Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan Dognaux
The purpose of video review should be to allow referees to do their jobs better - that's it. It's not there to let teams endlessly draw out a tournament. It's not there to bring up incidents that didn't really happen. I don't want to introduce opinions, I want to introduce facts. Video doesn't lie and that's a great thing.<Emphasis added>
|
This last statement isn't true. Video can be cut, cropped, shot a deceptive angles, etc., all to tell an untruthful (or at least incomplete) story. Even the NFL can't find a definitive angle for every reviewed play. I don't say this to discredit the idea video review, but to remind those pushing for it that everything has its limits.
I think you and many others on this thread are well aware that video review won't resolve EVERY questionable call. Part of testing at offseason events will be determining what makes for REASONABLE review. You may otherwise find yourself down a very deep rabbit hole of "if only we had more camera angles," "if only we had higher def," "if only we had higher frame rates," "if only we allowed this/that/the other," etc.
I'm skeptical of video review, but I support those willing to invest the time/money to experiment with it. Just don't get led astray. The quest for "informative" video is a noble one. The quest for "infallible" video is quixotic.