NCAA Instant Replay

[CDurham]

I have noticed in a lot of games that the officials are reviewing every 3 pointer that they are unsure as to whether the foot was on the line or not. Now I know that the the old 3 point lines are causing a problem as they are still painted on some floors and also the differential between NBA and NCAA lines. But many times the official is not in the proper position causing him/her to miss the necessary look to rule a 3 or 2 pointer.

I agree with the use of instant replay, but not everytime an official wants to bail his/her ruling out of scrutiny because of improper positioning or "wondering of the eyes". I think by using instant replay we are taking the human error out of the game, which at one time made the game fun to watch. By having instant replay in sports to determine every knick picky ruling we are making the game a technological one and not a human one.

Just my opinion but would like to know what others think!

Thanks

[jeffpea]

they're not stopping the game very often...I think you are "mis-remembering" the frequency....

btw, getting the 2pt or 3pt shot correct is an "easy fix" and definitely has an impact on the game (can you imagine the out cry of a Final Four game that ends in a 1pt victory where the officials did not award 3pts on a shot during the game?!). for simple corrections like this, stop the game, get it right, and move on...

[Tio]

I think we need to remember our #1 priorty as officials: keep the game fair.

An incorrect ruling could have a huge impact on a coach's job, a team's season, etc. That is why the instant replay rules exist.

If you think Basketball is bad, check out the NFL... they go to IR much more frequently and to top it off, they let the coaches challenge rulings!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by CDurham

I have noticed in a lot of games that the officials are reviewing every 3 pointer that they are unsure as to whether the foot was on the line or not.

I agree with the use of instant replay, but not everytime an official wants to bail his/her ruling out of scrutiny because of improper positioning or "wondering of the eyes". I think by using instant replay we are taking the human error out of the game, which at one time made the game fun to watch. By having instant replay in sports to determine every knick picky ruling we are making the game a technological one and not a human one.

Geeze, let me look at the options:
1) review a 3-pointer that I'm not sure of and get the call right.
2) guess at a call that has to be made even though I'm not sure and then hope that I do get it right.

Hmmmmmmm.......tough decision knowing that my boss is gonna be looking at the tape no matter what.

Jmo but I think that you'd have to be an idiot not to go to the monitor.

[CDurham]

Geeze, let me look at the options:
1) review a 3-pointer that I'm not sure of and get the call right.
2) guess at a call that has to be made even though I'm not sure and then hope that I do get it right.

Hmmmmmmm.......tough decision knowing that my boss is gonna be looking at the tape no matter what.

Jmo but I think that you'd have to be an idiot not to go to the monitor.

I understand your stance. But the games I watched (totaling around 4) was that some officials were out of position or looking somewhere where they shouldnt. Obviously I have not watched every game where the monitor was used, but the 4 I saw the officials took up too much time. Most of the instances were pretty outright 3's and I want to get the call right as does every official, however I think going to the monitor when its not even close is getting ridiculous and like TIO said the NFL goes to the monitor too much. Basketball will be the same soon. It takes away from the momentum. Let a coach call a timeout and request the officials go to the monitor, but don't stop play dead right at the moment.

Yeah we make human errors as officials and for the past (2002-2003 was first for NBA not sure for NCAA) years we have not used the monitor. It made the game fun knowing that the officials had to be on their game just like the players. Just seems to me that they should implement a system where a coach can call a timeout to request that the officials review the 3 to rule whether it was a 3 or 2 pointer. If its upheld or over ruled charge the timeout and resume play as normal.

[Fox 40 Deaf]

I'm going to go against the crowd and completely agree with you cdurham.

I think the officials should be on their toes and be ready to make the right call. Some officials will just get lazy because they know they can 'fall back' on the monitor.

And you know what? If they miss a call and blow the game it wouldn't be the first time it happened. Officials are people and they make mistakes.

To the person who said something about NCAA tournament game losing by one and turns out the official scored a three pointer as a two. You know what? The official might have scored the three as a two and lost the game for them. But I am sure their were questionable calls earlier in the game that they gave to that team not knowing for sure if it was the right call or not. There is always questionable calls and that is what makes the game fun.

I read somewhere where they are creating a behind the plate umpire computer thing where it automaticly reads balls and strikes. This to me is absurd, it takes the fun out of the game. A great deal of calls by officials are judgement calls and it should stay this way.

I like the monitor replay if there is a fight or something. But to review OOB, etc I believe that the three officials should be able to come to some conclusion their selves instead of heading to the monitor.

[CDurham]

Originally Posted by Fox 40 Deaf

I'm going to go against the crowd and completely agree with you cdurham.

I think the officials should be on their toes and be ready to make the right call. Some officials will just get lazy because they know they can 'fall back' on the monitor.

And you know what? If they miss a call and blow the game it wouldn't be the first time it happened. Officials are people and they make mistakes.

To the person who said something about NCAA tournament game losing by one and turns out the official scored a three pointer as a two. You know what? The official might have scored the three as a two and lost the game for them. But I am sure their were questionable calls earlier in the game that they gave to that team not knowing for sure if it was the right call or not. There is always questionable calls and that is what makes the game fun.

I read somewhere where they are creating a behind the plate umpire computer thing where it automaticly reads balls and strikes. This to me is absurd, it takes the fun out of the game. A great deal of calls by officials are judgement calls and it should stay this way.

I like the monitor replay if there is a fight or something. But to review OOB, etc I believe that the three officials should be able to come to some conclusion their selves instead of heading to the monitor.

Totally agree. It is no different than calling a player control foul at the end of the game with a team down by 1 and the shot going in. They don't review that or atleast not yet.

I read somewhere where they are creating a behind the plate umpire computer thing where it automaticly reads balls and strikes.

Funniest and stupidest thing I've ever heard of. That just makes the game a technological one. Next thing we know we will have robots officiating basketball and umpiring baseball.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Fox 40 Deaf

I read somewhere where they are creating a behind the plate umpire computer thing where it automaticly reads balls and strikes. This to me is absurd, it takes the fun out of the game. A great deal of calls by officials are judgement calls and it should stay this way.

Originally Posted by CDurham

Funniest and stupidest thing I've ever heard of. That just makes the game a technological one. Next thing we know we will have robots officiating basketball and umpiring baseball.

There are things that are facts and their are things that are judgement. In baseball, a ball crossing the plate or not is really a fact. The only judgement is that we currently depend on a human to decide if a small, 90+ mph ball crossed over a relatively small area from a point of view that is less than ideal to do so as compared to what could be done. The fact is that there are simply some things that technology does better than people....sometimes as a tool for people.

Instant replay in college football is just about perfect....and that has only come about as the technology to support it has matured. Sure, it is viewed by a person, but it uses technology to make it possible.

Replays for basektball are less than perfect as they interfere with the game too much. The flow of game just doesn't lend itself to the types of replays that are now being utilized (3-points or not).

As for baseball, it shouldn't be too difficult to have an immediate indicator that precisely and accurately determines if the ball was over the plate or not (and not too high or low)...to a far greater accuracy than is humanly possible.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by CDurham

But the games I watched (totaling around 4) was that some officials were out of position or looking somewhere where they shouldnt.

And you don't think that if "some" officials were constantly out of position and not looking at their primary, they still would be working that conference? You do know that they are constantly being evaluated, don't you?

If we miss a call, it's on Sports Center or at least a local telecast the next day. And the rulesmakers and supervisors don't want us to miss this particular call...because there's no longer a reason not to.

Don't you think that maybe a better idea might be to try and fix the cause instead of the effect, if the cause actually is what you say it is? If the officials are really causing the problem(which I completely and vehemently disagree with btw), then the NCAA should be going back to those officials through their conference supervisors. And.....how do you know that they aren't already doing that?

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Fox 40 Deaf

I read somewhere where they are creating a behind the plate umpire computer thing where it automaticly reads balls and strikes. This to me is absurd, it takes the fun out of the game. A great deal of calls by officials are judgement calls and it should stay this way.

This would certainly have taken a lot of wind out of the sails of the likes of Earl Weaver, Leo "The Lip" Durocher, Billy Martin, Bobby Cox, and Lou Pinella. Where's the fun in that?

[refguy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And you don't think that if "some" officials were constantly out of position and not looking at their primary, they still would be working that conference? You do know that they are constantly being evaluated, don't you?

If we miss a call, it's on Sports Center or at least a local telecast the next day. And the rulesmakers and supervisors don't want us to miss this particular call...because there's no longer a reason not to.

Don't you think that maybe a better idea might be to try and fix the cause instead of the effect, if the cause actually is what you say it is? If the officials are really causing the problem(which I completely and vehemently disagree with btw), then the NCAA should be going back to those officials through their conference supervisors. And.....how do you know that they aren't already doing that?

The main reason officials are out of position is because they can't keep up with the speed of play. A lot of these officials, if they were judged solely on their positioning, play calling, and fitness, would be long gone. For whatever reason supervisors are scared to put people on the floor that can do those things better because they don't have the reputation of these older officials.

[That Don Guy]

Originally Posted by CDurham

I have noticed in a lot of games that the officials are reviewing every 3 pointer that they are unsure as to whether the foot was on the line or not. Now I know that the the old 3 point lines are causing a problem as they are still painted on some floors and also the differential between NBA and NCAA lines. But many times the official is not in the proper position causing him/her to miss the necessary look to rule a 3 or 2 pointer.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as the "old" 3-point line is still in use for NCAA women, shouldn't both lines be painted on pretty much every floor in college?

Question: how much of a problem is it when the line is painted yellow against the "wood-colored" floor? I have seen two schools (San Francisco and California) use a yellow men's 3-point line (the book says that when both lines are there, they need to be different colors, and the women's line is supposed to be the same as the other lines on the court as it touches the top of the free-throw circle), and it's almost impossible to see it on HDTV.

-- Don

[CDurham]

Originally Posted by That Don Guy

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as the "old" 3-point line is still in use for NCAA women, shouldn't both lines be painted on pretty much every floor in college?

Question: how much of a problem is it when the line is painted yellow against the "wood-colored" floor? I have seen two schools (San Francisco and California) use a yellow men's 3-point line (the book says that when both lines are there, they need to be different colors, and the women's line is supposed to be the same as the other lines on the court as it touches the top of the free-throw circle), and it's almost impossible to see it on HDTV.

-- Don

The men use 20' 9", women 19' 9", and high school also at 19' 9". With having to have a mens line and a womens line I can see where it can get confusing even with the color differential. I wish there could be a universal 3 point line like it was before (except for the NBA) but I can understand why they adopted to move the line back to 20' 9". The schools I am at use black and red usually so it is not hard to see, I havent seen yellow yet

[CDurham]

Originally Posted by refguy

The main reason officials are out of position is because they can't keep up with the speed of play. A lot of these officials, if they were judged solely on their positioning, play calling, and fitness, would be long gone. For whatever reason supervisors are scared to put people on the floor that can do those things better because they don't have the reputation of these older officials.

Great comment. I agree 100%. They don't want to take the guy out who has 30 years in the game who cant get up the court well at all, compared to a guy with 10 years and a lot of younger years. Some guys are not being evaluated by their fitness, position, ect as someone stated above from what I have seen. I've seen Bruce Benedict call many horrible games at Gardner Webb and also SEC from being to slow and out of position. And he is still in with both conferences? He is a terrific guy though

As for baseball, it shouldn't be too difficult to have an immediate indicator that precisely and accurately determines if the ball was over the plate or not (and not too high or low)...to a far greater accuracy than is humanly possible.

Definately agree that technology has better accuracy than humans, but the game isn't played by robots. If it were I wouldnt have a problem with making the whole game a technological one where robots are umpiring and officiating. However, it is played by humans as it has been for 100's of years and why not use judgement of humans even if we might miss a few here and there as we always have. I do like the replay they have in baseball now, but wouldn't like to see the indicator behind the plate. Its always fun to see Bobby Cox waddle out to the field and give his 2 cents