Rug Burn Junky on 7/2/2006 at 21:14
Because the fact that even Steven Wonder could see it isn't relevant if THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY WERE CHECKING THE REPLAY FOR, you stupid fucknut.
Quote:
the pertinent point was that he had control of the ball when his knee hit the ground, in which case it couldn't be a fumble.
WRONG. If you fall, and drop the ball after your knee hits the ground, it can be a fumble, plain and simple.
UNLESS that fall is considered a tackle because you're touched by the defender. Which is why they were looking at the replay: to determine if he was touched on the way down. that WAS the pertinent point. The replay had fuck all to do with the fact that his knee touched the ground. The fact that it was obvious is sort of a "no duh" since that was
never even in question.It doesn't necessarily contradict what you said, it's just that what you said was FUCKING POINTLESS.
Fucking christ, your ability to take the blatantly obvious, state it as though it's a stunning insight, and
still manage to misinterpret it even extends to football now?
SD on 7/2/2006 at 22:43
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
WRONG. If you fall, and drop the ball after your knee hits the ground, it can be a fumble, plain and simple.
I always thought that the ground couldn't cause a fumble, and that as soon as your knee hits the deck, the play is over and the ball is dead. I guess I understood wrong. Forgive me for not knowing the rules of a game that is alien to me inside out!
Rug Burn Junky on 7/2/2006 at 22:45
Oh, not knowing's perfectly cool, just don't start arguing with people who actually do know the game when they tell you that you're missing the point. ;)
Paz on 7/2/2006 at 22:56
I'm sorry for bringing this thread into disrepute :(
SD on 7/2/2006 at 23:07
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
Oh, not knowing's perfectly cool, just don't start arguing with people who actually do know the game when they tell you that you're missing the point. ;)
I wasn't really arguing with you, but in any case you can blame NFL commentators for feeding me duff info. They're the ones who come out with that "ground cannot cause a fumble" mantra. When (as I now know) they're wrong, and it can cause a fumble if the guy goes down without being touched.
Quote Posted by Paz
I'm sorry for bringing this thread into disrepute :(
Paz, you mustn't blame yourself for RBJ's staggering inability to let even the minutest misunderstanding go by without comment ;).
Rug Burn Junky on 7/2/2006 at 23:16
To answer your question seriously, Instant Replay was an abysmal failure the first go round.
They focused on "getting every call right," they didn't properly limit what was reviewable, the determination of whether there should be a replay was done by a non-official up in the TV booth, and there was no time limit on how long the review should take.
So, after a couple of years it was shelved.
It was only brought back with much resistance, but the second go round has been much smoother - they instead focus on "fixing obvious errors," and have kept the scope of what's reviewable to a small subset of plays where the review is obvious and routinely helpful, and have left most subjective judgement calls in the hands of the officials on the field at the time of the play, rather than to be endlessly interpreted with the benefit of hindsight.
By all accounts its been a success, and I think was overwhelmingly continued when it came up for a vote last time. But the key was to make it as nonintrusive upon the game as possible, and to limit it to the appropriate points where it wouldn't cause more controversy than it cured.
demagogue on 7/2/2006 at 23:53
On that same point, the reviewing official is supposed to overturn a decision just when there is clear support from the tape. It's designed to catch the obvious f-ups. But if there isn't enough information from the review or it's so close a call that the evidence isn't pushing one direction or another, the reviewing official is supposed to just uphold the referee's call on the field. It's not like he's approving it, like he's saying that's the same call he'd make if he were in the same position; he's just deferring to the original call and saying there's no compelling reason to overturn it. (is that right?)
In other words, he's not re-making the call. He's only seeing if there's a reason to overturn the field-call or not.
This was sort of an issue with the debated Roethlisberger touchdown. The question was if the football crossed the front threshold of the endzone line, even a hairlength, before R's hand was pushed back behind the line and he was downed ... and at the time the ball & R were in mid-air and moving and getting hit all at the same time, it seemed close but because of the weird angle and having to visualize it 3-dimensionally, it was hard to tell absolutely if the ball actually "breached the zone" so to speak -- although from the replay itself I could see a lot of people wanting to say it didn't cross. But I think the reviewing referee concluded that -- whatever his gut-intuition told him from that angle -- the tape just couldn't answer the question with certainty, that there wasn't any reason to overturn the decision, so he just deferred to the field referee ... who can't be blamed for hesitating before making his call. I mean, it was just a tough call no matter how it was made, so deferring to the field referee is probably the right thing to do for the same reasons RBJ just said.
(One newspaper said you could tell absolutely if you were willing to embed an electric sensor in the ball and splay a laser field across the endzone threshold; but seriously, would football be the better for it? You have to draw a line somewhere or it's no longer a human game...)
Paz on 8/2/2006 at 00:19
Quote Posted by demagogue
(One newspaper said you could tell absolutely if you were willing to embed an electric sensor in the ball and splay a laser field across the endzone threshold; but seriously, would football be the better for it? You have to draw a line somewhere or it's no longer a human game...)
Thanks guys.
Interestingly, the above is one of the few things I wouldn't mind being introduced in Football/Soccer/BRITBALL. Whether the ball crossed the goal-line or not is one of the relatively few things which can objectively be determined - it either did, or it didn't - so, assuming the technology is up to scratch (which it currently is not, FIFA have run tests in youth games to little success), I don't see why 'sensor in the goal/ball/referees wrist' shouldn't be brought in.
I absolutely agree with what you seem to be saying, that the human element is crucial and must remain.
In truth, what I least want to see is further gaps opening up between 'top level' football and lower league, even amateur league, games. Currently, a game at the highest level is essentially the same as a Sunday league kick-about - and that's to the absolute credit of football. As soon as you introduce the necessity of video replays, the game at the top is no longer the same as it is at the bottom. The footballing powers would, to my mind, be admitting that higher level games are somehow 'more important'; the only justification for this being that more cash rides on them. A notion which I obviously find highly distasteful.
As touched on above, I also have serious problems with giving Sky any more control in footballing terms. They already dictate kick-off times, it would be most unwise to give them control of any kind of video replay system too (which they would undoubtedly get - who else has the clout to house cameras at every Premiership match?)
There was an outstanding editorial on this issue in last month's (
http://www.wsc.co.uk/)
When Saturday Comes (which I've cribbed the best points from).
paloalto on 8/2/2006 at 02:03
Quote:
Besides which, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE CALLS COULD HAVE GONE EITHER WAY. If the refs had allowed the TD on the offensive pass interference, or called Roethlisberger's TD a tackle (and who really thinks that the Steelers wouldn't have punched it in on 4th and inches?) the Steelers fans would have had a rightful gripe as well, but it would have been just as bad an example of poor sportsmanship.
This is exactly why a coach would order a review because making them run another play means anything could happen ala Bettis "the bus" fumble during the Colts game.Nothing is guaranteed including a Seattle stop forcing a field goal instead or a player slipping ,whatever.
lunatic96 on 8/2/2006 at 04:58
The game was boring and poorly officiated. I was rooting for the steelers to win and even then it was pretty obvious that the refs were favoring them.
When instant replay first came back I thought it was a good idea, but nowadays I'm leaning more towards no instant replay if for no other reason than the fact that it makes the refs retardedly timid to make the obvious correct call on the field. I couldn't count the number of times I've seen a phantom fumble be played on just because the refs are afraid that instant replay will overturn it.
