Sick of things being called “not reviewable”

Yup. All plays in all sports need reviews. After each play we need to take a break, make sure it’s right. Then once it is absolutely confirmed without a shadow of a doubt we can move on to the next play.

Not reviewable has always been a lazy excuse

quote:

---

Yup. All plays in all sports need reviews. After each play we need to take a break, make sure it’s right. Then once it is absolutely confirmed without a shadow of a doubt we can move on to the next play.

---

How come arguments on the internet always turn into someone spouting the most extreme shite as if it's a point. Theres a hell of a lot of ground between "we are going to review each and every play ever" and "we can't review this particular play just because"

If you are talking about the inteference call - it was correct; Review would have one confirmed it, but it was so obviously interference, that no review is necessary.

The runner is supposed to run OUTSIDE the foul line for any play at first where the play is coming from behind him - the runner made no attempt to avoid running into the first baseman trying to field the throw.

There is a rule that is specifically for this situation - and this was a perfect example of violating the rule.

I don't know where all the angst is - would be the same as demanding a review of and offside penalty in football where the player is clearly lined uo on the wrong side of the LoS.

The games take like 4+ hours now. And unfortunately they aren’t removing commercials. The more things they make reviewable, the less i watch because it just drags and drags.