetence in the replay viewers which lead to some ridiculously befuddling calls.

2) Definitely more reviewable plays. If a ref OBVIOUSLY misses or miss-calls a pass interference- which does happen often enough for it to be a concern- IT SHOULD BE REVIEWABLE!! What's different about pass interference than someone stepping out of bounds? That just annoys me

3) Going along with competence.. But do it quicker. It seems like if they make a call they check it 50 times to make sure it's right.. Even if it's a no-brainer. But then that's just because they're incompetent.

 

[Zurp]

I'm definitely in favor of expanding the list of plays that can be reviewed. Really, it ought to be a list of things that can't rather than things that can. I can see where it could be a problem if a replay official decided there was holding and called a play back, something like that, so maybe it ought to be written that the replay booth can review a certain list of plays (touchdown catch or out of bounds? that sort of thing) but a coach can challenge whatever he likes as long as he's specific about what he wants looked at ("#78 was holding on that play"). I like the coach's challenge and I don't think it should be limited to one per game....miss a challenge, lose a time out, that's plenty limiting right there.

Thats a good idea. Maybe the official replay booth can only challenge a list of things, but the coaches can challenge ANYTHING. I like it. The problem, though, is that the NCAA is trying to shorten games. Expanding the presence of the replay can only lengthen the games. Therefore, this won't happen.

2) Definitely more reviewable plays. If a ref OBVIOUSLY misses or miss-calls a pass interference- which does happen often enough for it to be a concern- IT SHOULD BE REVIEWABLE!! What's different about pass interference than someone stepping out of bounds? That just annoys me.

I think that the difference, in the mind of the NCAA, is that penalties are often a judgement call, whereas out-of-bounds and touchdowns and fumbles are very black-and-white. If his foot is on the line, he's out. If the ball breaks the plane, it's a touchdown. If his knee is not down before the ball comes out, it's a fumble. Sure - there are some judgement calls that are reviewable: was it a reception before he dropped it, or was it an incompletion? Was his forward progress stopped before he fumbled it? But the NCAA probably doesn't want to take the control of the game from the officials on the field.

 

[ScriptOhio]

College Football: No HDTV For Replays

Washington, D.C. (September 24, 2008) -- High-Definition TV cameras. The NFL uses them for its instant replay program. But apparently they're too expensive for NCAA college football games.

The Los Angeles Times reports that this is the fourth season that the NCAA has used instant replay to determine controversial calls, but referees have had to watch the playbacks in fuzzy standard-def.

As the newspaper reports, college football fans at home can get a better view of the replay on their high-def sets than the refs.

However, the Times writes that the PAC 10 and NCAA will test high-def cameras for the first time this Thursday night in the game between USC and Oregon State. (Note: The NFL began using high-def cameras for instant replay during the 2007 season.)

"NCAA replay officials will for the first time be able to review plays in the same high resolution as the HD broadcast viewers at home," says a spokesman for XOX Replay Systems, a supplier of replay technologies.

A PAC 10 official says the HD replay systems have simply been too expensive, noting that the league spent about $100,000 per school four years ago to set up a standard-def system.

However, the Times notes that the league and NCAA could save some money by going to Costco and picking up a few HDTVs for significantly less.

Entire article: College Football: No HDTV For Replays

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

...
However, the Times notes that the league and NCAA could save some money by going to Costco and picking up a few HDTVs for significantly less.
...

[sarcasm]
Yeah, because the display device is the only thing involved in a replay system. Just like this is the first time that a "journalist" has ever been judgemental about something he/she/it knows nothing about.
[/sarcasm]