I know I sounded off about it in another thread, basically bringing up the point on the overall practicality of having a replay system like we do in college basketball.
Again, let me preface my point by saying TCU deserved to win and Iowa deserved to lose (you can't shoot FTs like that and turn the ball over and expect to beat a high octane offensive team). Regardless, the whole point of replay is to ostensibly get crucial calls correct, right? Well, unfortunately, because the system is arbitrary and only allows certain parts of the game to be reviewed, the element of human error is still in play, but does get corrected for certain things, that overall might actually create a greater advantage or disadvantage for a team than what it was originally designed to correct.
What do I mean? Look at this year in college basketball the close games that would have had a different outcome had replay been allowed to be used to correct obvious egregious calls (or non calls). Example 1: KSU at Kansas. Kansas player picks up dribble behind 3 point line, races to the basket, steps around a defender in the lane, taking exactly 5 1/2 steps before putting in the winning lay up as time expired. Pretty crucial play, correct? Well, unfortunately, officials can't buzz down to the game officials like they do in college football to say, "Hey, check this play out. He likely traveled." So, nope, game over despite the egregious error. However, had the kid pulled up for a 3 pointer and been close to the line, the officials could have taken an inordinate amount of time to review whether his toe was on the line, like they did Jok (and ultimately take a point away--furthermore, they were able to review that at the next commercial break several plays later). But the TCU player taking 4 steps and getting granted an And1? Nope, not reviewable. So there, right there, is a difference of 3-4 points (depending if the kid made the free throw or not). Get my point? Replay is completely arbitrary.
To go one step further, consider the Iowa vs. Minnesota game and recently Northwestern vs. Gonzaga. Iowa/Minnesota we don't have to discuss, we all know what happened, and it cost Iowa a game and likely a trip to the NCAA. In the NW/Zags game, NW has momentum and clearly scored a basket--as the Zags player made an obvious goal tend. Is that play reviewable despite how egregious the error is? Nope. Not only that, they teed up Collins for protesting the call. You see? It's ridiculous. But any "hard" foul or perceived "intentional" foul, like Nick Baer trying to stop a lay up, they can go and review that for eons until they feel comfortable calling a Flagrant 1 (which thanks to the NCAA, was the correct call in that situation). The point obviously being some calls are reviewable, others not, making the system arbitrary and at times more unfair than if human error was just allowed to be part of the game, not to mention how much time is wasted reviewing plays.
Yes, I get it, you can't review every play, like judgment calls about whether or not a foul was or wasn't committed. However, for certain things like, was a time out being called, did a player actually goal tend, did a player travel, you know, when things are obviously black and white, one way or the other, then yes, those should be allowed to be reviewed. If not, get rid of the whole system and live with officiating errors, because as it is right now 1) the games are still not being called correctly, and at times worse because of the arbitrary correction of some calls and 2) a ridiculous amount of time is wasted going to the monitor in light of point number 1.
Okay, this is me jumping down from the soapbox. Thanks.
