The review process: Innocent until proven guilty

[Fab5Coug]

A good discussion on another site; thought I'd bring it here as well.

I've been wondering lately why, in football, on field calls are considered "innocent until proven guilty", in terms of how they are reviewed.

You've got officials down on the field watching the game in real speed, often with obstructed views. Many times, they are just making calls based on what they think they see, or what they assume took place. Or they're making a call based on what would be easier & least impactful to overturn. Then, you've got a guy up in a booth, who has the benefit of slow motion replay, multiple angle camera shots, split screens & still shots of the play. Yet, the replay official still, basically, has to default to the on field official.

The replay official needs "indisputable" evidence to overturn the call of an official, when the replay official, really, is in a much better position to make the call than the official on the field was. Why aren't the replay officials just given the authority to make the call, based on their best judgement, regardless of what the official on the field ruled?

On the McCaffrey fumble (I know, a hot button topic), the official on the field ruled McCaffrey touched the ball while OB, thus making it a dead ball and Stanford retains possession. Basically, the replay official has to then determine, beyond the shadow of a doubt that McCaffrey DID NOT touch the ball while OB. There is no way the official could overturn that call. Why not just allow him to watch the replay, see that 1) McCaffrey clearly fumbled the ball, 2) McLennan clearly recovered it, and 3) it is inconclusive whether McCaffrey touched it while OB, then make their "best judgement" decision based on points 1 & 2 above?

I guess my main point is, why not just allow the replay official to make a call based on what they see, and not have to factor in what was called on the field?

 

[Fab5Coug]

Let's say you have a play, where the on field official is 60% certain it happened one way. The replay official is 90% it happened the other way. In that scenario, the less certain call is rewarded.

I'm sure in some cases, the on field official will make a call when they're not even 50% certain it happened the way they're calling it. Take the Parker Henry pick 6. What is better for the on field official? He can rule it a pick, and let it play out. It gets reviewed and worst case scenario, it's overturned, no harm, no foul. If he calls it incomplete, and it's overturned; yea WSU gets the ball, but he's just negated a return and a touchdown. I'm sure there's a sense, among officials, that it's better to just let a play go, then review it later, rather than interfere with the play and get it wrong.

 

[dgibbons]

A good discussion on another site; thought I'd bring it here as well.

I've been wondering lately why, in football, on field calls are considered "innocent until proven guilty", in terms of how they are reviewed.

You've got officials down on the field watching the game in real speed, often with obstructed views. Many times, they are just making calls based on what they think they see, or what they assume took place. Or they're making a call based on what would be easier & least impactful to overturn. Then, you've got a guy up in a booth, who has the benefit of slow motion replay, multiple angle camera shots, split screens & still shots of the play. Yet, the replay official still, basically, has to default to the on field official.

The replay official needs "indisputable" evidence to overturn the call of an official, when the replay official, really, is in a much better position to make the call than the official on the field was. Why aren't the replay officials just given the authority to make the call, based on their best judgement, regardless of what the official on the field ruled?

On the McCaffrey fumble (I know, a hot button topic), the official on the field ruled McCaffrey touched the ball while OB, thus making it a dead ball and Stanford retains possession. Basically, the replay official has to then determine, beyond the shadow of a doubt that McCaffrey DID NOT touch the ball while OB. There is no way the official could overturn that call. Why not just allow him to watch the replay, see that 1) McCaffrey clearly fumbled the ball, 2) McLennan clearly recovered it, and 3) it is inconclusive whether McCaffrey touched it while OB, then make their "best judgement" decision based on points 1 & 2 above?

I guess my main point is, why not just allow the replay official to make a call based on what they see, and not have to factor in what was called on the field?

The ruling on the field was that McCaffery stepped Out of bounds before the fumble.

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

A good discussion on another site; thought I'd bring it here as well.

I've been wondering lately why, in football, on field calls are considered "innocent until proven guilty", in terms of how they are reviewed.

You've got officials down on the field watching the game in real speed, often with obstructed views. Many times, they are just making calls based on what they think they see, or what they assume took place. Or they're making a call based on what would be easier & least impactful to overturn. Then, you've got a guy up in a booth, who has the benefit of slow motion replay, multiple angle camera shots, split screens & still shots of the play. Yet, the replay official still, basically, has to default to the on field official.

The replay official needs "indisputable" evidence to overturn the call of an official, when the replay official, really, is in a much better position to make the call than the official on the field was. Why aren't the replay officials just given the authority to make the call, based on their best judgement, regardless of what the official on the field ruled?

On the McCaffrey fumble (I know, a hot button topic), the official on the field ruled McCaffrey touched the ball while OB, thus making it a dead ball and Stanford retains possession. Basically, the replay official has to then determine, beyond the shadow of a doubt that McCaffrey DID NOT touch the ball while OB. There is no way the official could overturn that call. Why not just allow him to watch the replay, see that 1) McCaffrey clearly fumbled the ball, 2) McLennan clearly recovered it, and 3) it is inconclusive whether McCaffrey touched it while OB, then make their "best judgement" decision based on points 1 & 2 above?

I guess my main point is, why not just allow the replay official to make a call based on what they see, and not have to factor in what was called on the field?

I think you make a very good point.

Referees pay should also be based on how many plays they got wrong.

 

[Fab5Coug]

The ruling on the field was that McCaffery stepped Out of bounds before the fumble.

Fine, the review ruling was that he touched the ball while out of bounds.

 

[dgibbons]

Fine, the review ruling was that he touched the ball while out of bounds.

That ruling was never actually announced. The play stood after review. If there was a "door number three" ruling then it should have been announced. The refs f*cked this up pretty badly, and the conference had to go into smoke and mirrors to "explain" the call, including Coleman "declining" to elaborate on whether any discussion took place between the replay official and the ESPN announcers.

My eyes told me that McLennan had possession of the ball before his foot touched the sideline. McCaffery never touched the ball again after the strip. But that's the way life goes. What I'd really like someone from the Pac-12 to explain is why the refs have thrown so few flags for PI and defensive holding against us this year.

If you want to talk about improvements to the system, how about instead of adding more on field officials, why not take two guys off the field and put them in the booth. That way we're not relying on some old geezer who is no longer physically capable of calling a game on the field to make the close and critical calls. The three of them vote, majority rules. Also, have the replay officials come from other conferences so that the guys in the booth are not trying to bail out their buddies on the field.

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

That ruling was never actually announced. The play stood after review. If there was a "door number three" ruling then it should have been announced. The refs f*cked this up pretty badly, and the conference had to go into smoke and mirrors to "explain" the call, including Coleman "declining" to elaborate on whether any discussion took place between the replay official and the ESPN announcers.

My eyes told me that McLennan had possession of the ball before his foot touched the sideline. McCaffery never touched the ball again after the strip. But that's the way life goes. What I'd really like someone from the Pac-12 to explain is why the refs have thrown so few flags for PI and defensive holding against us this year.

If you want to talk about improvements to the system, how about instead of adding more on field officials, why not take two guys off the field and put them in the booth. That way we're not relying on some old geezer who is no longer physically capable of calling a game on the field to make the close and critical calls. The three of them vote, majority rules. Also, have the replay officials come from other conferences so that the guys in the booth are not trying to bail out their buddies on the field.

One day in the not-too-distant future, sensors will solve these types of problems.

 

[Coug95man2]

That ruling was never actually announced. The play stood after review. If there was a "door number three" ruling then it should have been announced. The refs f*cked this up pretty badly, and the conference had to go into smoke and mirrors to "explain" the call, including Coleman "declining" to elaborate on whether any discussion took place between the replay official and the ESPN announcers.

My eyes told me that McLennan had possession of the ball before his foot touched the sideline. McCaffery never touched the ball again after the strip. But that's the way life goes. What I'd really like someone from the Pac-12 to explain is why the refs have thrown so few flags for PI and defensive holding against us this year.

If you want to talk about improvements to the system, how about instead of adding more on field officials, why not take two guys off the field and put them in the booth. That way we're not relying on some old geezer who is no longer physically capable of calling a game on the field to make the close and critical calls. The three of them vote, majority rules. Also, have the replay officials come from other conferences so that the guys in the booth are not trying to bail out their buddies on the field.

Here's my thing with your scenario. Then there needs to be a camera in the booth, with a microphone (that they can turn off and on at their discretion much like their on field counterpart). The replay booth being some magical mystery curtain needs to stop, especially in your scenario. They need to explain what the hell they are seeing, the process, etc etc. No lengthy War and Peace explanation but certainly WHY they called whatever they call. No more Wizard behind the curtain making calls we don't ever understand. This is a major reason they are having these issues now. Give that booth more weight and responsibility and they need to be seen and heard. No more hiding

 

[dgibbons]

Here's my thing with your scenario. Then there needs to be a camera in the booth, with a microphone (that they can turn off and on at their discretion much like their on field counterpart). The replay booth being some magical mystery curtain needs to stop, especially in your scenario. They need to explain what the hell they are seeing, the process, etc etc. No lengthy War and Peace explanation but certainly WHY they called whatever they call. No more Wizard behind the curtain making calls we don't ever understand. This is a major reason they are having these issues now. Give that booth more weight and responsibility and they need to be seen and heard. No more hiding

Works for me.