Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Beef Up Replay

Replay is a good thing. Rebuilding New Orleans, it's debatable how responsible that is. Replay does not need tweaking. Replay needs to be spelled out in black and white and aided by technology.

The interception return for a TD by Ohio State against Penn State that made it 20-6 (21-6 with the extra point), shouldn't have been a TD (at least according to MW and TK) because the Buckeye spiked the ball before he got to the end zone! It still would have been a one possession (potentially) game if they'd given the ball to the Nittany Lions, as they should have. Would it have mattered? Maybe. Probably not, though ... PSU wasn't exactly marching up and down the field and lighting up the scoreboard.

At this point, I'd love for Roy to chime in. In a fairly recent discussion, we talked about replay and the idea of using multiple camera shots to recreate a 3-D image of the play (is it NBC that shows the replays that aren't actually replays, the ones that look like video game replays?). I don't know how accurate the current system is or what the exact capabilities are, but it is worth looking into. Tennis is using technology to get tough calls right. That's tennis! Football should be able to keep pace. Sure, it's a slightly more intricate matter, but it would be really nice to create a 3-D animation that allows the replay official to scroll around, change his perspective, zoom in and out, etc.

Taking the OU onsides kick play as an example, the model would allow the replay official to determine who touched the ball first. Then, he could look straight down the 45 yard line and determine exactly where OU WR Malcolm Kelly was when he was hit and where the Oregon Duck was when he contacted the ball. Just pause the replay when the Duck touches the ball and then change the angle to look down the line and see that it's short of the 45. It would be simple. And, maybe it's not the best idea to have retired officials in the box. There is a reason they aren't on the field. Is it really smart to have them determining some of the most important calls in a football game? I guess so, especially if you don't care who wins the game.

Anyone can officiate something. It's easy to know the rules and how to apply them. The difficult part is implementing that knowledge at game speed. I'm not going to say that is easy. But, replay slows it down. You don't do it at game speed. It's easy to apply the rules to replays if you know what the rules are.

This leads to my other point ... there should be strict rules on what is reviewable and what isn't. The replay official in the Oklahoma State v. Houston game wrongly overturned a fumble call that gave the Cougars the ball back and allowed them to continue a TD drive. C-USA has suspended the official for screwing up the call. The worst thing is that he overturned the play based on something that is unreviewable. Apparently, forward progress is only reviewable in certain situations, and whether or not forward progress is stopped before a fumble isn't reviewable. I don't really understand why it is only reviewable in certain circumstances, but that's the rule.

Players, coaches, officials and fans should have access to a list of the reviewable plays (with descriptions) and plays (and descriptions) that aren't reviewable. If something comes up that isn't on the list, then the game official can make a determination, but that shouldn't happen. This is not difficult. It's actually quite simple. I don't know what the hang-up is.

Tell the replay officials what plays they should be looking at and which ones they can't overturn. Tell them what to look for on each play based on the applicable rules. And, finally, give them the technology to get the looks they need to get it right. Or, I guess conferences can just cut their losses and suspend the officials after the damage is done.

2 Comments:

At 12:12 AM, October 04, 2006, Blogger mymrbig said...

Rebuilding New Orleans is entirely responsible. Unless you believe San Francisco shouldn't have been rebuilt after the earthquake/fire (1908?) and earthquake in the 1990s, or Anchorage after the Good Friday earthquake, or pretty much all of Indonesia after the tsunami, or Chicago after the great fire, etc.

Yes, much of New Orleans is below sea level. Yet so is most of The Netherlands, but somehow the Dutch manage to protect themselves and avoid catastrophe. What we need is to spend a little money to protect one of the most historic cities in the United States with category-5 levee protection.

Our government wastes money on all kinds of pointless things - roads to nowhere, wars against despots, campaigns. Rebuilding and protecting a great American city would not be a waste and it would be responsible.

And yes, for some reason you struck a nerve.

Instant replay is good.

   
At 12:32 PM, October 04, 2006, Blogger ET said...

Apparently, mymrbig is too close to the forest to see the trees on this one. But, I will admit that my cursory mention of rebuilding New Orleans didn't fully delineate my opinions on the rebuilding process.

I've only been to New Orleans once. I didn't particularly like it. But, I can respect those who do. I just visited Las Vegas and I'm not a big fan of the strip, but I can understand how other people would.

I like that mymrbig is justify spending a lot of money (not a little) on Category 5 protection for New Orleans based on the idea that the government wastes a lot of money other places too. While I won't argue with his assertion that the government is, at times, wasteful, why add to it? Why not try to limit government waste? The studies to determine what is necessary for Category 5 protection will cost a little bit of money. The actual levees, locks, pumps, etc. will cost billions. The current levees are supposed to be sufficient for Category 3 storms, I believe. However, the current levees were constructed poorly and, most likely, can't just be retrofitted to make them Category 5 proof.

It may, in fact, be a good idea to rebuild New Orleans, Category 5 levees and all. However, I don't think enough thought has been put into redesigning the city, modifying the location of residential areas, including moving people out of New Orleans to surrounding areas that aren't as prone to flooding, and determining what New Orleans should be like as we head deeper into the new millenium. Hurricane Katrina should wake Americans up. The leadership of NO should analyze what they should do, rather than blindly rebuild because they don't want to admit defeat. I think that's a character flaw of Americans. Sometimes, what you think is a good idea really isn't. That's why the Native Americans couldn't believe French settlers were settling New Orleans in the first place. They knew it flooded every year.

The Netherland issue raises a good point. It is written by mymrbig that most of the country is below sea level. Well, most of Louisiana is not below sea level. Most of the US is not below sea level. So, Americans, and Louisianans, have options. The Dutch, not so many options within their own country. Right?

   

Post a Comment

<< Home