Video Review MUST Be Changed

[dcmoses]

@"depopulationINC"

@"dcmoses"

I won’t argue the specifics of my statement on the calls because, as I said, what I saw was from SportsCentre highlights and it is possible there were more and better angles than were in the highlights. It is clear that it wasn’t just 1 call nor were the calls close. They were blatantly wrong.

I agree that public shaming is the way to go. The name of the video replay official is not secret and he has been publicly shamed by the TSN play by play, the halftime panel and a variety of news outlets. He needs to be fired, video review shut down and rebuilt from scratch. If they dropped it for 1 season and trialed an improved version off field they would have the opportunity to make adjustments and changes during the game and try things it would take 10 seasons to trial if was being used officially.

Just 1 season off and a little hard work could bring back a system that would be efficient (assuming they don’t hire the next review official from the CNIB).

Not sure where the “shaming” came from. Sure was not me. Game officials are put on the spot every minute of the game…the command center reviewing their calls should not be? He should be the most accountable member of the reffing crew there is. Calls by officials are out there for everyone to see and talk about…we can sit here and slam the video review all day but we have no idea why they are calling how they are. When I look some of these seem like bad calls…I also don’t know if they are keying in on something. There is no reason not to share that with the public…because right now the PR is killing them. They can explain and open the viewers eyes…or conversely they can spin their tires and show they made mistakes. If those human errors are more high…then can them. One of the ballsiest thing the CFL ever did was fire an official after a brutal exchange in a game…perhaps the same is needed now…but we have no idea if that is true if they are not sharing that inside look with people. If they had made a change to correct what was very publicly a concern with fans last season then maybe you can blow this off and call it week one…but they didn’t. I don’t care if a video review judge feels shamed along the way, and I don’t care if he gets fired if he is performing substandard…this is not exactly his first kick at this. Either the man is meeting the expectations of his employer in how he is calling it or he is failing miserably and he (and really his boss) need to be held accountable.

I agree depop, just a typo on my part. D’oh!

[2ez]

Glad to see Ottawa fans have seen the light after being the beneficiary of these types of f*** ups the last two years.

People don't forget

[rcon]

@"2ez"

Glad to see Ottawa fans have seen the light after being the beneficiary of these types of f*** ups the last two years.

People don’t forget

Ahhhhh, when? Ottawa is usually given the dirty end of the stick, especially when Murphy and Bradbury are officiating.

[Grover]

Chris Cuthbert?Verified account @CCtsn

CFL video review needs to be reviewed.

[2ez]

@"rcon"

@"2ez"

Glad to see Ottawa fans have seen the light after being the beneficiary of these types of f*** ups the last two years.

People don’t forget

Ahhhhh, when? Ottawa is usually given the dirty end of the stick, especially when Murphy and Bradbury are officiating.

I was just being a bitter jerk, but the incident I was referring to was the 2015 game where the refs blew two calls on a pick six by Brandon Stewart which all but secured the East Final in Ottawa that year instead of Hamilton. That game also sparked the ridiculous Burris/Lawrence controversy over the “low/cheap” hit on a scrambling quarterback, which Johnson clarified in the article was a legal hit. To be fair, the penalties on the pick six weren’t a reviewable scenario so the booth is off the hook on that one.

[url=http://3downnation.com/2015/11/04/cfl-admits-it-blew-key-calls-in-ticats-loss-to-redblacks/]http://3downnation.com/2015/11/04/cfl-a ... redblacks/[/url]

Also as a Ti-Cat fan, this one is still fresh in my mind.

[url=http://3downnation.com/2016/11/16/cfl-admits-made-mistakes-two-close-calls-ticats-playoff-loss-esks/]http://3downnation.com/2016/11/16/cfl-a ... loss-esks/[/url]

The league has some serious issues with their challenge evaluation right now, and weird part is it seems like the majority can come to a clear consensus on most of these blown calls. Just makes no sense. I will say the Sasky one was much more clear to me than the one last night, I didn’t get a chance to see it live so I missed all the replays on that one though. Very strange nearly identical plays would happen on back to back nights on the opening weekend, the league must be loving this, football gods are testing them early…and they’re failing.

[bobo82]

@"rcon"

@"2ez"

Glad to see Ottawa fans have seen the light after being the beneficiary of these types of f*** ups the last two years.

People don’t forget

Ahhhhh, when? Ottawa is usually given the dirty end of the stick, especially when Murphy and Bradbury are officiating.

Ahhhh when ? Seriously ? :roll: :o Let me refresh your memory …my , my , my how soon we forget !! Either that or suddenly you get a serious case of selective memory loss when the call is in your team’s favour . :roll:

[url=http://3downnation.com/2015/11/04/cfl-admits-it-blew-key-calls-in-ticats-loss-to-redblacks/]http://3downnation.com/2015/11/04/cfl-a ... redblacks/[/url] [url=http://3downnation.com/2016/11/16/cfl-admits-made-mistakes-two-close-calls-ticats-playoff-loss-esks/]http://3downnation.com/2016/11/16/cfl-a ... loss-esks/[/url]

[b][i] This is the second time this season that the outcome of a Ti-Cat game has been significantly impacted by errors in officiating acknowledged by the league .
In an October game against Ottawa, a botched replay call allowed the Redblacks to retain possession of an apparent fumble and kick the game-winning field goal on the next play. The loss dealt a significant blow to Hamilton’s chances of winning the East Division , which was ultimately claimed by the Redblacks .

The official involved in that decision, Jeff Harbin , was also responsible for the error made Sunday .[/i][/b]

[Neely2005]

@"dcmoses"

So, two games into the season and we’ve already had FOUR video review plays that were clearly called wrong by the blind men in the booth. Are the officiating apologist here ready to admit that the CFL is incapable of administering video review and it is time to eliminate it?

A video review should be correct 99% of the time (human error will eventually come into play), but with the ability to take multiple looks, from multiple angles, at multiple speeds including frame by frame there is ZERO excuse for going 0-4 over 2 games. And the 4 calls they got wrong impacted these games. The purpose of video review is to get the call right, but if they can’t handle that I would rather live with the wrong call by the official who only had one look from one angle at full speed and not have the joke that is video review killing the flow of the game as well as blowing calls.

It usually takes 3-4 weeks to get 4 blown calls that are this obvious, but they managed it this season in only 2 GAMES. Video review is a huge part of why I don’t watch every game anymore and didn’t watch a full game after week 4 last season.

I don’t think all 4 were necessarily wrong. There has to be Conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field. Having said that a couple of them were definitely blown.

[system]

@"dcmoses"

So, two games into the season and we’ve already had FOUR video review plays that were clearly called wrong by the blind men in the booth. Are the officiating apologist here ready to admit that the CFL is incapable of administering video review and it is time to eliminate it?

A video review should be correct 99% of the time (human error will eventually come into play), but with the ability to take multiple looks, from multiple angles, at multiple speeds including frame by frame there is ZERO excuse for going 0-4 over 2 games. And the 4 calls they got wrong impacted these games. The purpose of video review is to get the call right, but if they can’t handle that I would rather live with the wrong call by the official who only had one look from one angle at full speed and not have the joke that is video review killing the flow of the game as well as blowing calls.

It usually takes 3-4 weeks to get 4 blown calls that are this obvious, but they managed it this season in only 2 GAMES. Video review is a huge part of why I don’t watch every game anymore and didn’t watch a full game after week 4 last season.

The call that went Calgary’s way in the game against Ottawa was terrible. I can understand why the ref did not say the Calgary player fumbled the ball. His knee was that close to the ground. The Ottawa coach saw it differently and challenged the call because in his opinion he “visually” believed the Calgary player lost control of the ball before his knee touched the ground. The video replay confirmed that the Ottawa coach was right and yet as we all know, the call went in favour of Calgary.

What I don’t get is that we saw exactly what Command centre was viewing. Even the color commentator said you could see “shadow” between the ground and the player’s knee as the ball was popping out. You don’t see a shadow of the guy’s knee cap if his knee is in contact with the contract! Pretty simple you would think. The commentator saw it. You saw it. But the Command centre boys didn’t??? That’s bad. That is really bad.

I’ve see plays where we are all saying, " It sure looked like…bla bla bla." But on this occasion it was quite clear.

[canadianfootballfan]

@"slimjim2"

How about going back to the ref on the field calling it and he has the final word. No video replay, no challenges.
We seemed to manage 100 years or so without videos and challenges.
Reviews and challenges are slowing the game down, we don’t need them, scrap it!!

This may be the first time ever that we actually agree on something.

Scrap ALL of the dumb crap that slows the game down!

[dcmoses]

@"canadianfootballfan"

@"slimjim2"

How about going back to the ref on the field calling it and he has the final word. No video replay, no challenges.
We seemed to manage 100 years or so without videos and challenges.
Reviews and challenges are slowing the game down, we don’t need them, scrap it!!

This may be the first time ever that we actually agree on something.

Scrap ALL of the dumb crap that slows the game down!

Video review is here to stay, the problem is with how it is administered and what it is applied to.

Scale back on what can be reviewed to just scoring plays, in/out of bounds with control on a catch (tough play for officials to watch the ball and feet at the same time at full speed) and possession (fumble, INT).

Eliminate review on roughing the passer (that should be done during the week for supplemental discipline only) and all the discretionary calls like PI.

Fire the current video review crew.

Mandate a script for reporting video review results;

1. Call on the field up held

2. Call on the field reversed

3. Video inconclusive call on the field stands.

This makes the video review official accountable.

Last, no challenges. The officials can ask for a review or the video review official can stop the game for a review but not coaches; and limit the review time to 2 minutes.

The current system is so badly broken it needs to be eliminated and built from scratch or the lunacy will just get worse.

[depopulationINC]

seems like what I suggested earlier might actually have legs…they are looking for anything immediately obvious…glaring misses. In other words if you need to start doing a frame by frame…the call is likely going to stand

[url=http://3downnation.com/2017/06/25/cfl-recent-replay-calls-get-used/]http://3downnation.com/2017/06/25/cfl-r ... -get-used/[/url]

“There’s a lot of disappointment and head shaking at those two calls, especially last night. The league’s position is that the rules haven’t changed but the standard has. They want replay to be just about egregious calls that have been missed, they don’t want grey area. So if it takes two-and-a-half to three minutes to make sure the call gets exactly right, that means that call was too close to overturn.

“I spoke to Glen Johnson and he just said ‘those were not egregious calls. In the minute, minute-and-a-half we want to take to make these decisions in an effort to speed up replay, not slow down the pace of the game, those calls did not meet the standard for obvious, egregious mistakes and we’re just not going to overturn those types of calls. That’s going to be something people around the league are going to have to get used to.'?</blockquote>

pretty good read…like it or not, by this approach they got it fairly right. I am torn on this approach. I feel the finite resolution and replay analysis of the game has went too far…the refs are the 3rd team on the field and they simply do not get these replays as a luxury when making the calls…so in that sense I appreciate what they are trying to do. Problem is he says that it eliminates grey area when IMO it creates more. They also muddy the situation because they essentially are saying they want it to be more of an in-game reaction…then turn around and increase the tablets from 3 to 6 per team.

I am an advocate for getting away from the replays being frame by frame reviews…I agree if it is that damned close then the call should stand. I am just torn on if this is a good answer or not…why…because:

in this image I see a ball in possession at the line…looked out as hell in action but slowing it down and then stopping here…if it wasn’t right it was definitely too close to overturn

https://i2.wp.com/3downnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/IMG_8966-1.png?w=940

Meanwhile…This one you can see clear separation of the ball and a knee not down

https://i1.wp.com/3downnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/CalgaryRedblacks.jpg?w=940

[dcmoses]

I agree they need to speed up the process, but what Glenn Johnson has said leaves me with the impression that the decision was made AFTER a review was started and that is the most unfair and ludicrous decision I have heard the league make. If that is true Johnson should be fired because you do not decide part way into a review to stop and give up simply because it is to tough. Once a review has started you do 1 of 3 things; up hold the call, over turn the call or revert to the call due to inconclusive video evidence. You NEVER give up on the call.

Just more proof the league is turning into a joke.

[depopulationINC]

@"dcmoses"

I agree they need to speed up the process, but what Glenn Johnson has said leaves me with the impression that the decision was made AFTER a review was started and that is the most unfair and ludicrous decision I have heard the league make. If that is true Johnson should be fired because you do not decide part way into a review to stop and give up simply because it is to tough. Once a review has started you do 1 of 3 things; up hold the call, over turn the call or revert to the call due to inconclusive video evidence. You NEVER give up on the call.

Just more proof the league is turning into a joke.

Then mentality he is approaching though is that if you don’t see it in a few angles in a few views they are going to leave it as was…putting it back in the on field officials hands unless there is a glaring concern. Seems like there is some thought to it…not that it was simply hard so they quit. if you need to hit super slow mo and then potentially frame by frame to overturn something, then perhaps he is right. Is this supposed to be finding a reason to overturn stuff or catching glaring misses? all in how you want to approach it. I will say this…I think this would take away a lot of the painful illegal contact and PI challenges

[slimjim2]

Please change the title of this thread to -- " video review MUST be Scrapped"
In the days before video review and command centres we had fewer complaints from fans, we thought video review would solve all of the penalty issues.
It's made things worse and it's slowing down the game. Go back to the refs decision on the field as final.

[dcmoses]

@"depopulationINC"

@"dcmoses"

I agree they need to speed up the process, but what Glenn Johnson has said leaves me with the impression that the decision was made AFTER a review was started and that is the most unfair and ludicrous decision I have heard the league make. If that is true Johnson should be fired because you do not decide part way into a review to stop and give up simply because it is to tough. Once a review has started you do 1 of 3 things; up hold the call, over turn the call or revert to the call due to inconclusive video evidence. You NEVER give up on the call.

Just more proof the league is turning into a joke.

Then mentality he is approaching though is that if you don’t see it in a few angles in a few views they are going to leave it as was…putting it back in the on field officials hands unless there is a glaring concern. Seems like there is some thought to it…not that it was simply hard so they quit. if you need to hit super slow mo and then potentially frame by frame to overturn something, then perhaps he is right. Is this supposed to be finding a reason to overturn stuff or catching glaring misses? all in how you want to approach it. I will say this…I think this would take away a lot of the painful illegal contact and PI challenges

I would rather see them do the right thing and eliminate illegal contact, PI and roughing the passer as reviewable plays.

[yougottabekidding]

@"dcmoses"

@"depopulationINC"

@"dcmoses"

I agree they need to speed up the process, but what Glenn Johnson has said leaves me with the impression that the decision was made AFTER a review was started and that is the most unfair and ludicrous decision I have heard the league make. If that is true Johnson should be fired because you do not decide part way into a review to stop and give up simply because it is to tough. Once a review has started you do 1 of 3 things; up hold the call, over turn the call or revert to the call due to inconclusive video evidence. You NEVER give up on the call.

Just more proof the league is turning into a joke.

Then mentality he is approaching though is that if you don’t see it in a few angles in a few views they are going to leave it as was…putting it back in the on field officials hands unless there is a glaring concern. Seems like there is some thought to it…not that it was simply hard so they quit. if you need to hit super slow mo and then potentially frame by frame to overturn something, then perhaps he is right. Is this supposed to be finding a reason to overturn stuff or catching glaring misses? all in how you want to approach it. I will say this…I think this would take away a lot of the painful illegal contact and PI challenges

I would rather see them do the right thing and eliminate illegal contact, PI and roughing the passer as reviewable plays.

This seems reasonable. All three of these penalties are officials’ judgement calls and best made on field where full vision is afforded from a close range as well as sounds (which are important to officials believe me) and perspective.

A video review of feet out of bounds or the ball crossing the plane of the goal line makes sense to ensure fairness to both teams IF the video view is conclusive.

[Aerial]

[b]dcmoses wrote:[/b] I would rather see them do the right thing and eliminate illegal contact, PI and roughing the passer as reviewable plays.

But just because the league has behaved liberally and tried something very newish doesn't mean the league is a joke as you say. That being said, I agree with your statement to the extent the league should really look at these plays and perhaps even talk to the NFL about this and have a real discussion table on how these plays should be handled ie. video reviewable or not. Personally I think that video review is one area where both the CFL and NFL might want to be on the exact same page, it would not be taking anything away from the cultural aspect of the CFL as Canadiana sort of thing in the least IMHO.

[depopulationINC]

@"Aerial"

[b]dcmoses wrote:[/b] I would rather see them do the right thing and eliminate illegal contact, PI and roughing the passer as reviewable plays.

But just because the league has behaved liberally and tried something very newish doesn't mean the league is a joke as you say. That being said, I agree with your statement to the extent the league should really look at these plays and perhaps even talk to the NFL about this and have a real discussion table on how these plays should be handled ie. video reviewable or not. Personally I think that video review is one area where both the CFL and NFL might want to be on the exact same page, it would not be taking anything away from the cultural aspect of the CFL as Canadiana sort of thing in the least IMHO.

They actually have talked to the NFL pretty extensively on it…even before it went through. Things like this are also a motivator in the NFL getting into the joint official training program…CFL can push through trials a lot easier than the NFL can.

I do agree that scrapping might be a good idea…but realistically that is not going to happen…definitely not the roughing the passer one. I don’t hate the illegal contact one because it is missed a lot and has a big impact…problem being that it can be called on anything away from the play even if there was zero intent on ever looking in that direction…that is a tough challenge to overcome. The mid season time out change seemed to really impact how liberal coaches are with that and it seems to have helped a lot.

A big part of me wants to see it all scrapped because of the nickle and dime cheesy frame by frame reviews…but another big part of me appreciates it for some of the blatant misses that get corrected. I would still like to see some sort of timer put in where once the play ends the coach only has 5 seconds to challenge so that it goes back to an immediate coaching staff gut challenge as opposed to seeing 3 angles in slow motion then deciding…make it an instinct call by the ref against an instinct call against the staff. it really can not be that damned hard to create that system with modern technology. That does not help the command center process on auto reviews…but it helps.

[Aerial]

Yes, the 5 second thing you mention might be a good idea. Hey, I want to see as many plays as possible be the correct call, I think everyone wants that but there is a price to pay to try and get as many things right with this video review.

[dcmoses]

@"depopulationINC"

I do agree that scrapping might be a good idea…but realistically that is not going to happen…definitely not the roughing the passer one. I don’t hate the illegal contact one because it is missed a lot and has a big impact…problem being that it can be called on anything away from the play even if there was zero intent on ever looking in that direction…that is a tough challenge to overcome. The mid season time out change seemed to really impact how liberal coaches are with that and it seems to have helped a lot.

Roughing the passer is the most ridiculous of the reviewable plays. That should be reviewed during the week for discipline not during a game as a RTP has ZERO impact on the outcome of a play.

Disagree the mid season lip-service shown in the form of the change to the coaches challenge had no impact. Dickenson challenged for a RTP late in the 2nd Q of the Grey Cup; video showed there was absolutely nothing even close to RTP, he threw the flag fishing for a penalty because his QB got sacked.

The CFL for whatever reason seems to be fine with video review and coaches challenges slowing the game, killing momentum and flow and sucking the life out of any potentially exciting play. At the end of the interminably long video review I’m no longer excited about the great play just relieved the review is finally over and they’re going to play football again.

Out of control video review is why I stopped watching the NFL in the early 90s and I’m almost there with the CFL.