Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bill Moore
...Let's play Devil's Advocate for a moment:
How many teams, in videotaping their matches, would be willing to rush up to the referee after they win a match, and provide video evidence that they actually should have lost the match?
If you claim to want "accurate playcalling" for a competition, you must be willing to do this. Otherwise, you just want "accurate playcalling" when it benefits the preferred team. (Preferential referee accuracy)
Instant replay should be used just as vigorously to prove you lost a match as to prove you won one. That's a tough pill to swallow, but it is an honest one.
|
I think that sums up exactly why there should not be instant replay.
Penalties last year hurt us all, I was DQ'ed last year in the second match of the finals in Philidelphi. That hurts, but instant replay wouldn't have changed the refs minds, no matter what the ref is going to stick to his original call because more often then not they are going to interpret play and the rule the same play no matter what angle they saw it from.
I think that the problem with all the penalties last year was that the interpretation of the rules were different at every competition and even changed sometimes right in the middle of one. To stop this there needs to be a unified decision for such crititcal rules as 'ramming' and 'aggressive driving'.