- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Illicit Usage of Replay: Pro or Con
Posted on 10/19/17 at 9:27 am
Posted on 10/19/17 at 9:27 am
The third strike that wasn't in the Dodgers/Cubs game yesterday brought up an interesting thought.
As you probably know, while Maddon was going nuclear on the umpires after the change of the call, the Cubs' stadium staff was showing the replay over and over, demonstrating Granderson did not tip the putative third strike. The umpires ignored it, basically looking like morons in the process.
Conversely, you have the peculiar incident of the Ravens/Browns game in 2007. Phil Dawson kicked a ball at the end of regulation that went through the uprights, hit the support pipe, and bounced back into the field of play. The referees, confused, signaled that the kick was no good, and the game should have been over. This call was similarly not reviewable, however, the referees conferred for five minutes and overturned the call, clearly discussing the matter over headset with someone who had seen the replays. ( The Field Goal)
So the question, should officials use replay to get a call right, even when the play isn't reviewable like what happened to the Ravens, or should they ignore clear evidence like what happened in the game last night? What is your preference?
As you probably know, while Maddon was going nuclear on the umpires after the change of the call, the Cubs' stadium staff was showing the replay over and over, demonstrating Granderson did not tip the putative third strike. The umpires ignored it, basically looking like morons in the process.
Conversely, you have the peculiar incident of the Ravens/Browns game in 2007. Phil Dawson kicked a ball at the end of regulation that went through the uprights, hit the support pipe, and bounced back into the field of play. The referees, confused, signaled that the kick was no good, and the game should have been over. This call was similarly not reviewable, however, the referees conferred for five minutes and overturned the call, clearly discussing the matter over headset with someone who had seen the replays. ( The Field Goal)
So the question, should officials use replay to get a call right, even when the play isn't reviewable like what happened to the Ravens, or should they ignore clear evidence like what happened in the game last night? What is your preference?
This post was edited on 10/19/17 at 9:32 am
7
Posted on 10/19/17 at 9:34 am to therick711
Replay works best when an unbiased body is executing the review... but in general I'm in let's get the call right in an efficient and timely manner.
Posted on 10/19/17 at 9:37 am to therick711
It's insane how many obvious calls the refs still get wrong even when a replay angle is clear as day.
I'm not one for entertaining conspiracies to determine outcomes in sports, but I started to go tin foil after the LSU/Florida game. The back stepping out multiple times was bad enough. If they didn't overturn the tipped ball PI, I would have known for sure the fix was in.
I'm not one for entertaining conspiracies to determine outcomes in sports, but I started to go tin foil after the LSU/Florida game. The back stepping out multiple times was bad enough. If they didn't overturn the tipped ball PI, I would have known for sure the fix was in.
Posted on 10/19/17 at 9:47 am to therick711
If the rule is it's not able to be reviewed then the ref/ump should not use review.
It's not the ump/refs job to decide the rules. It's their job to enforce the rules as set.
If you don't like the rule, then have somebody who's job is to set the rules change it.
It's not the ump/refs job to decide the rules. It's their job to enforce the rules as set.
If you don't like the rule, then have somebody who's job is to set the rules change it.
Posted on 10/19/17 at 9:49 am to Weagle25
So you favor the wrong result for the right reasons over the right result for the wrong reasons. Interesting.
Posted on 10/19/17 at 9:54 am to therick711
quote:
even when the play isn't reviewable
This has always been my biggest issue with replay. If you're going to have it, there should be no restrictions other than the number of times a team can request review.
It's more easily applicable to football than baseball. I don't think replay should be used for balls/strikes other than tipped third strikes. But in football, what sense does it make to have non-review-able plays? I think coaches should be able to challenge penalties as well.
Posted on 10/19/17 at 10:05 am to therick711
quote:This, at least in MLB.
should they ignore clear evidence like what happened in the game last night
Its not about getting calls right. It's about giving managers 1 opportunity to question a call that they think is wrong.
Posted on 10/19/17 at 10:09 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:
Its not about getting calls right. It's about giving managers 1 opportunity to question a call that they think is wrong.
To what end, though?
Posted on 10/19/17 at 10:10 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:
Its not about getting calls right
This will never make sense to me. Never.
Posted on 10/19/17 at 10:10 am to Zephyrius
i wonder what ole Dick Burleson is up to these days
Mr. Burleson and/or the SEC took down Burleson's official website on 11-12-2009. The website vanished after the SEC was contacted by Fox 8 News about Burleson being in the replay booth for LSU-Alabama and Burleson's ties to the University of Alabama.
quote:
“He is a native of Alabama and was inducted into the Alabama High School Sports Hall of Fame.” Mr. Burleson is same man that wrote a book about his time as an official that was named after something his good friend Bear Bryant supposedly said to him during a game ... "You Better Be Right.” Mr. Burleson lives in Blount County, Alabama and often speaks at Alabama booster club meetings, as well as other speaking engagements around the country, and is compensated for those speaking engagements.
Mr. Burleson and/or the SEC took down Burleson's official website on 11-12-2009. The website vanished after the SEC was contacted by Fox 8 News about Burleson being in the replay booth for LSU-Alabama and Burleson's ties to the University of Alabama.
This post was edited on 10/19/17 at 10:13 am
Posted on 10/19/17 at 10:10 am to therick711
quote:What do you mean?
To what end, though?
Posted on 10/19/17 at 10:17 am to therick711
quote:The amount of times we go to replay seems fine IMO.
Illicit Usage of Replay: Pro or Con
But the amount of times the refs spend reviewing a replay is absurd. Refs should have 60 seconds, and the tablet or whatever they're looking at automatically shuts off after 1 minute.
The ref makes their best judgment call from there. The 4-5 or more minute reviews are ridiculous. I also like the idea of being penalized in some way for a challenge that doesn't get overturned.
I am of the belief that a coach should have a finite number of challenges but virtually anything should be at his disposal to challenge.
This post was edited on 10/19/17 at 10:18 am
Posted on 10/19/17 at 10:18 am to ReauxlTide222
I was trying to take your line of thinking to its logical conclusion. You said it wasn't about getting the calls right, it was about letting managers question a call. My comment was about what end are you ultimately seeking by doing that. The answer seems pretty clearly to get the call right.
This post was edited on 10/19/17 at 10:19 am
Posted on 10/19/17 at 10:20 am to shel311
quote:
I am of the belief that a coach should have a finite number of challenges but virtually anything should be at his disposal to challenge.
I've always thought that the number of challenges should be defined as the number of challenges that were not overturned. If the call on the field is overturned, the coach should still retain the right to challenge.
Posted on 10/19/17 at 10:23 am to therick711
quote:I love this idea in theory, but I do think it gets sketchy in practice.
I've always thought that the number of challenges should be defined as the number of challenges that were not overturned. If the call on the field is overturned, the coach should still retain the right to challenge.
Granted, it's one of those things that would rarely/almost never become an issue but it could open up a coach continually reviewing and prolonging a game by a good bit. But yea, in theory, if he's correct in his challenge, he should be able to keep challenging.
Posted on 10/19/17 at 10:24 am to shel311
quote:
but it could open up a coach continually reviewing and prolonging a game by a good bit.
That would mean the officials suck, though. Blaming that on the coach seems silly. If the officials keep messing up his calls, why is it on the coach that the game has to be stopped to mop up their mess?
Posted on 10/19/17 at 10:37 am to therick711
quote:
So you favor the wrong result for the right reasons over the right result for the wrong reasons. Interesting.
You can't have an ump determining when it's justified to fudge the rules and when it's not. That's how you get uneven results.
You play by the rules as written at the start of the game.
Posted on 10/19/17 at 10:43 am to Weagle25
I'm a Cubs fan, but I don't think they should be allowed to show replays on the video board after last night...
Do they show it if the Dodgers were the team that got robbed?
We see this in other sports too and there should be consequences if a home team shows bias
Do they show it if the Dodgers were the team that got robbed?
We see this in other sports too and there should be consequences if a home team shows bias
Posted on 10/19/17 at 11:00 am to chalmetteowl
Fan service trumps all. The paying patrons deserve to see the play again. In my opinion, if that hurts the umpires' feelings, tough break.
Posted on 10/19/17 at 12:25 pm to Wayne Campbell
I would be in favor of unlimited challenges, but getting the challenge wrong should come with a consequence such as the option of losing a timeout or a yardage penalty.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News