Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Steve W
OK, I get sucked into another one. Again I will say, it takes more than 1 camera to make a difference. Take the NHL for example. There are usually 3 cameras trained on 1 goal. Even after looking at slow motion they still can't tell the difference. 3 cameras per goal and you believe that you could see a whole field from 1 camera placed above the field?
|
And in the NHL, if there's no conclusive evidence, the play stands as called. Isn't that what's being suggested? It's a stretch to say that one camera
can't catch enough to be useful. I'm not sure if directly above is necessarily the best place for it (because of lens issues, mostly), but that doesn't negate the suggestion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Steve W
If this was done then we can start questioning the refs and the system for minor, questionable points of view.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cory
I don't like how "GP" is tossed around every 5 seconds, but it surely isn't appropriate for people to boo and crap on people who give up time out of their busy lives to come referee, when the majority of the time, the person doing the criticizing couldn't have done a better job themselves.
|
Isn't this a variation on what Andy said earlier, about offending the volunteers? My skepticism regarding this still stands; the referees realize that people will disagree with them, and they realize that their authority will ultimately be final. Whether or not people seethe over bad calls shouldn't be an issue—both the referees and the competitors ought to be reasonable enough to examine the matter on the basis of the only evidence that matters; the referee's view of the play, be it live, or, as has been suggested, in a video replay. The fact that they're volunteers doesn't absolve them of any errors that they may make, nor does it remove teams' prerogative to criticize (objectively),
irrespective of whether or not the team member could have done a better job.
Of course, as has been repeated
ad infinitum, the outcome doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but, in principle, wouldn't it be nice if more matches were decided correctly, rather than, when a dispute arises, throwing up our hands and saying "it's just a game", with an implicit "we're not willing to discuss the possibility that we
may have just blown a call". Nobody questions the fact that the referees' decision is final, but can we say that if some practical method of implementing a replay were found, and it were applied judiciously, it could help to cut down on whatever bad calls do take place, and cut down on the arguments over calls, because of the additional evidence?
In fact, maybe I'm being too harsh with the characterization of officials as being dismissive; this is not to say that it doesn't occur, but I would point out that it not endemic. Certainly, they can only call plays based on what was observed, and beyond that, there is no possibility of the call being reversed. I think that the idea of a replay is to give them a second look; if nothing comes of that second look, then who can argue with it? Once the referee has seen a replay, a team can't argue that the official didn't see the play, because the team just caused them to watch it again—shouldn't that end the argument, then and there? And if the replay shows nothing, the referee can say "sorry, but you've got nothing to show me"; though objectively, it's the same call as was originally made, it gives the appearance of the referee having attempted to make a concilliatory gesture—in other words, it ought to make arguing much more difficult, since the referee can't be characterized has having dismissed the concern without due consideration. It's far harder to vilify someone who's made an attempt to help, than it is to vilify someone who (despite being within his rights, and acting fairly and responsibly) refuses to discuss the issue.
From looking at the responses above, I think that most of the opposition comes on technical/cost grounds, or on the principle that it's just a game, and doesn't matter. The first point, regarding technical issues, is reasonable, but there are lots of cheap ways to handle something like this; why are we thinking big, when thinking small might be sufficient? The second point is borderline apathetic, and seems to dismiss the problem without due consideration.
Maybe it isn't cost-effective to put a replay system in place. Maybe it won't catch as much data as we'd like. But is it a bad idea in principle? Are we arguing that something about a replay will kill the game, kill the spirit of the competition? If so, what?