Instant Replay: Should it Be in Real Time?

[Gugny]

I actually came up with this thought whilst watching baseball.  But I think it's relevant to football, so I thought I'd throw it out there.

 

One of my favorite parts about sports is the human element - specifically when it comes to officiating.

 

It's a fast game.  These guys/gals are human.  They're not gonna get it right all the time.  I like replay and I think it has its place.

 

HOWEVER ... the game is NOT played in ultra slo-motion with ultra-HD cameras in officials' eyes.

 

So why does it make sense for replays to be slowed down to the point that every single play could be altered?  I don't get it.

 

Let's take the NO/LAR debacle last year.  Even though that wasn't reviewable at the time, it is now.  In real time, ANYONE can see that it was a penalty.

 

Now let's take that Steelers catch/no catch debacle.  A billion people looked at it a billion times in super slo-mo and still couldn't agree whether or not it was a catch.

 

Replay the damn things in real time.  Anything egregious will stick out and be overturned or upheld.  Otherwise, let it ride with the original call.  That's my stance.

 

What say you?

[Another Fan]

If you can have replays in real time, I’d imagine you can cut out the use of some refs.  So less of the human element there.  It’s like the automated balls and strikes argument 

[BuffaloBill]

The game and calls will never be perfect.  To Gungy’s Points the attempt to make it perfect has actually made the game worse.  It’s hard to say because an egregiously wrong call should be overturned.  However, what is egregious is highly subjective.

[Figster]

41 minutes ago, BuffaloBill said:

The game and calls will never be perfect.  To Gungy’s Points the attempt to make it perfect has actually made the game worse.  It’s hard to say because an egregiously wrong call should be overturned.  However, what is egregious is highly subjective.

 The natural flow of a game is of great importance to most viewers. Possibly even more important then having 100% accuracy.

 

Gu's idea is interesting because it makes the instant replay as bang, bang when its reviewed as it was real time when it occured.

 

Now thats thinking outside the box... 

[BuffaloBill]

Just now, Figster said:

 The natural flow of a game is of great importance to most viewers. Possibly even more important then having 100% accuracy.

 

Gu's idea is interesting because it makes the instant replay as bang, bang when its reviewed as it was real time when it occured.

 

Now thats thinking outside the box... 

 

 

No, @Gugny is not capable of outside the box thought.

[Figster]

1 minute ago, BuffaloBill said:

 

 

No, @Gugny is not capable of outside the box thought.

 Gu does prefer the shoutbox,

 

now that you mention it.

[SinceThe70s]

#triggered

 

This is far and away the best idea I've ever heard with regard to fixing replay. For the record I give credit to @row_33 

for making this suggestion in a thread in the past year. I've latched onto it ever since.

 

Replay is here to stay. Getting rid of it is effing stupid. Nobody wants to see a game decided by a ridiculously bad call. The one I remember most was Vinny Testaverde's helmet coming up a yard and a half shy of the goal line on a dive  when he had already tucked the ball to his chest. A quick video review is all that was needed to overturn the TD and spot the ball at the 2.

 

At the same time the super slo-mo attention to detail that nobody can agree on anyway and delays the game detracts from the product regardless of the sport.

 

An ancillary baseball replay pet peeve that doesn't deserve it's own thread: can we please restore HR fences and get rid of the walls with the HR lines. It used to be that when the ball went over the wall everyone in the stadium knew it was a HR. Now we have to wait for video review from some jackass miles away to determine if the ball hit above or below the HR line before we know whether we should be cheering or not . And don't get me started on fans being able to interfere with a HR. 

 

Now if you'll excuse me there are a few hooligans on my front lawn that require my attention.

 

Edited August 21, 2019 by SinceThe70s

[NewEra]

1 hour ago, Gugny said:

I actually came up with this thought whilst watching baseball.  But I think it's relevant to football, so I thought I'd throw it out there.

 

One of my favorite parts about sports is the human element - specifically when it comes to officiating.

 

It's a fast game.  These guys/gals are human.  They're not gonna get it right all the time.  I like replay and I think it has its place.

 

HOWEVER ... the game is NOT played in ultra slo-motion with ultra-HD cameras in officials' eyes.

 

So why does it make sense for replays to be slowed down to the point that every single play could be altered?  I don't get it.

 

Let's take the NO/LAR debacle last year.  Even though that wasn't reviewable at the time, it is now.  In real time, ANYONE can see that it was a penalty.

 

Now let's take that Steelers catch/no catch debacle.  A billion people looked at it a billion times in super slo-mo and still couldn't agree whether or not it was a catch.

 

Replay the damn things in real time.  Anything egregious will stick out and be overturned or upheld.  Otherwise, let it ride with the original call.  That's my stance.

 

What say you?

I’ve been saying this for years.  We have the technology. Put a couple officials in the booth with multiple TVs and angle and they can radio the field if something is missed 

[Warcodered]

This is kind of the entire point of instant replays if you're not going to slow it down why even have them.

[The Plastic Cup]

One additional caveat:   the refs can replay it in real time once.  If they can't see the egregious error the first time, there is no egregious error.

[Forward Progress]

Slightly off of your topic...

 

I don’t like the booth reviews.  Managing your challenges and timeouts is just another strategic layer of the most strategic pro sport. 

 

I think every very challenge should be a coaches challenge, so coaches who are better with challenges have a strategic advantage over those who challenge poorly. 

 

No more automatic reviews on scoring plays, turnovers and in the final two minutes. Let the coaches be the only source of challenges. The result will be that only game-changing plays are challenged, which should be the purpose of the challenge system. 

[DallasMac]

I just want the correct calls and in a timely fashion.  My issue is with how long it takes.  You can usually see in the first replay what happened.  The announcers can tell us before the replay half the time.  Why does it take so long for the refs to talk it out, announce to the fans, and then place the ball.  I feel like this is the area that needs a significant improvement. 

[Nextmanup]

Get rid of it entirely.

 

 

[bills11]

2 hours ago, Gugny said:

I actually came up with this thought whilst watching baseball.  But I think it's relevant to football, so I thought I'd throw it out there.

 

One of my favorite parts about sports is the human element - specifically when it comes to officiating.

 

It's a fast game.  These guys/gals are human.  They're not gonna get it right all the time.  I like replay and I think it has its place.

 

HOWEVER ... the game is NOT played in ultra slo-motion with ultra-HD cameras in officials' eyes.

 

So why does it make sense for replays to be slowed down to the point that every single play could be altered?  I don't get it.

 

Let's take the NO/LAR debacle last year.  Even though that wasn't reviewable at the time, it is now.  In real time, ANYONE can see that it was a penalty.

 

Now let's take that Steelers catch/no catch debacle.  A billion people looked at it a billion times in super slo-mo and still couldn't agree whether or not it was a catch.

 

Replay the damn things in real time.  Anything egregious will stick out and be overturned or upheld.  Otherwise, let it ride with the original call.  That's my stance.

 

What say you?

I don't know about getting rid of the slow motion..I definetely agree with certain aspects though..it's ridiculous when a call on the field that already is super questionable that looks questionable in slow motion gets overturned by replay like the Kelvin Benjamin touchdown  from tyrod vs pats just before halftime . I cannot stand reviews that take 10 mins and break up the flow of the game...I'm intrigued by this real time replay idea 

[Chandler#81]

? hmmm. You may be on to something, Gugny. The new PI rule is becoming an abortion with coaches voting overwhelmingly for it and now review committee after review committee is second guessing and trying to fine tune. Coaches have been experimenting with it in preseason and the results are ridiculous. Now they’re going after shield blocks, which is another black hole. 

 

Officiating has gone from ludicrous to sublime.

 

Your idea makes sense, so it’s already better than anything coming out of the League office.

[Warcodered]

People saying that the new PI rules are going to ruin the game, wasn't that the same thing people were saying around this time about the new helmet rules?

[eanyills]

1 hour ago, Warcodered said:

People saying that the new PI rules are going to ruin the game, wasn't that the same thing people were saying around this time about the new helmet rules?

 

The issue is that it’s a slippery slope. You can find PI on every single play if you’re looking hard enough. What’s next, holding? Another penalty that you can find somewhere on the field every single play if you’re looking hard enough.

 

If we start looking for these types of penalties, well, you could find them on almost every single play if you’re looking going by black and white rules in slo-mo. It’ll be like the NHL’s ridiculous offside challenge only with a much higher rate of frequency.

Edited August 21, 2019 by eanyills

[Chandler#81]

It’s slippery indeed! I’m convinced it’ll ruin Hail Mary’s, which is the most exciting, nerve wracking play in the game.

[Rochesterfan]

First let me say I like the idea in general because so many plays are bang - bang and I do not mind the human element.  I also in general do not believe the NFL is fixed and therefore do not believe the Refs and the league office are driven by an agenda - therefore for me this works.

 

The biggest issue with this is that fans and media will still have access to the ultra-slo mo frame by frame replay - meaning that even if things are decided at real speed - the mistakes will then get pointed out - ultimately invalidating the entire point of replay to get it right.

 

I totally agree that reviewing the play at full speed rather than frame by frame helps eliminate some ticky-tac calls and therefore would reduce the number of overturns greatly as the refs actually do a great job for such as fast game.  

 

Unfortunately the increased use of HD cameras, multiple camera angles, and the ability of both TV and media to stop plays on a specific frame is what lead to the original outcry for replay and ultimately what has caused a lot of the issues with trying to decide what to overturn and what to say was a correct call (see catch rule and PI rule).

 

The real test test are the situations- like the NHL offside rule - where you can stop on a frame and for example clearly show that a runners knee is just off the ground and a ball is loose for a fumble, but at real speed the refs called him down by contact - watching at real speed it is bang bang - so the call is upheld, but the image everyone will see is the one still shot where it is clearly a fumble.  How do fans react to that and do fans/media respond - especially if that is a game or even worse Super Bowl deciding play?  

 

I just don’t know - I definitely think that if you they (replay officials) are debating looking at a frame by frame and are not sure - they should watch full speed and accept the call, but there are times a frame by frame slo-mo does show an actual correct outcome that is impossible to see with the naked eye at full speed.  

[Seasons1992]

6 hours ago, The Plastic Cup said:

One additional caveat:   the refs can replay it in real time once.  If they can't see the egregious error the first time, there is no egregious error.

 

I'll allow this. One time at full speed.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

I refuse to answer any poll with the word "whilst" in it

 

USE BOTH

 

Get back to (if it ever was) a limited time for review.    Maybe even shorten it to a 60 second review time and cut the feed to the tablet.  AND NY must review the play as well while the REF on the field is doing it.  This way if the Ref has a question NY already has their answer / interpretation. 

6 hours ago, Chandler#81 said:

? hmmm. You may be on to something, Gugny. The new PI rule is becoming an abortion with coaches voting overwhelmingly for it and now review committee after review committee is second guessing and trying to fine tune. Coaches have been experimenting with it in preseason and the results are ridiculous. Now they’re going after shield blocks, which is another black hole. 

 

Officiating has gone from ludicrous to sublime.

 

Your idea makes sense, so it’s already better than anything coming out of the League office.

 

Whats do they have to do with football ??? 

   

 

Edited August 21, 2019 by ShadyBillsFan

[nucci]

We watch the replays on TV and can tell right away if the call is correct or not yet we have to wait a full 2 minutes on a simple call. Have 1 or 2 refs in a room with TV and do it just like that. Watch the play and make the call. Current system is ridiculous

[Mr. WEO]

Slow mo is going to give a clearer depiction of the event than just seeing it again at the same speed.  Did the player cross the pane.  Step on the side line with the tip of his shoe. lose possession of the ball as he fell on it and shielded it from the ref.

 

No point in seeing it the same way if there is a question with the original call.

[H2o]

Can you imagine the lawsuits that would arise from all of the incessant whiners these days?

 

The game caused me trauma, this made me emotionally unstable, we were cheated, blah, blah, blah.....

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

5 minutes ago, nucci said:

We watch the replays on TV and can tell right away if the call is correct or not yet we have to wait a full 2 minutes on a simple call. Have 1 or 2 refs in a room with TV and do it just like that. Watch the play and make the call. Current system is ridiculous

for the majority of calls I would agree.   

 

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Slow mo is going to give a clearer depiction of the event than just seeing it again at the same speed.  Did the player cross the pane.  Step on the side line with the tip of his shoe. lose possession of the ball as he fell on it and shielded it from the ref.

 

No point in seeing it the same way if there is a question with the original call.

bingo 

[MILFHUNTER#518]

Then what is the point?

[PetermansRedemption]

I believe expansion of replay is horrible for the purity of the game. It is part of the reason I enjoy High School Football, it is still a pure game and it does not take 4 hours to complete. Replay is completely out of hand. We have a replay for everything and replay reviews feel like they take 5-10 minutes per review. Multiply that by a possibility of 4 challenges per game and we are wasting 40 minutes. That being said, it isn’t going anywhere, so it must be corrected. 

 

Ive been trumpeting a plan that I feel would work pretty well. Replay is for correcting the egregious calls or non-calls. We can all agree that could have a place in the beloved game of football. It must be metered though, it cannot run rampant. First, make everything challengeable. It is practically there already, so just rip off the band aid. If you got called for a hold and felt it wasn’t a hold, challengeable. Incorrect spot? Sure that’s challengeable. Unsportsmanlike conduct that you don’t believe happened? Challengeable if you think there is evidence on tape to overturn it. Late hit out of bounds that was or wasn’t called? Challengeable.

 

 In addition to this, allow for challenges in the final two minutes. There is no more “booth review”. If the coach wants something reviewed, he throws the flag for it. Coaches still have two challenges per game, but that is it. They get two challenges of the game regardless of how those two go. If they win both, great, you still don’t get a third. Replays are also done in real time. The game is viewed and officiated in real time, why let ultra slow motion be used to detect a blade of grass on someone’s knee when he fumbled. Lastly, there is a “shot clock”. Once the referee begins viewing the tablet this clock begins. Something like 2-3 minutes feels right. If the referee doesn’t make a call within that time frame it automatically reverts to “call on the field stands.”  If you can’t overturn a call conclusively in that time frame it isn’t egregious enough to be overturned anyways. 

Edited August 21, 2019 by Bills2ref

[Gugny]

8 hours ago, Warcodered said:

This is kind of the entire point of instant replays if you're not going to slow it down why even have them.

 

For fan viewing, yes.  I don't think officiating reviews should be slowed down.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

3 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

For fan viewing, yes.  I don't think officiating reviews should be slowed down.

they should be limited to the time they specified and if a decision is not made in the allocated time frame move on.  

[Orlando Tim]

36 minutes ago, Bills2ref said:

I believe expansion of replay is horrible for the purity of the game. It is part of the reason I enjoy High School Football, it is still a pure game and it does not take 4 hours to complete. Replay is completely out of hand. We have a replay for everything and replay reviews feel like they take 5-10 minutes per review. Multiply that by a possibility of 4 challenges per game and we are wasting 40 minutes. That being said, it isn’t going anywhere, so it must be corrected. 

 

Ive been trumpeting a plan that I feel would work pretty well. Replay is for correcting the egregious calls or non-calls. We can all agree that could have a place in the beloved game of football. It must be metered though, it cannot run rampant. First, make everything challengeable. It is practically there already, so just rip off the band aid. If you got called for a hold and felt it wasn’t a hold, challengeable. Incorrect spot? Sure that’s challengeable. Unsportsmanlike conduct that you don’t believe happened? Challengeable if you think there is evidence on tape to overturn it. Late hit out of bounds that was or wasn’t called? Challengeable.

 

 In addition to this, allow for challenges in the final two minutes. There is no more “booth review”. If the coach wants something reviewed, he throws the flag for it. Coaches still have two challenges per game, but that is it. They get two challenges of the game regardless of how those two go. If they win both, great, you still don’t get a third. Replays are also done in real time. The game is viewed and officiated in real time, why let ultra slow motion be used to detect a blade of grass on someone’s knee when he fumbled. Lastly, there is a “shot clock”. Once the referee begins viewing the tablet this clock begins. Something like 2-3 minutes feels right. If the referee doesn’t make a call within that time frame it automatically reverts to “call on the field stands.”  If you can’t overturn a call conclusively in that time frame it isn’t egregious enough to be overturned anyways. 

I overall agree but it in regards to the limit of challenges- you should keep having a challenge until the coach is wrong. Allowing a coach the ability to fix 8 wrong calls is good if he only uses 8 challenges. Basically one mistake and no more challenges which would make a coach only throw it on big mistakes not small ones that might not go their way.

[CarpetCrawler]

I was confused at first, I guess you mean at real speed? Real time is more like as it is happening, real speed is at the same speed it happened.

[Gugny]

23 minutes ago, CarpetCrawler said:

I was confused at first, I guess you mean at real speed? Real time is more like as it is happening, real speed is at the same speed it happened.

 

I'm sorry that confused you.

[row_33]

there is a conspiracy to destroy just the teams i cheer for

 

robot umps and NFL replay on every play will just make the hate get worse against the teams i cheer for

 

NYC and Toronto and wherever will just make me angrier by their bias against my teams

 

 

 

[clayboy54]

Anything that keeps Al Riveron out of the process is good for the game.

1. Keep it inside the stadium

2. Final decisions from the on-field referee

3. 60 seconds to look at video, however you choose, fast, slo-mo, whatever

4. Any play being reviewed is subject to other infractions that may be uncovered

5. Coaches get 2 challenges per half no matter what

6. No booth review inside 2 minutes. If you have 1 of your 2 left, use it

7. All games MUST have the same number of available camera angles for replay (i.e. Superbowl has like 50 cameras while Bills games typically have about 3)

 

That is my proposal.

[Don Otreply]

Imo the key is putting in  a point system, so when a given ref has X numbers of points for bad calls in a season/career he/she is fired. The refs thing is just a good old boys club and needs to be shaken up.  Also only the head coaches should be able to flag a replay, no more mandatory replays.  

 

With tv time outs, team timeouts, and now replay timeouts, the game is becoming as slow as baseball.

 

Go Bills!!!

[That's No Moon]

Slow motion...

Edited August 21, 2019 by That's No Moon

[Figster]

8 hours ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said:

Then what is the point?

The officiating crew may not have the proper angle /sightline to see an obvious penalty.

 

The point is to help keep with the natural flow of a football game.

 

Not dissecting...

[Gugny]

18 hours ago, Figster said:

The officiating crew may not have the proper angle /sightline to see an obvious penalty.

 

The point is to help keep with the natural flow of a football game.

 

Not dissecting...

 

Yes.  

 

And I'm glad you brought up angles.  I also think, for officiating replay purposes, the replays should be from field-level cameras.  

 

The 150,000,000 angles, vantage points, views, etc., are fine for the TV viewer.  But what sense does it make for an official review to be viewed in angles that the referee couldn't have possibly had when the play happened?

 

I don't think it makes any sense at all.  That's not a replay, as far as officiating is concerned.  It's an extra official/officials via cameras.

[row_33]

1 hour ago, Gugny said:

 

Yes.  

 

And I'm glad you brought up angles.  I also think, for officiating replay purposes, the replays should be from field-level cameras.  

 

The 150,000,000 angles, vantage points, views, etc., are fine for the TV viewer.  But what sense does it make for an official review to be viewed in angles that the referee couldn't have possibly had when the play happened?

 

I don't think it makes any sense at all.  That's not a replay, as far as officiating is concerned.  It's an extra official/officials via cameras.

 

not all games are equally covered by cameras and angles

 

i PVR the games and fast forward through all replays, they just do whatever the heck they want to in the booth no matter how objectively obvious the call should be

 

'oh.... it might have been out of bounds....  fast forward for the next 2-15 minutes on the recording.... oh, it was determined out of bounds, whatever, next play please..."

 

it just pisses people off in 3 different ways

 

who needs this aggravation when i'm just trying to veg away from the rat race

 

 

[Mrbojanglezs]

YESS

 

this would solve all the rules problems. 

 

Been saying this for a while. The refs on the field have to make the call in real time so why does everyone else see it in slo-mo? TV should not be allowed to show slow replay in any challenge on the field would be reviewed in real-time if you can't see it in real time you can't change the ruling