Replay considerations
In Saturday's playoff game between Denver and New England, Broncos cornerback Champ Bailey intercepted Tom Brady in the end zone and ran back the full length of the field, only to be knocked out of bounds at the last minute by Patriots tight end Ben Watson. Bailey, channeling Leon Lett, wasn't expecting a hit, and the ball flew from his hand. It was ruled out at the one.
Bill Belichick tossed his red challenge flag on the field, then casually picked it up again and put it back in his sock. He was hoping the replay might show that the ball had gone through the end zone, in which case a touchback would have given the Patriots the ball. But Referee Jeff Triplette came back a minute later and upheld the ruling on the field.
I'm not arguing with the call. I thought it was out in the field of play as well. But I think the primary reason the call was upheld was that the video evidence consisted of two or three angles that were totally inconclusive. I think it's time the NFL incorporated some more sophisticated technology into their replay process. Given multiple camera angles, they could accurately construct a virtual three-dimensional model of the play and then pinpoint the position of the ball when it crossed the sideline, thereby providing the correct call with very high confidence. What are they waiting for?
posted by Roy @ 5:32 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Why don't we just use this new technology to make referees, umpires, etc. completely obsolete? A few baseball parks installed technology that could tell whether a pitch was really in the strike zone or not and many media outlets are using "ump cams," "catcher cams," and overhead cams to second-guess umpires. Would basketball be as fun if every travel or every foul was called?
I'll tell you why we don't install all these technologies -- it would kill an important element of the game! There is very little that is more entertaining, frustrating, and exciting than a missed or controversial call. The player or team who catches the break gets a smile, the player or team who gets screwed gets frustrated (and occasionally throws an entertaining tantrum), and the fans and bloggers get something to talk about over their real or virtual water coolers. What's not to love about the imperfect nature of referees and umpires?
I admit it is unfortunate when important games turn on missed calls. But then again, would those games be even remotely as memorable without the controversy?
New technology to make officials obsolete ... really? That sounds like a fantastic idea! Unfortunately, that fantasy is a long ways off. The days of sensors on jerseys, balls, bases, gloves, etc., and the expertise to figure out the significance of all the information seems like it will be a long time coming, if it ever comes. However, I am just a civil engineer, so I don't really have a high level of expertise in the electrical engineering realm.
With all due respect to mymrbig, utilizing available technology wouldn't kill anything. You still need officials and it would, hopefully, make the officiating more fair. Did you see the end of the University of Oklahoma v. Texas Tech football game this year? The officials ruled (probably erroneously) that Taurean Henderson got into the end zone on the last play of the game, stealing a win from the OU Sooners. Does it matter? In the grand scheme of life, not a great deal, but to the players and fans, it does. And it decided who would get to play in the Cotton Bowl. Bowl games are big money events. The technology Roy is promoting would have given the officials a clear cut answer ... and the correct ruling could have been made, whatever that ruling should have been.
Without the controversy, perhaps some games wouldn't be as memorable, but others might be more memorable because of the rulings the technology allows. The Patriots v. Broncos game may have been better if they had ruled the Champ Bailey return play a touchback instead of out at the 1, you never know. I guess that is why "branching" is such a good idea. Definitely, the play made by Ben Watson would have received more recognition if it had resulted in the Patriots getting the ball back, rather than Denver just having to run another play to get the go ahead TD. If the officials had ruled the Edell Shepherd play a TD, that might have been a fantastic OT thriller between the Bucs and 'Skins.
The issue of controversy gets at the difference between perception and reality. I try to be objective, especially when I am writing things other people will read. However, I have biases that naturally sneak in, especially when I'm watching the games and just being a fan. A good example is the no-call on the false start/offsides play in the Steelers v. Colts game. If the officials had looked at the tape, they would have seen that Steelers LG Alan Faneca moved, albeit ever so slightly, and induced the Colts guys offsides (or at least to stand up and point at him). So, the correct ruling, based on the rules as I know them, would have been a false start on the Steelers ... 5 yard penalty. I think it would have resulted in a Steelers punt, rather than them making the 4th down conversion. The reaction of Bill Cowher was priceless! He looked like I imagine Coach Houston would have looked 15 years ago if the refs in Ketchikan were blowing calls. He was irate. Why? Because he thought he was getting screwed over. That was his perception of the situation. The reality? The Colts were getting the shaft.
There are, obviously, rules that fans don't know about. Likewise, I have no idea what goes on in that little booth the referees look into. That's fine. Don't tell the consumer. Let us keep all our preconceived notions about the abundance of bad calls and conspiracy theories and the incompetence of officials in general. However, the officials should try to get the calls right. That is what they are there for.
I agree that the technology is useful. However, my concern is that the technology will get to the point of micro-managing. I don't want balls and strikes called by a computer. If I strike out looking on a pitch that I think is 2 inches off the black, I want to be able to swear at the ump. With a computer, I can't realistically blame the ump and just have to swear at myself. As long as the technology can only be invoked a limited number of times per game, then I am all for it. This would help reduce the likelihood of a game turning on a botched call while allowing sports to maintain a gray area that neither team nor player nor coach can control.
But even as I state that, I wonder whether any replay should be allowed. Long-term, both teams should benefit equally from blown calls while also being hurt equally. It is sometimes unfortunate when games turned on missed calls or blown calls, but I much prefer a world with the Immaculate Reception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Reception) than a world without.
Post a Comment
<< Home