Is It Time for Replays at the High School Level?
 

Seems like more and more we are seeing those dastardly little video cameras recording our mistakes for placement in the local paper and wonderful YouTube.

I have always said it would be impossible to bring video replay technology to the high school level simply because of the logistics but it seems almost like we are being forced into it with plays like the ones from California and Florida.

Would having the ability to review these plays on the coaches cameras (forget the Dad in the stands) make the game better or would it just open a can of worms?

The team with the better cameraman has an advantage in getting calls overturned. (I'm sure he'll manage tech difficulties if he gets a shot that disfavors his own team.) I certainly wouldn't like to see games decided by who has the better cameraman.
________
Vaporizer wiki

I'm done if that happens.

Not because I wouldn't want to be overturned. I'd like to be able to get everything right. But that's just too much.

No freakin' way. I know there is limited replay in some HS basketball playoff games and I believe even that is over the top. We (as in a collective society) seem to be forgetting the purpose of high school athletics.

I don't think it's going to happen at most schools because of the equipment required. But even the Little League World Series has started using it, so I'm sure some places will want to use it if it becomes an option.

In general, I say no.

But if there is $ there, and the PTB want it, it just might get voted in.

The cost for a fudimentary system wouldn't be very much. If you find the right camera, the cost might be:

• $1,200 for the high-definition camera
• $400 for a nice flat panel display
• $250 hardware to ensure the equipment is protected
• $50 for cables, etc

So that under $2,000. Then a neutral 3rd party person has to be paid to use the camera. Have him up high in a press box or something, pay him something like 75% of a game fee, and train them how to focus on the play. Wide angle at first and very quick zoom into following the ball. It won't be perfect, but a trial might need to be done to examine the effectiveness.

I guess I'm saying that if you have a rich HS association, it could just very well be possible.

Schools can barely afford to pay for the kid's gear and for putting the games on. No way can they implement what is required to do this. The Juggler's cost assessmnet is way off. There is no way you can do effective IR with one camera in the press box. That camera can provide NO definitive views of either sideline or goal line. It would be of only limited use on most other plays in the field of play. Perhaps helping on SOME catch/no catch or fumble.no fumble situations. But that would be it.

NFL and NCAA experiences have even proven that IR is not the final answer and does not always get it right either.

What you're saying is correct as far as it goes: one camera in a HS game can't replicate the angles you get in the game of the week.

But the argument for IR at this level isn't to match what IR does for NCAA or NFL. The question is: can we improve the officiating incrementally? You don't need all the angles for that.

Think of it this way: the blown calls that notoriously show up on YouTube typically don't have great angles either. If HS IR can eliminate calls that are obviously wrong from ANY angle, then it would serve its function.

I'm not in favor of the idea, but we won't be able to squash it until we understand and defeat the best argument for it.

Ah no, they do not.

They show one angle. And while it may appear to be an incorrect call from that angle, it may be an entirely different call from the official's angle and that may well be the correct angle.

No!

If it is done half-arse, which it would have to be due to costs, etc, it is gooing to be more problematic than helpful. Video would be great for the crew to use in their own development and training. Let's get a system in place that assures EVERY crew of getting video of every game they work before worrying about using it in the middle of a game

The NCHSAA is recommending that every HS hire a certified athletic trainer if they participate in football, soccer, or lacrosse.....and people are aghast at the cost to the school systems. We've had 3 or 4 kids DIE this year in N.C. while participating in football.

Who in the world - we're not talking Mater Dei or Charlotte Catholic type schools here- is going to afford to put video replay equipment in every HS stadium? This is beyond bizaare.

Its HS football for crying out loud, not life or death. Everyone wants to get it right but some folks need to get over the fact that this is NOT the NFL.

You're completely wrong! I've already seen video implemented for this cost, with first hand knowledge, too.

Secondly, if you read my post, I said that if $ is there... I now that some HS programs get thousands of people to games. Those programs could do it. They could pay for the equipment, no problem.

Furthermore, I happen to have 3 years' experience being a television camera operator. If you get somebody that knows what they're doing, you could get great shots. I've worked with award-winning professionals in this area.

I also have 5 years experience working with HD video including multiple-angle views of the same feed.

Granted it would never be of the quality that we're used to in the bigs, but it can be done.

What experience do you have with setting up video camera systems, HD systems, and with televising live sports?

I don't know about your area but the big thing now in southern Michigan is puting in new artificial turf fields with costs of over a million dollars. within recent years four new fields have gone in. If they can afford theses fields then they can afford $2,000 to $3,000 for cameras.

Let's see here. We have CEO's stealing millions and driving multi billion dollar corporations into the ditch while throwing elaborate orgies, we have politicians selling senate seats, we have an economy in the tank with millions unemployed, we have retirement benefits worth one fourth of their previous values and we have extremist crazies trying to kill us from caves a world away and yet people are so worried about getting the right call in a meaningless HS game that there is talk of installing video replay? Now I'm worried.

We can't even get quality video now from the schools. Anyone who really believes this can happen is smoking something.

As mentioned above, the best thing is to develop officials better. More clinics and more quality video training as well as mentoring and evaluation would be great.

The costs of IR are crazy. How many schools will pay for the equipment? How many are going to pay multiple persons to do quality video work during a game? How about the delays involved? Remember, this IS high school. Let's keep it in perspective.

And I respectfully disagree that the purpose of IR is to "incrementally" improve officiating. I've already listed steps that should be taken to do that. IR won't make us better officials. Improved training will.

If you think people are law-suit crazy now, just see what IR would do for them.

Currently, the best protection we have is a state and national association that says that NO protests will be allowed.

The argument is that IR will help get the call right in a few more cases, not that it will make officials better. Improved training will also reduce the number of mistakes by officials. But you can't argue against IR by suggesting an additional means to the same end, unless you can argue that the two are incompatible.

Woah, it's not about the cost nor about the level of available technology, or at least shouln't be. This is a GAME that is over 125 years old and is still growing in popularity. It ain't broke, and doesn't need fixing.

Nintendo and Playstation are addressing the needs of those who want to participate in the action from the comfort of their favorite easy chair. There is NO perfection in (real) football.

Strategies are only effective until someone smarter figures out a way to defend against them, plays are successful only when multiple players execute properly close enough to each other to add to each other's performance. The ball, itself, is designed to bounce inconsistently. Players rise, or fall, to levels of performance that surprise even themselves. Much of the game's allure and popularity is a direct result of it's inconsistency and unpredictability. It's about rising to challenge knowing someone has to fail.

Enjoy the game, with all it's twists and turns, which only add to the excitement. Football is a "game of inches" and not a game of inches at the same time. Every succeeding spot is nothing more than the best guess of a human being trained to recognize and determine best guesses. There are no lasers, no gps designations no precision technologies used to insure absolute accuracy. Isn't every 1st down that's made, or missed by an inch just as dependent on where the previous spot was as where the ball was marked down?

The idiots and loudmouths everpresent at all football games need to be better ignored and shunned, not encouraged and celebrated which is exactly what IR would bring to the HS game.

Just think for a moment about all the Cecil B. DeMills with cameras at the average youth football games, imagine what accepting video replays would do to that environment.

AMEN BROTHER!! The only way to improve officiating is to improve officials. The only way to improve officials is to improve (and in some cases implement) training. TRAINING, TRAINING, TRAINING.

I have never been a fan of Instant Replay at any level. Based on my non-scientific observations, most of IR calls that are totally cut-and-dry, the vast majority of them are close as c*nt hair. To stop a game for 10 extra minutes because an official may or may not have missed something by a fraction of a milisecond is ridiculous. The High School game certainly doesn't need to be poisoned with the evils of the college and pro game.

Furthermore, if you have a bad Referee reviewing a bad camera angle to determine if a bad call was missed - what the hell do you end up with?

Here's a point that no-one seems to have really made yet. Having instant replay at a game affects the way you call the game.

Your philosophy changes in several areas with IR. If you don't believe me, ask any NCAA guy in your association who works IR games about it. If you have IR:- then a fumble/no fumble, you will favour fumble and keep off the whistle, IR can always say the kid was down and overrule you. If you have catch/no catch, you stay off the whistle as IR can always overrule it to be an incomplete, etc, etc.

These things are in direct opposition to your normal officiating philosophy of "if in doubt, it's XXXXX". If all the schools you work in your city have IR of sufficient standard then OK, you can probably do it. But if they do not, your philosophy will be changing from one Friday to another and you will likely screw up.

As for what constitutes a sufficient standard of camera coverage for IR, I'd suggest a absolute minimum of 4 cameras, one on each sideline, one behind each endzone. All would need to be at a decent elevation. Personally I think there is no place for it in HS football. Has IR even reached down to Div II or Div III college yet?

BTW. I'm totally against it but we know every school records their games, then there is Dad in the stands with his pocket camcorder and the insidious newspapers willing to sacrifice for a few readers by taking the video and exorcising it as the "unbiased" judge of officiating. Oh, don't forget YouTube where it can be posted for the entire world to view.

While the technology exists the cost to do it right is tremendous. Juggling said $2,000 and that is for a single camera. How many times have you seen the NFL replays require multiple cameras simply because different angles give different views? I say more like $8,000 to $10,000 for a truly functional replay system, plus, camera operators and replay official and then you need to aggregate and synchronize the different replays that is probably an additional $5,000. Maybe $15,000 - $20,000 for the system plus game labor.

Lets say we set up that system for a single game and you don't get one call for replay. Is it worth it?

The better answer is take that money and put it into training and realize officials are human and will make mistakes.

We cannot setup rules to prevent the video revolution from taking over officiating but NFHS, state and local associations need to be proactive in adopting the technology to make our experience on the field better.

Lord no!

Unless you're one of the major US networks with 20 HD cameras and twice as many PA's, 99.9% of the time the BEST view of any play is from the official on the field.

If I had a (US) dollar for every time I've said, "Coach, you would not believe how different a play can look from 3 yards away where I'm standing as opposed to the 35 yards away where you're standing"....I could retire and buy that swamp land in FLA I've been dreaming of.

Players execute correctly 50% of the time, coaches less, fans.....don't get me started.

Officials get it right 95%+...why are we even talking about such a scenario?

I think they have used instant replay in high school hockey in Minnesota. Am I remembering that correctly?

This would be a big advantage for schools who could afford it, which might exacerbate the haves vs have nots thing.

I'm all for improving officiating. Training, video study, area meetings, discussion boards like this - they're all tools for helping us get better. So in theory, you could make the case.

I just see way too many problems with the actual implementation. Like Hoss said - we've often got the best view. Not always. And sometimes we still screw it up.

But if y'all want to get either RefBot 3000s out there or make us retire at the age of 30 when our eyesight isn't as sharp, knock yourself out. I know I'm doing the best I can, and high school football isn't supposed to be the NFL.

Simple. We are starting to see game videos show up on mainly on newspaper sites and YouTube in super slow motion "proving" the officials were wrong and hoping to convince even at the cost of going to court the decision should be overturned.

Think this discussion proves it impractical, of course, that will not stop the proponents who most likely have never officiated a football game.

I was going to echo your sentiments, but then you dredged to vulgarity.

Heavens no.

The state football finals were all televised and you should have seen some of the shoddy camera work....

No it is not.

There is no way we would get consistent application across the country, let alone state or area. Not all games are on TV and there would take a lot of money and training to get a little consistency or to get angles. You need more than one press box angle to get plays right. It would be a waste of time if implemented.

Peace

Sorry man, I guess I got a little too worked up.

Very, very well said....

They are at your game too!:)

Rather than ramble on and on, I would just simply say that any type of video reply for officiating purposes of a high school game is a bad idea.

If most schools do not have a play clock how are we to expect them to have replay equipment?

IR has no place in HS football. It's already ruined NFL (For me anyway). Every play is even more scrutinized over and over again to see if it should be challenged, and I feel it's taken alot away from the game.

In Minnesota hockey, I think the state tournament uses IR but of course they are using the TV stations' equipment. In Minnesota, hockey is a religion, so they have to do everything extra "special."

Good point made about play clocks. Only one field that we work on even has a play clock.

Good discussion, but it is very far from reality.

Schools already have shot clocks for basketball, so I don't think it would be a big deal to get a play clock for football setup. We already have two schools with them installed and they used them only during the playoff games. The problem is who will run it for the regular season games?

For BB games, it's usually some school personnel who doesn't even have to be a certified official. For football, any clock operator has to be a certified official. Do we need that now for a play clock operator? I don't know if the contract covered it. If we do, that person is required to be in full uniform and is paid a certain contractual game fee specifically for clock operators.

As far as IR at the high school level.. please just say NO. :}

We don't need a play clock and certainly do not want instant replay.

Just say no.

The biggest state tournament in Minnesota and to some extent in North Dakota is hockey. That seems so strange to me now since Indiana doesn't even sanction hockey.

Your comment about play clocks brings up another question. I can only recall one school I've only worked that did not have a play clock and they now have one. Some of the really small schools in the rural areas may not have them but we don't work too many games at those places.

The play clock and game clock operators are the responsibility of game management and sometimes they are the same person. We usually meet with them before the game and will take over the clocks on the field if we have too many problems. We have had a few instances where a play clock didn't work.

REPLY: I've seen a football play clock (note I used the singular) at only one school here in NJ. It wasn't used in our game. I wouldn't have allowed it if they wanted to use it. There was only one at one end of the field. Kinda dumb, don't you think?

I've always been against instant replay. I espically hate the college application. I think it breaks up momentum in the game, I'd eliminate replay and finally get to the magical 3 hour game (which is happening in DIII now).

Look its a game, coaches and players make mistakes, so will officials. As long as those breaks go both ways I see no reason to over analize them.

One play clock? absolutely Bob, I also would not permit it's use with only one or if either of them conked out. My experience this year with three games at these two fields was that they (the teams) liked having the visible play clock.
Only one delay call and it wouldn't have matter as they were so messed up that even a 40 second clock would not have been long enough.

There is a community college up the road an hour from my location where I've worked NCAA games and they set out a pair of portable play clocks that I'm told are also used for basketball. Very visible from the field and wired up to the press box clock operator for control.

I'm not advocating mandating PCs but if you have them or can get them installed cheaply, such as these portable ones, I say use them.

I would love to have play clocks.

My philosophy is get as many snaps as possible in the game. I keep the 25 second clock fairly close and keep the offense informed therefore very few DOGs.

A play clock would be a great addition. I am tired of this part of the game being put only in the hands of the officials.

Peace

With school districts around here talking about dropping any support for sports due to the state of California's budget, I seriously doubt money being dropped on unnecessary play clocks.

At Engelstad Arena ($110 million hockey facility) in Grand Forks they have replay available for NCAA games but they don't use it for HS hockey tournaments. I believe the IR for NCAA is used only for determining if a goal has been scored or not.

I don't think (maybe this is wishful thinking) that state HS associations philosophically believe that IR is necessary and that they believe that sports still have an educational value that is more important than winning at all costs.

However, there seems to be mounting pressure to make HS sports bigger and more like college or pro sports.