Get Rid of All Video Replay...in All Sports. Period

[dncc]

Lol, you think allowing off sides goals is letting it be decided on the field?

What can I do but laugh.

Letting it be decided on the field is the goal of VR. Hello!

From some angles, the Arsenal goal was perfectly legal. From some angles it wasn't. The officials on the field allowed the goal. Some VAR jockey disallowed it.

Again, Brighton played a superior game to Arsenal but this was, in my view, an example of how the reach is exceeding the grasp.... On especially long passes (this wasn't one of them where Martinelli's goal was disallowed) when can you know the exact instant the ball is actually struck relative to the position of the suspected offsides player?

 

[noonereal]

From some angles, the Arsenal goal was perfectly legal. From some angles it wasn't. The officials on the field allowed the goal. Some VAR jockey disallowed it.

Again, Brighton played a superior game to Arsenal but this was, in my view, an example of how the reach is exceeding the grasp.... On especially long passes (this wasn't one of them where Martinelli's goal was disallowed) when can you know the exact instant the ball is actually struck relative to the position of the suspected offsides player?

A humans can't get it right, VR can.

Soccer is lagging behind all other major sports at present is the problem. When they catch up, VR will be vastly superior to human calls.

 

[dncc]

A humans can't get it right, VR can.

Arguable. HOF coaches can't tell you what a catch is now because instant replay interpretation.

Soccer is lagging behind all other major sports at present is the problem. When they catch up, VR will be vastly superior to human calls.

Soccer needs to get rid of VAR. It's lasted for something like three centuries without it and did just fine. Let the refs on the field decide. Over a 48 match season, the bad calls (which there still are in abundance) even out.

 

[Crovax]

Soccer needs to get rid of VAR. It's lasted for something like three centuries without it and did just fine. Let the refs on the field decide. Over a 48 match season, the bad calls (which there still are in abundance) even out.

Pictured, "soccer working just fine"

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Agreed. I was a huge fan of replay but now I think we just leave it up to the refs and live with the results. If it was good enough for Pete Rose, Dick Butkus, Elvin Hayes, David Beckham, Jimmy Connors, Chris Everett, Mia Hamm, etc...its good enough for today's players.

So... every technological advancement in sport that occurs after some arbitrary date (commonly defined as "back in my day") should be discarded because what came before was "good enough" for those players?

If not, where is the line, and why should it be drawn there?

 

[Higgins86]

Pictured, "soccer working just fine"

View attachment 67385049

Part of folklore now though. Its the sheer drama of football that made it the biggest sport on Earth.

 

[StillBallin75]

I for one am simply looking forward to Machine Learning and robot refs.

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

I would say no, VAR and other replay fix egregious errors. Although, definitely some frustration and really close calls having goals overturned

The rules in soccer are a bit ridiculous and I think that needs changing. They rule people off sides by how their body is positioned, it should be the feet. there was one in the Liverpool-Man City game where Sterling was off sides becuase he was leaning forward, but he feet were even with the defender. the current rules favor the defense in that aspect.

Also, I don't think goals should be overturned by a previous inadvertent handball from the attacking side

I disagree. Especially in soccer.
Much more review and better officiating is desperately needed.

Yeah, they need to get rid of the flopping. The give penalties seemingly only if players go to ground, so players flop as soon as they feel touch, and they get rewarded for it. Same thing with the fake injuries and screaming when fouled to flop around and try to draw a penalty or a yellow card. And often times the refs reward it. The league should come down hard on the flopping and fake injuries, its so pathetic, but people do it because they get rewarded for it. Teams that don't flop or act like they have been shot may not get the calls or the yellow cards

 

[dncc]

So... every technological advancement in sport that occurs after some arbitrary date (commonly defined as "back in my day") should be discarded because what came before was "good enough" for those players?

That isn't what I said. I apologize for not being more clear.

I did say that the officiating was good enough back in the day and if we didn't have instant replay in the sports today, the winners would still be legitimate winners, the losers would still argue about blown calls (as they do now), and life would go on with the exception those of us who watch sports on television, the action would not be delayed for 5 minutes while we have players standing around doing nothing. We talk about sports popularity dying down...not knowing what a catch is (as Tony Dungy put it) lends itself tothat.

If not, where is the line, and why should it be drawn there?

Simply put...humans make errors. Replay officials are humans so they make errors as well. Yesterday, City was given an off-sides call on Raheem Sterling yesterday. It was a good use of VAR and the goal was disallowed. Had it been allowed, that would have really sucked for Liverpool. True.

Here is one time where Sterling was called offsides. His upper body was beyond the defender, his feet were not. VAR ruled him offsides.



But that is just how it goes. What is line from Bull Durham? “You know what the difference between hitting .250 and .300 is? It’s 25 hits. Twenty-five hits in 500 at-bats is 50 points, OK? There’s six months in a season. That’s about 25 weeks. That means if you get just one extra flare a week, just one, a gork, a ground ball — a ground ball with eyes! — you get a dying quail, just one more dying quail a week and you’re in Yankee Stadium. You still don’t know what I’m talking about, do you?” A few of the borderline strike calls get called balls and you get a favorable count and you get a few of those hits. A few of those borderline ball calls become strikes and you don't get them. Should we review every pitch because it's not fair that a pitch at the knees is called a ball today but a strike tomorrow?

 

[dncc]

Pictured, "soccer working just fine"

View attachment 67385049

The Hand of God goal. He got away with one.

 

[dncc]

Part of folklore now though. Its the sheer drama of football that made it the biggest sport on Earth.

And there is that....

The folklore of the sport does add to the anticipation in the next meeting. The athletes also have a way of settling it on the field if you violate the code. I can see a place in the sports world for VAR where flagrant cheating takes place. Like if they had miked up the corner during the Pryor/Arguello match where Pryor was doping between rounds...yeah something like that.

 

[radioman]

It wasn’t good enough for a lot of those players. That’s the point. Get it right, no matter.

That's the key.
Bad calls occur in every sport.
Advanced technology can reduce, if not eliminate officiating errors.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

talk about sports popularity dying down...not knowing what a catch is (as Tony Dungy put it) lends itself tothat.

Catch ambiguity is a fault of the rules and precedents that have been decided upon by the league. IR has nothing to do with it.

Should we review every pitch because it's not fair that a pitch at the knees is called a ball today but a strike tomorrow?

Every pitch? Not necessary. I like how it goes in the NFL and NHL. You get a certain number of challenges and a penalty (lose a timeout in the NFL and a 2-minute delay of game minor in the NHL) if your challenge is overruled. All scores and (in the NFL) turnovers are reviewed because they are the most consequential calls, but beyond that the coaches have to decide what's worth risking a limited challenge and weighing the consequences of being overruled.

 

[dncc]

Catch ambiguity is a fault of the rules and precedents that have been decided upon by the league. IR has nothing to do with it.

Strange how we didn't have these questions about "what a catch is" being asked by HOF coaches before IR.

 

[Crovax]

Strange how we didn't have these questions about "what a catch is" being asked by HOF coaches before IR.

Guess you never heard of the immaculate reception

 

[dncc]

Guess you never heard of the immaculate reception

Sure I have. Doesn't really apply to the discussion that much and even if it did (it's a one-off item).

 

[Rexedgar]

That isn't what I said. I apologize for not being more clear.

I did say that the officiating was good enough back in the day and if we didn't have instant replay in the sports today, the winners would still be legitimate winners, the losers would still argue about blown calls (as they do now), and life would go on with the exception those of us who watch sports on television, the action would not be delayed for 5 minutes while we have players standing around doing nothing. We talk about sports popularity dying down...not knowing what a catch is (as Tony Dungy put it) lends itself tothat.

Simply put...humans make errors. Replay officials are humans so they make errors as well. Yesterday, City was given an off-sides call on Raheem Sterling yesterday. It was a good use of VAR and the goal was disallowed. Had it been allowed, that would have really sucked for Liverpool. True.

Here is one time where Sterling was called offsides. His upper body was beyond the defender, his feet were not. VAR ruled him offsides.

View attachment 67385150

But that is just how it goes. What is line from Bull Durham? “You know what the difference between hitting .250 and .300 is? It’s 25 hits. Twenty-five hits in 500 at-bats is 50 points, OK? There’s six months in a season. That’s about 25 weeks. That means if you get just one extra flare a week, just one, a gork, a ground ball — a ground ball with eyes! — you get a dying quail, just one more dying quail a week and you’re in Yankee Stadium. You still don’t know what I’m talking about, do you?” A few of the borderline strike calls get called balls and you get a favorable count and you get a few of those hits. A few of those borderline ball calls become strikes and you don't get them. Should we review every pitch because it's not fair that a pitch at the knees is called a ball today but a strike tomorrow?

With only three officials on the field, offsides has got to be one of the most difficult calls to make. Many times I cannot watch both when the player strikes the ball and the position of the receiving player in respect to the defenders. I understand there is a 4th between the technical areas and another crew somewhere remote watching.

In the above example, I would think that Sterling would be measured by where his feet are at the time of the pass.

I would also like to see definitive goals and touchdowns, breaking the plane is bs. At least soccer states that the entirety of the ball must cross the line.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

So what I'm hearing is we have the technology to be more accurate and make the right call, and you think that it is a bad thing. It's better when the refs blow the call and there is no recourse, even though the fans and commentators can replay it over and over again, knowing the refs got it wrong.

Personally, I'd like to see more technology employed. Specifically, in MLB we have the technology to get balls and strikes right, virtually EVERY Time in real time. Nevertheless, the umpires are dead set against it. In fact, it is one of the few exceptions to reviews. Players and managers are not even allowed to question, let alone challenge, balls and strikes. Yet, through the magic of television, we fans can see every bad call in real time. Umpires ought to be ashamed.

 

[dncc]

With only three officials on the field, offsides has got to be one of the most difficult calls to make. Many times I cannot watch both when the player strikes the ball and the position of the receiving player in respect to the defenders. I understand there is a 4th between the technical areas and another crew somewhere remote watching.

In the above example, I would think that Sterling would be measured by where his feet are at the time of the pass.

I would also like to see definitive goals and touchdowns, breaking the plane is bs. At least soccer states that the entirety of the ball must cross the line.

Good ideas.

I would just let the play stand as called on the field if it's a matter of whether a shoulder is offsides but the rest of the body isn't

 

[dncc]

So what I'm hearing is we have the technology to be more accurate and make the right call, and you think that it is a bad thing. It's better when the refs blow the call and there is no recourse, even though the fans and commentators can replay it over and over again, knowing the refs got it wrong.

Personally, I'd like to see more technology employed. Specifically, in MLB we have the technology to get balls and strikes right, virtually EVERY Time in real time. Nevertheless, the umpires are dead set against it. In fact, it is one of the few exceptions to reviews. Players and managers are not even allowed to question, let alone challenge, balls and strikes. Yet, through the magic of television, we fans can see every bad call in real time. Umpires ought to be ashamed.

Well there are a few dimensions to why I think they should just go back to letting the refs call it.

1. First, we've now gotten to the point to where if a player's feet are onside in soccer but his torso isn't onside, the goal is disallowed. The ball is sometimes being kicked for 40 yards away and the replay is supposed to hone in on both the striker of the ball as well as the offending player? In the NFL, we have HOF coaches who are stating that they no longer know what a catch is. I think this lends itself to poor outcomes and a poor viewing experience to be sure. Let the people on the field make the calls. Its worked for centuries.
2. Secondly, it's not as if the instant replay has gotten it right in every instance. Clearly blown calls are overturned at a very nice clip. Is the 2-3 blown calls a week worth the 5-10 challenges in the NFL? According to the NFL, 90% of the calls stand. There are about 2 reviews a game. 9 out of 10 calls are right...not that big an improvement

 

[Court Jester]

There used to be something really beautiful about baseball before MLB added instant replay to some types of calls. The idea that a bad call was at times just part of the nature of the game, sometimes they go your way, sometimes they don't, and then you live with it. I had no issue when MLB added video replay to some types of calls like boundary/home run or fan interference replays, because all stadiums have different angles and sometimes an umpire just cannot see to make those calls at all. But all other calls should stand as they are called by umpires without review---at least in baseball.

I believe too much is taken away from the game when we are at the point where a high definition video camera lens is going to determine how the game goes. What next, having "AI" calling balls and strikes?

Hockey I think has a good instant replay rule as it pertains to goals. All other penalties are either seen or not seen by the four on ice officals and will stand as called or not called.

 

[dncc]

There used to be something really beautiful about baseball before MLB added instant replay to some types of calls. The idea that a bad call was at times just part of the nature of the game, sometimes they go your way, sometimes they don't, and then you live with it. I had no issue when MLB added video replay to some types of calls like boundary/home run or fan interference replays, because all stadiums have different angles and sometimes an umpire just cannot see to make those calls at all. But all other calls should stand as they are called by umpires without review---at least in baseball.

I believe too much is taken away from the game when we are at the point where a high definition video camera lens is going to determine how the game goes. What next, having "AI" calling balls and strikes?

Hockey I think has a good instant replay rule as it pertains to goals. All other penalties are either seen or not seen by the four on ice officals and will stand as called or not called.

Scoring plays being reviewed only would be the best I can hope for I guess. What will eventually happen is, I'm afraid, there will be a penalty that wasn't called that should have been called and, it may be, not even the catalyst for the review in the first place. If you run a play with 12 guys on the field and are reviewing the pass play...I bet we get to the place where the 12 guys on the filed will be called as well.

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

A humans can't get it right, VR can.

Soccer is lagging behind all other major sports at present is the problem. When they catch up, VR will be vastly superior to human calls.

But as we have seen in other sports, even with VAR in soccer, we still see them completely mess up calls when we can clearly see the video. Even in some cases, the ref refused to look at the VAR when they notified him of something may be off.

That isn't what I said. I apologize for not being more clear.

I did say that the officiating was good enough back in the day and if we didn't have instant replay in the sports today, the winners would still be legitimate winners, the losers would still argue about blown calls (as they do now), and life would go on with the exception those of us who watch sports on television, the action would not be delayed for 5 minutes while we have players standing around doing nothing. We talk about sports popularity dying down...not knowing what a catch is (as Tony Dungy put it) lends itself tothat.

Simply put...humans make errors. Replay officials are humans so they make errors as well. Yesterday, City was given an off-sides call on Raheem Sterling yesterday. It was a good use of VAR and the goal was disallowed. Had it been allowed, that would have really sucked for Liverpool. True.

Here is one time where Sterling was called offsides. His upper body was beyond the defender, his feet were not. VAR ruled him offsides.

View attachment 67385150

But that is just how it goes. What is line from Bull Durham? “You know what the difference between hitting .250 and .300 is? It’s 25 hits. Twenty-five hits in 500 at-bats is 50 points, OK? There’s six months in a season. That’s about 25 weeks. That means if you get just one extra flare a week, just one, a gork, a ground ball — a ground ball with eyes! — you get a dying quail, just one more dying quail a week and you’re in Yankee Stadium. You still don’t know what I’m talking about, do you?” A few of the borderline strike calls get called balls and you get a favorable count and you get a few of those hits. A few of those borderline ball calls become strikes and you don't get them. Should we review every pitch because it's not fair that a pitch at the knees is called a ball today but a strike tomorrow?

i think the problem is in the rules, as many analysts point out. THe rules calls this off side. I think they should go by the feet, not the body. That is so close I don't think it should have been overturned

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

That's the key.
Bad calls occur in every sport.
Advanced technology can reduce, if not eliminate officiating errors.

Even with video, we have seen egregious errors not called even though everybody can see it with their own eyes. But that will never change with humans involved

 

[roughdraft274]

Let me preface this by stating that I was a monster Houston Oiler fan in my youth. And Mike Renfro's non-catch in one of the playoff games against the Pittsburgh Steelers, I believe, lead to the eventual adoption of instant replay in the NFL. There was a six year difference between the two events (1980 was the non-catch and 1986 was when they adopted instant replay). So it's been around for 35 season or so in the NFL. Other leagues have adopted the practice as well.

I had to go check this because I was born in 85 but have a distinct memory of instant replay starting in the late 90's.

Turns out you are right, they did start a review system in 86, but around 91 they stopped it and didn't bring back a review system til around 99.

So technically, they did start it is 86, but it hasn't been around for 35 years cause there have been some gaps in that time.