It's funny what zillions of dollars can do for you. They tried this setup in the CFL and moved away from it because it didn't work that well on a more modest budget.
When? I don't remember them trying this?
Something needs to change because the quality and consistency of the calls coming out of Toronto is horrible. When Glenn Suitor starts questioning the video review rulings you know that somethings wrong.
The first incarnation of the replay system in the CFL had the equipment on the sidelines and the referee at the game using it to do the review. There was at least one, and I believe multiple seasons of it.
The calls out of Toronto are generally fine except for a couple of problematic types:
- The ones where the replay doesn't conclusively go one way or another ,and it's basically just "whatever the original ruling was can't be changed"
- The ones that are also inconsistent on the field, like what counts as a completed pass and fumble.
Other then that, the complaints about the replay results are overblown.
Yes indeed it does and the referees in the NFL almost always gets the call right on that count! Why the CFL just does not copy the working model baffles and frustrates me. :roll:
I'm not talking here about the calls that in real time could have gone either way. We have to give benefit to the official(s) who had the best chance to see it first on those and live and cheer or howl with the call. Also slow motion replay can skew the opinion of the viewer on some calls including possession of the football on a catch by a receiver going out of bounds.
I'm talking about when it's really not close. With video replay as in the NFL, very few of the latter are not overturned.
Now as for the new and replacement NFL officials who are there only due to greed of the owners, they suck and are considerably worse than NCAA FBS/Division I and CFL referees. I thought they were going to ruin one of the best games if not the best game yesterday with the 49ers beating the Packers.
Unlike some fans, I like that the CFL referees and new NFL referees take their time to discuss calls, for as a fan I am patient if they just get the damn call right, but when in the CFL they can't even get it right with the video review at hand and in the NFL they screw up spots of the football and timeouts and fundamentals, it all seriously sucks! :roll:
Bad officiating ruins the game, for with bad officiating you can count on nothing in a game of inches at the pro level and top college level. :thdn: :thdn:
Both commissioners need to get with it and in the worst case go back to the better fundamentals of the past referees that seemed even better before video review. Then build the referees from there once again based on the successful video review model in the NFL.
And it's funny how the price of technology comes down considerably in a matter of months.
The CFL could use 2009 NFL technology and it would work out better but for one superior factor.
I doubt it's the technology as it is as much the flawed implementation of it in the CFL! Get with it Cohon to improve your product on the field in that regard!
This is the same rule as in the NFL, and it is a perfect rule in this matter and does NOT need to be changed.
Otherwise you get into a situation in which the flow of the game is disrupted exceedingly!
If you don't like the slower pace of the NFL already and prefer the better pace of a CFL game, there is no need to change this rule!
I have no issue with the replay being inconclusive if it doesn't clearly show what needs to be seen. It happens (especially on ball spot on 3rd downs for example), but there have been several controversial calls made fromvideo review this season that just don't pass the sniff test, most notably the ones you mention in your 2nd point. The definition of what constitutes a completed pass needs to be reviewed and amended but the fumble is very clear. At least to everyone but Jake Ireland and Higgins. And these are the 2 calls that video review is likely to see the most because the important part of those plays lasts no more than 1-1.5 seconds and often in an area difficult for on field officials to get a good view of at the time it happens.
I'll agree to disagree with you on this. I think the video review system and people doing the reviews are not doing a competent job and often make a joke of the whole process. My main argument is still that I would rather a Grey Cup be decided on a human error by an on field official than incompetence by the video review official and this will impact the outcome of a playoff game sooner rather than later.
I don't see it slowing the game down. Each team is still gauranteed 2 challenges, the difference comes after that. If both challenges are successful the team would be able to continue to challenge until they are unsuccessful. I think once your 2 are gone most coaches are not going to challenge until it's important and you are certain you're right, because even if you're right in the CFL video replay can still rule against you. I don't see why a coach who's had 3 sucessful challenges has to live with an incorrect call late in the 4th quarter that could affect his chances of winning. That defeats the purpose of the system so why not just get rid of it. This is part of why I refer to the system as arbitrary in it's application and therefore unfair.
Probably. I remember back when they had the on-field official doing the replay and they changed to the Toronto system because of people complaining that the calls were inconsistent. Now the calls on some types of plays are still inconsistent.
What I don't get is why doesn't TSN show more replays? My understanding is that the command centre sees what us, the fans see on TV. Instead they show the goofy split screen of each Coach pacing the sideline and the Referee on the Head set. I have counted 8 - 10 cameras at BC Place each game, yet when I watch the game (PVR) when we get home, they show 2 or 3 (Maybe 4) replays. Not making excuse for the Command Centre (some of their decisions have confused me as well) but if TSN doesn't show the replays, how can they get it right?
The purpose is to allow challenges without unreasonably disrupting the flow of the game. The purpose is NOT to ensure that ALL calls are right in the entire game. As for "arbitrary" and "fair", you are misusing both words in this context. The application is explicit on how and when challenges may be made and given that it applies to both teams identically it is by definition fair. It may not always achieve the desired result, but this is due to the human factor, not the application of the rule.
stick with the rules, quit whining about something that isn't broken.. GOD!!!
I disagree, the constant controversy over some of the bizarre decisions by video replay show that it is broken.
And please don't call me god, I don't know you well enough to be your god.
As broadcast partners, TSN is in on the fix and scam of covering up the bad calls by not showing certain replay angles sometimes. It seems to me only Suitor comes out swinging when the referees get it wrong, and then the producers grab him and pull him back before he is set off. Even the highlights on this website are censored in such regard.
It sure is not that glib hack Cuthbert who is holding back Suitor or ever questioning anything. What a class "yes man" that Cuthbert is for sure.
No matter what the controversy, Cuthbert's too busy looking for his next cue card as always starts with "in case you're joining us" sometimes after an unscheduled commercial break when it's real bad. :thdn: :thdn: :thdn:
That was an awesome explanation Rob! :thup:
Why bother with video review at all if we are not going to try and get the important calls correct. Not "ALL" calls, but we shouldn't limit a coach to 2 (plus 1 extra under the right conditions) as if to say the officials only make 2 mistakes per game, per team. Ridiculous.
I am not miusing arbitrary of fair. By limiting teams to 2 challenges when both are successful (therefore proving the coach is not abusing the system for other purposes) is unfair. If the official make a mistake on a key play every effort should be made to get it right and to say to one team that they have to live with a bad call because they used their challenges is contrary to what the system was put in place for. Can you say with 100% certainty that the officials won't make 3 incorrect calls on one team? Not an insult on the officials speed and angle of sight can make a call difficult. The system as setup is unfair at times.
The system is also arbitrary. They review all scoring plays automatically but don't review non scoring plays that could be overturned to make them scoring plays. In other words the Argos had to waste one of their challenges to get the Kackert run called a TD, but had it been called a touchdown but on review he was ruled out of bounds at the 1 the touchdown would have been wiped out without Hamilton having to use a challenge. That is both arbitrary and unfair.
The system needs improvement and allowing coaches to continue to challenge until unsuccessful will not slow the game down. A coach is not going to throw a flag frivilously when he knows it will be his last challenge if he's wrong. He might in the final 3 minutes but the league reviews all plays in the last 3 to prevent that. Lastly, there have been enough controversial video review calls this year alone to make one wonder what exactly they are looking at in Toronto when they make some of these calls.
Give it to the on field official and don't remove the coach's privilege until he's wrong with a minimum gaurantee of 2 or get rid of the system all together and live with the human element. Personally I've always found it hilarious that we measure the game in inches based on the unprecise placement of the ball by an official who can give or take away a first down by the way he places the ball on the field. Now we compound that with slo mo video review. This is a game that demands accuracy of a sytem that can't be accurate, let's live with it and play the damn game. You don't want to "unreasonably disrupt the flow of the game" yet video review by it's nature already does that.
On this great debate on also unlimited challenges, it looks like it's everyone else on here including me for the current rules but DC Moses and Cats for the "unlimited" concept.
DC Moses does as fine a job as ever on explaining the position for a change to they system to "unlimited" challenges until failure.
Of course all scoring plays do not count for purposes of this discussion and are already rightly reviewed.
Tridus in his second point below points out what I feel is the major complaint on the current system other than as fans we don't get to see all the angles and then some such as we do for the NFL in the US:
The ones that are also inconsistent on the field, like what counts as a completed pass and fumble.Most folks it seems are over the calls not overturned due to a lack of indisputable evidence, which of course is the good thing about the current system when the video is reviewed properly. I feel that the standard for "indisputable" need not be 100% but rather "far more likely than not" given the video evidence at hand from [u]all[/u] angles.
If alternating angles show the ball and are inconclusive, the call should stand for example. However if there is one angle that for example shows the ball hitting the ground or a foot touching a line and the other angles don't show the key evidence at all, by all means overturn the call!
It's awful and condescending that TSN and the CFL don't afford fans more transparency in the matter as if we are fools and could not see certain things they would not replay. Next time that hack Cuthbert tries to smooth over something, I'll call him out and unleash on him during the game in the thread.
On that note, last night they had a replay of a touchdown pass on Monday Night Football that showed the ball hit the ground on the catch by the Ravens player, but those knucklehead replacement referees somehow could not see it as "conclusive" to get the damn call right! :thdn: :thdn: :thdn:
This reminds me of another issue that bothers me with video review that I think would be much easier for most to agree on and easy to solve. I'm not a fan of the unscripted way each different official reports the review result. The league needs to make it clear to all exactly what the video review result was. To that end they should adopt a script using one of 3 responses;
After review the call on the field stands;
After review the video showed................(followed by explanation of what was seen and the call made from that);
Video review was inconclusive therefore the call on the field will stand.
3 statements that let all know if the video supported the call on the field, showed something different or was inconclusive. Unless the call is overturned we are often left wondering if the video supported the call or was ruled inconclusive.
I could be wrong, but don't they usually explain why the call was overturned in the event that it was? Like, if they're reviewing whether or not a receiver had control before a fumble or something, they would say "After review, the receiver held the ball long enough for it to constitute control." I can't really remember a game where I was confused after the result of a challenge.
Even when the call on the field stands, they'll sometimes explain it.