On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 4:14 AM, JW <[email protected]> wrote: > > Technology now allows the game to be > > officiated at a non-human level, where > > time is slowed down, and margins are > > so small they could not possibly influence > > real time decisions by players or officials. > > There's a huge difference between players and officials. Nobody is > paying/tuning in to watch the officials officiate. We're watching players > perform extraordinary athletic feats to the best of their abilities, and we > expect the officials to adjudicate those plays correctly. And once they're > allowed to use replay to correct missed calls, it's arbitrary to say that > only certain replays can be used. I assume the one Fox replay during the > World Series where we saw one shoe hit first base before the other was > super slo-mo, but it was crystal clear. Should the umpires stick with an > incorrect call when everyone else can see what the right call is? (And yes, > there are calls where no replay will help.) >
Let me try it this way (and I very much appreciate the example from Joe about the swimming pool, which is directly to my point): Imagine a game in which points were scored for getting a blue ball in a goal, but not other colors. All of the players and officials are color blind, but the TV audience is not. In the game 99% of the balls are blue or red, but 1% are green, so occasionally a team is "incorrectly" given points for scoring a green ball. In such a scenario, would it really make sense to change the scoring based on how a non-color blind viewer in New York saw it on an instant replay? In some artificial, absolute sense, it would be "correct", but it would not be correct in the actual universe in which both the players and officials operate. I don't mind if obvious mistakes are corrected with replay; but it has become obvious to me that it is difficult if not impossible to keep this at a common-sense level. If a play at first is so close that no human on the field, even if they had the exact optimum perspective, could perceive in real time whether the ball or runner arrived first, then what that must mean is that the play was too close for any further review, and the official's call on the field should stand. The fetish about "getting it right" is I think obviously limited, and the major sports are getting that. The very fact that challenges are limited illustrates the fact - it assumes that some incorrect calls are tolerable, and leave up to the manager/coach the decision of which perceived mistakes to tolerate and which not. The cost is in lengthening the game, and increasing uncertainty on the field. Even MLB knows they do not want a world in which we constantly hear: "Strike Two! Or so it appears, it was close, so let's wait 45 seconds while the boys in New York get out the electron microscope to see if any micron of the ball broke the various strike zone planes!" The current system already places limits on the use of replay (in all sports) that accept that some "objectively incorrect" calls will stand. My proposal simply would ensure that challenges were aimed at correcting gross and obvious mistakes (that any good official would like to see corrected) and not waste a lot of time litigating differing perceptions and definitions of reality that are below the threshold of everyday experience. -- -- 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.
