Indisputable evidence?

[Hawk_4shur]

NCAA Rules state -

In order for an official to change or reverse a call made on the floor, the official must first find that the monitor review reveals by indisputable evidence that the call on the floor was incorrect.

Do sports officials ever, you know, actually read the rules of Instant Replay? It's ridiculous how the refs "re-officiate" plays in football (college & pro) and in basketball (mainly college). It seems that in every game there is a call that gets reversed where the evidence is no where near indisputable.

The dictionary defines it as "beyond dispute or doubt; undeniable:" It means that "judgment" is unnecessary. Both coaches should be able to look at the replay and agree before the call is reversed.

Change the rule, or fix it!

 

[Titanhawk2]

Aren't some calls deemed "unreviewable"?

 

[Fsanford]

NCAA Rules state -

In order for an official to change or reverse a call made on the floor, the official must first find that the monitor review reveals by indisputable evidence that the call on the floor was incorrect.

Do sports officials ever, you know, actually read the rules of Instant Replay? It's ridiculous how the refs "re-officiate" plays in football (college & pro) and in basketball (mainly college). It seems that in every game there is a call that gets reversed where the evidence is no where near indisputable.

The dictionary defines it as "beyond dispute or doubt; undeniable:" It means that "judgment" is unnecessary. Both coaches should be able to look at the replay and agree before the call is reversed.

Change the rule, or fix it!

indisputable, is up to the one view the monitor and they felt there was indisputable evidence the ball was still touching his hand. There are numerous examples of people having different opinions on calls even after reviews.

It is the opinion of the person who reviews it if there is evidence to overturn the call they choose to do it.. They are in a vacuum, they don't care what anyone elsese opinion is. I mean you have Rutgers fans they will say ball was still touching his hand no question about it.

Not sure how your fix it.

 

[Hawk_4shur]

indisputable, is up to the one view the monitor and they felt there was indisputable evidence the ball was still touching his hand. There are numerous examples of people having different opinions on calls even after reviews.

It is the opinion of the person who reviews it if there is evidence to overturn the call they choose to do it.. They are in a vacuum, they don't care what anyone elsese opinion is. I mean you have Rutgers fans they will say ball was still touching his hand no question about it.

Not sure how your fix it.

I don't know either, but I have a few of suggestions.

First, re-educate the officials on the the purpose of their review. It is NOT to determine how they think they would call it after seeing the replay - only whether there is indisputable evidence that the call was wrong.

Second - give the officials 60 seconds to look at the call. If they are not able to determine if the call was right or wrong in 1 minute, I don't see how the results of another couple of minutes can result in a verdict of indisputable.

Third - 3 people need to look at the evidence and agree. If they don't all agree then the call stands.

Either that, or just change the rule to "in the judgment of the replay official"

 

[sober_teacher]

I don't know either, but I have a few of suggestions.

First, re-educate the officials on the the purpose of their review. It is NOT to determine how they think they would call it after seeing the replay - only whether there is indisputable evidence that the call was wrong.

Second - give the officials 60 seconds to look at the call. If they are not able to determine if the call was right or wrong in 1 minute, I don't see how the results of another couple of minutes can result in a verdict of indisputable.

Third - 3 people need to look at the evidence and agree. If they don't all agree then the call stands.

Either that, or just change the rule to "in the judgment of the replay official"

Agree 100%. Especially #2 and #3.

 

[Fsanford]

I don't know either, but I have a few of suggestions.

First, re-educate the officials on the the purpose of their review. It is NOT to determine how they think they would call it after seeing the replay - only whether there is indisputable evidence that the call was wrong.

Second - give the officials 60 seconds to look at the call. If they are not able to determine if the call was right or wrong in 1 minute, I don't see how the results of another couple of minutes can result in a verdict of indisputable.

Third - 3 people need to look at the evidence and agree. If they don't all agree then the call stands.

Either that, or just change the rule to "in the judgment of the replay official"

Or just get rid of replay, because the mindset is that it solves all problems, not sure if it doesn't cause more.

Games were played for years without it, and calls good or bad were left to the part of the game idea. No different than players making mistakes during the game. And under that model I think calls evened up, now I am not so sure.

 

[83Hawk]

Or just get rid of replay, because the mindset is that it solves all problems, not sure if it doesn't cause more.

Games were played for years without it, and calls good or bad were left to the part of the game idea. No different than players making mistakes during the game. And under that model I think calls evened up, now I am not so sure.

Especially since in many cases the replay official still makes the wrong call, despite the video evidence.

 

[Hawk_4shur]

Or just get rid of replay, because the mindset is that it solves all problems, not sure if it doesn't cause more.

Games were played for years without it, and calls good or bad were left to the part of the game idea. No different than players making mistakes during the game. And under that model I think calls evened up, now I am not so sure.

I agree with this as well in the current format - replay was added to the game to fix egregious errors. Now it's just a method to give the officials more information to make judgment calls.

 

[hawkfan1963]

Bad calls by refs to affect the outcome of games are happening more often and becoming easier to spot. Football included.

 

[LarryMullenJr.]

I'll be honest, I thought it more likely than not that the ball was still touching his finger, but I also don't think--based on what we were shown on TV--that you couldn't see it well enough to change the call. And that would've been the case had it been called no good originally.
Plus, can we also address the fact that the arena equipment is effed up in that the clock-light around the backboard was lighting up before it got to zero? I know they look and it is the clock, but seems like that sort of crap should work properly.

 

[BurgHawk87]

I don't know either, but I have a few of suggestions.

First, re-educate the officials on the the purpose of their review. It is NOT to determine how they think they would call it after seeing the replay - only whether there is indisputable evidence that the call was wrong.

Second - give the officials 60 seconds to look at the call. If they are not able to determine if the call was right or wrong in 1 minute, I don't see how the results of another couple of minutes can result in a verdict of indisputable.

Third - 3 people need to look at the evidence and agree. If they don't all agree then the call stands.

Either that, or just change the rule to "in the judgment of the replay official"

I'd also add that replay should only be available at full speed. No game is played in real time at a frame by frame pace. Otherwise I completely agree with everything you said.

 

[iahawks10]

I'll be honest, I thought it more likely than not that the ball was still touching his finger, but I also don't think--based on what we were shown on TV--that you couldn't see it well enough to change the call. And that would've been the case had it been called no good originally.
Plus, can we also address the fact that the arena equipment is effed up in that the clock-light around the backboard was lighting up before it got to zero? I know they look and it is the clock, but seems like that sort of crap should work properly.

It has always been the light as what the officials look for on timing situations. The commentators instructed us to watch the game clock above the backboard on this play, although he should have said light. The light was on with .01 on the clock. Then you can clearly see the reflection of the other backboard (Rutgers goal) light up well after Iowa’s was already lit up. How are none of these in sync?

 

[83Hawk]

I'd also add that replay should only be available at full speed. No game is played in real time at a frame by frame pace. Otherwise I completely agree with everything you said.

If the replay official has to scrutinize closely, use “blow up“ shots, or examine frame by frame…..then the call needs to stand. If you can’t look at a replay 2-3 times at full speed and see something obvious, then you have no right to change a call.

 

[hexumhawk]

I thought the basket for sure should have counted based on how it was called in the game and the footage I saw.

The out of bounds at the end of the game was more telling when you saw the footage as to why they changed the call imo but still not sure it should have been changed given the call on the court to start with.

 

[SDHawkDoc]

Completely agree.

It would not be possible to remove human judgment from the equation for the foreseeable. The three primary suggestions would be an improvement given that people will still ultimately be making a judgment. Shortening the time and making it so that at least 2 of 3 have to agree with an overturn are both moves in the right direction.

 

[grugreen]

Would make a game extra long for sure, but why only replay the last 2 minutes. important time for sure but they make bad calls at the 10 minute mark as well as the 2 minute mark. A game the other night on espn had a bad OB call that the announcers replayed and showed ref was wrong but no replay cause there was 2:25 left.

 

[Fsanford]

Would make a game extra long for sure, but why only replay the last 2 minutes. important time for sure but they make bad calls at the 10 minute mark as well as the 2 minute mark. A game the other night on espn had a bad OB call that the announcers replayed and showed ref was wrong but no replay cause there was 2:25 left.

I think you are right in the sense it has to do with length of time more than anything and why they cannot review all game long.. The attention span of people is shorter and shorter, and why baseball for example has added time clocks to its process to speed things up.

Maybe 1 challenge flag per half for each team, +2 the final minutes, though not even sure I like that idea now that I sit here looking at it.

 

[DewHawk]

Yes, the review thing is not working, and delays games and needs to be addressed. The one that kills me is the late game reviews which essentially allows teams an extra time out.

 

[HawkLogic]

The refs reversed the call late in game to give Iowa the ball...so that was the makeup call although
I think it was likely correct, it was also going against the call made on the floor.


In the end, Iowa got the shaft getting a foul called with 1.9 second after good defense, but they had plenty of opportunity to make shots and blew it.
JoeT effort at end of half didn't get rewarded, but that is life on road.

 

[kceasthawk]

Or just get rid of replay, because the mindset is that it solves all problems, not sure if it doesn't cause more.

Games were played for years without it, and calls good or bad were left to the part of the game idea. No different than players making mistakes during the game. And under that model I think calls evened up, now I am not so sure.

I made this comment during football season, and got chastised here for it. Just IMHO of course but I really think we'd be better off without replay. Not only does it hold up the game, it disrupts the flow. And frankly they still get it wrong as often as they get it right with the replay. Plus I think it makes the officials lazy, because as you said they know they can "reofficiate the calls " with the clock stopped...

 

[Scangg]

As a Rutgers fan I thought the ball was on his finger tips still, but I didn't think it would get reversed. Really tough call either way.

The end of game out of bounds call pretty clearly was off Iowa IMO. His arm came in and you see the change of direction of the ball. Another close one though.

Both teams got one

 

[hawkeyekid]

As a Rutgers fan I thought the ball was on his finger tips still, but I didn't think it would get reversed. Really tough call either way.

The end of game out of bounds call pretty clearly was off Iowa IMO. His arm came in and you see the change of direction of the ball. Another close one though.

Both teams got one

There wasn't indisputable evidence to overturn either decision.

The difference is you are a Rutgers fan and bias is a factor. The refs can't get over their inflated egos and just admit that they can't tell and stick with the original call.

 

[hawkeyekid]

I made this comment during football season, and got chastised here for it. Just IMHO of course but I really think we'd be better off without replay. Not only does it hold up the game, it disrupts the flow. And frankly they still get it wrong as often as they get it right with the replay. Plus I think it makes the officials lazy, because as you said they know they can "reofficiate the calls " with the clock stopped...

You're probably right. I'll admit it...I thought replay would lead to better called games. Now, it's a safety net for poor referees or a chance for them to show how much they "know" about the game (to an audience that couldn't get a shit).

 

[Fsanford]

I made this comment during football season, and got chastised here for it. Just IMHO of course but I really think we'd be better off without replay. Not only does it hold up the game, it disrupts the flow. And frankly they still get it wrong as often as they get it right with the replay. Plus I think it makes the officials lazy, because as you said they know they can "reofficiate the calls " with the clock stopped...

I think opinion on replay can sometimes depend if the call goes for your team or against it ha ha ha.
Though it sure feels like the team you cheer for always gets the short end of the stick on reviews.

 

[kceasthawk]

I think opinion on replay can sometimes depend if the call goes for your team or against it ha ha ha.
Though it sure feels like the team you cheer for always gets the short end of the stick on reviews.

I think I can honestly say that I'm not basing that on Iowa games, They get it wrong in a lot of games not just Iowa's, and as I said my biggest complaint is the way it stops momentum, and disrupts the flow of the game, AND then they still get it wrong half the time.....

 

[Hawk_4shur]

The refs reversed the call late in game to give Iowa the ball...so that was the makeup call although
I think it was likely correct, it was also going against the call made on the floor.


In the end, Iowa got the shaft getting a foul called with 1.9 second after good defense, but they had plenty of opportunity to make shots and blew it.
JoeT effort at end of half didn't get rewarded, but that is life on road.

As a Rutgers fan I thought the ball was on his finger tips still, but I didn't think it would get reversed. Really tough call either way.

The end of game out of bounds call pretty clearly was off Iowa IMO. His arm came in and you see the change of direction of the ball. Another close one though.

Both teams got one

The reason I didn't mention either replay in my OP is because I was thinking of the broader issue - not just those specific examples.

But, having said that, I think BOTH calls very pretty "disputable" and should haven't been overturned.

 

[SI_NYC]

Or just get rid of replay, because the mindset is that it solves all problems, not sure if it doesn't cause more.

Games were played for years without it, and calls good or bad were left to the part of the game idea. No different than players making mistakes during the game. And under that model I think calls evened up, now I am not so sure.

That's a horrible idea.

 

[Fsanford]

That's a horrible idea.

Why?

 

[TampaHawkfan]

I understanding wanting to "get it right" but I liked sports better before all this review nonsense. I might feel differently if I felt they got the call right more than half the time even AFTER reviewing it for 5 minutes, but I have no idea what these refs think they were seeing on the replays. Besides, stopping to review everything kills any flow a game might have had. Same goes for college football.

Yes, sour grapes, but I seriously am like WTF?! after a lot of these decisions that come from the reviews. If I had a dollar for every time that happened, and the commentators often feel the same.

 

[Scangg]

There wasn't indisputable evidence to overturn either decision.

The difference is you are a Rutgers fan and bias is a factor. The refs can't get over their inflated egos and just admit that they can't tell and stick with the original call.

I agree lol. I didn't think either call should have been overturned either.

There may have been other angles not seen on TV though. Fran's post game reaction seemed like there may have been a clearer shot that it was still on his finger bc otherwise his comments would have been different IMO

 

[hawkifann]

I'll be honest, I thought it more likely than not that the ball was still touching his finger, but I also don't think--based on what we were shown on TV--that you couldn't see it well enough to change the call. And that would've been the case had it been called no good originally.
Plus, can we also address the fact that the arena equipment is effed up in that the clock-light around the backboard was lighting up before it got to zero? I know they look and it is the clock, but seems like that sort of crap should work properly.

Right, which is exactly why the rule states “indisputable” evidence. Had they ruled the shot no good in live action, there’s no way they would have reversed that on replay review. That was absolutely a 50-50 call that should have stayed as called on the court.

 

[SI_NYC]

Why?

Because it gets it right more than it does wrong.

 

[kceasthawk]

Because it gets it right more than it does wrong.

Not sure there's "indisputable evidence" that that's the case.......

 

[kceasthawk]

I understanding wanting to "get it right" but I liked sports better before all this review nonsense. I might feel differently if I felt they got the call right more than half the time even AFTER reviewing it for 5 minutes, but I have no idea what these refs think they were seeing on the replays. Besides, stopping to review everything kills any flow a game might have had. Same goes for college football.

Yes, sour grapes, but I seriously am like WTF?! after a lot of these decisions that come from the reviews. If I had a dollar for every time that happened, and the commentators often feel the same.

Actually football is way worse I think.......

 

[HoustonREDHawk]

I wish there were another official with better equipment to look at replays, than the little monitor that game officials use for reviews. These calls should not have been reversed IMO. It was the way the game was officiated throughout that had the biggest impact on the outcome.

 

[sober_teacher]

I understanding wanting to "get it right" but I liked sports better before all this review nonsense. I might feel differently if I felt they got the call right more than half the time even AFTER reviewing it for 5 minutes, but I have no idea what these refs think they were seeing on the replays. Besides, stopping to review everything kills any flow a game might have had. Same goes for college football.

Yes, sour grapes, but I seriously am like WTF?! after a lot of these decisions that come from the reviews. If I had a dollar for every time that happened, and the commentators often feel the same.

I feel like simply having a time limit on reviews would solve a lot. 90 seconds to review the actual play. If you cant say for sure after that, call stands. only exception would be if you need a few extra seconds to determine spot on the field AFTER the review.

 

[iahawks10]

Because it gets it right more than it does wrong.

Especially in flagrant or targeting calls when player’s safety and playing time is in question.

Plays happen extremely fast during the game. I definitely like benefit of video replay when you need to remove a player from a contest.

 

[LetsGoHawks83]

I think I can honestly say that I'm not basing that on Iowa games, They get it wrong in a lot of games not just Iowa's, and as I said my biggest complaint is the way it stops momentum, and disrupts the flow of the game, AND then they still get it wrong half the time.....

This. It's amazing how often the call is still wrong or questionable with replay. They do need to evaluate if replay is really an improvement in multiple sports. If the calls are still 50/50 with replay, it isn't worth ruining the momentum of the game.

Throwing the challenge "brick" in wrestling drives me nuts. Conditioning and pace of a match is so huge and stopping the match for several minutes to replay can be a huge difference.

 

[sober_teacher]

This. It's amazing how often the call is still wrong or questionable with replay. They do need to evaluate if replay is really an improvement in multiple sports. If the calls are still 50/50 with replay, it isn't worth ruining the momentum of the game.

Throwing the challenge "brick" in wrestling drives me nuts. Conditioning and pace of a match is so huge and stopping the match for several minutes to replay can be a huge difference.

I think I’d actually like to see a study done on this. Personally, I’d guess that replay gets calls right more often than not. But it’s the ones they get wrong that get played on sports center more often so they stick in our memories more.

i can’t honestly say Joe Ts layup was good or not. But I do think officials should have to explain what they saw to overturn any call.