|
Ah, what the heck. I'm up, the Pats lost so I'm in the mood.
Disclaimers:
I can't dispute that accuracy is better. Science is always bettering our lives.
Replay hasn't hurt football. The challenge element is strategic and almost makes it fun.
Arguments (Blue, I'm not argiuing, I'm just talking...):
My view is it's Paul Bunyon vs. the sawmill, cloning pepole, (D-man, D-man, we're talking about sports here)...
Right, it's more like kids watching TV rather than reading. My opinion stems from a nostagic vision of the way it used to be (still is in baseball). I try to keep a certain work ethic and pride in this little hobby of mine. I don't know why I even care. I'll never work a game where replay comes into, well, play. Umpiring Baseball, MLB, is a profession that pulls the elite from an enormous and seemingly eternal proving ground. They miss so little. Especially nowadays with the cuurent trend of crews getting together to discuss certain calls.
As far as my science fiction posts of robot players and computer optic officials, it's just that, fiction. It also reinforces my stance that unless technological help is going to absolutely ensure that no call is incorrect, then just let the human officials officiate the human game. Inconclusive replays should not be tolerated.
I'm not saying it's wrong (let me submit a proof that replay is bad and a pitch can rise), I'm just saying I don't like it.
D-MAN
|