I will just repeat my own, long held suggested restriction on replay - no slow motion of any kind, and no special angles or camera positions. Replay should only be used to correct gross errors; errors that are obvious to a viewer with the same perspective that the live official would have. As soon as any kind of enhanced replay is used to make "corrections" the game is distorted and alienated from its human scale.
The mantra driving replay: "all that matters is getting the call right" is philosophically complex and ultimately impossible. It is also what is driving the absurd definitions of a "catch" in the NFL, and officials in the NFL, NBA and MLB are now making their live calls primarily with the intent of deferring to replay to make the call (there was an example yesterday where the officials clearly were not sure if the runner was down, but let the play go and end in a touchdown so it could be reviewed. The problem of course is that the burden of proof shifts to the side of overturning, so this practice shifts potentially outcome-critical calls, not based on the best judgement of expert officials, but to facilitate replay. I was a passionate sports fan long before officials used replay (but while they were still available to the home viewer) and I thought things were just fine. If regular speed and angle replays were allowed to fix the obvious boners, but the game was put back in the hands of human experts on the field of play, I think we would have the optimum situation. Super slo mo special angles that purport to show what "really" happened are fictions on the scale of athletic endeavor. On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Joe Hass <[email protected]> wrote: > For those who may not be aware: the Green Bay Packers beat the Detroit > Lions last night on the final play of the game when Aaron Rodgers threw a > 65-yard touchdown pass. But that final play only happened because on the > previous play in which time expired, Lions Defensive End Devin Taylor was > called for a face mask penalty, giving the Packers one additional untimed > down. It was patently obvious to everyone it was a penalty, until CBS > showed a very slowed down replay from the perfect angle that revealed that > Taylor's hand barely brushed against Rodgers's face mask, which made it > patently obvious to everyone it was not a penalty. But it did manage to > turn the helmet and head just enough that, in real time, it looked exactly > like what would happen if you grasped his face mask in an illegal manner. > And since this was not a reviewable play, nothing could be done about it. > > We've discussed before on this board about the fact that technology has > now reached a point where it can reveal things that no human being could > ever determine in real time, but this was quite possibly the perfect > example. There was absolutely no way any official would not have called > that foul in real time: even the head of officiating for the NFL said as > much. But that replay was the definition of indisputable visual evidence. > > > http://deadspin.com/the-facemask-penalty-on-the-lions-was-the-right-call-in-1746177269 > > If ever there was a moment to well and truly step back and determine what > role we want technology to play in sports officiating, this is it. Because > we're now at a point where we can review to an absurd degree what just > transpired on the field of play. The fans of replay want to make > *everything* reviewable, while the opponents will use this as an example of > the absurdity of what would happen if we did just that. And I fear that > trying to use artificial restrictions (mine: review replays can only be > shown at 1/4 speed and cannot be stopped at a point of determination) will > simply enrage people who have access to information that isn't admissible. > > I'm curious if anyone else has any thoughts about this. > > -- > -- > TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "TV or Not TV" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
