Started By
Message

NBA finals announcer just made a great point

Posted on 6/8/14 at 9:38 pm
Posted by benhamin5555
Member since Oct 2009
2368 posts
Posted on 6/8/14 at 9:38 pm
When refs are reviewing a call, who gives a shite what the "call on the floor" or the "call on the field" was? The refs should just go with whatever they feel is right after watching the tape. If they are 51% or more sure of a call, they should go with that. This whole "indisputable evidence" crap is silly. It's a game, they're not convicting someone of murder.
Posted by massiveattack
CharLIT/Chapel Chill
Member since Oct 2010
11555 posts
Posted on 6/8/14 at 9:43 pm to
Very good point by JVG…Who cares what the original call was? You have video replay, make the correct call
Posted by kmcmah1
Member since Mar 2009
1074 posts
Posted on 6/8/14 at 9:44 pm to
My guess is it's to try to create some accountability with the refs. If they know they can always just rely on the replay, why try to get the call right initially?
Posted by StringedInstruments
Member since Oct 2013
18476 posts
Posted on 6/8/14 at 9:49 pm to
Replay doesn't offer a 360 degree camera angle. In the replay you're referring to, there were two angles and one absolutely showed nothing and the other showed a close call even if it leaned more towards Lebron not touching the ball.

The refs on the floor are the other angles. They made the call based on their vision which may have had the better vantage point than the available cameras.

That's why the cameras have to show conclusive evidence. It can't be a "maybe" because the call on the field may have had a clearer view of the play.
Posted by ohiovol
Member since Jan 2010
20835 posts
Posted on 6/8/14 at 9:49 pm to
quote:

When refs are reviewing a call, who gives a shite what the "call on the floor" or the "call on the field" was? The refs should just go with whatever they feel is right after watching the tape. If they are 51% or more sure of a call, they should go with that. This whole "indisputable evidence" crap is silly. It's a game, they're not convicting someone of murder.



Agreed.
Posted by lsusportsman2
Member since Oct 2007
27232 posts
Posted on 6/8/14 at 9:55 pm to
This is the first time in a long arse time I have agreed with Jeff Van Gundy about something. He's totally right. Who gives a frick what the call on the floor was, or if it was 100% indisputable. If they are more than sure of a certain call on the court, call it. The indisputable calls are garbage.
Posted by QJenk
Atl, Ga
Member since Jan 2013
15371 posts
Posted on 6/8/14 at 10:47 pm to
I like the rules as is in this case. You should be 100% sure of the call you're making. Being 50% sure is not enough to change a call imo, because then you are just playing a guessing game.
Posted by PrimeTime Money
Houston, Texas, USA
Member since Nov 2012
27327 posts
Posted on 6/8/14 at 11:45 pm to
It's because the referees made a call, and unless the video disproves their original call, they can't change it.

Otherwise, they are just guessing.

You can't look at a replay and still be unsure and just "assume" or "guess".

You have to see it on the video. If you don't, you can't change what you originally saw.
Posted by PrimeTime Money
Houston, Texas, USA
Member since Nov 2012
27327 posts
Posted on 6/8/14 at 11:52 pm to
And that announcer is Jeff Van Gundy. Most of the stuff he says he isn't serious about. He just likes to stir up shite on air for fun and likes to propose changes that go against conventional wisdom.
This post was edited on 6/8/14 at 11:54 pm
Posted by Jcorye1
Tom Brady = GoAT
Member since Dec 2007
71538 posts
Posted on 6/9/14 at 8:08 am to
It provides some sort of baseline.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram