Replay Review Process

[Shouright]

Something that occurred to me during the review of Ronnie's fumble:

If we're using all this technology to review a play on the field, what does it matter what the initial ruling on the field was? Why does the replay need to overturn the ruling on the field so convincingly?

My take on it is that, if you're going to use technology that makes the final ruling far more reliable, why let the less reliable ruling made by a human in fast motion count for anything? Why not just review the play with the mind-set that we're starting over from scratch?

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Anyone else?

 

[dolphinfan2k5]

Yeah but what if they can't tell, it happens sometimes.

 

[ih8brady]

Something that occurred to me during the review of Ronnie's fumble:

If we're using all this technology to review a play on the field, what does it matter what the initial ruling on the field was? QUOTE]

I cant see why it should. I agree with you. Its like looking at something a 100 yards away and saying that it is red. But when looking at it one foot away you realize it is really orange.

 

[Shouright]

Yeah but what if they can't tell, it happens sometimes.

OK now that makes sense. Thanks.

 

[ih8brady]

But why significant evidence or whatever rhetoric they use? Sounds like a court case.

 

[kastofsna120]

i guess they're trying to keep the human element alive in the process. frankly they need to adopt the college system and review every play and the booth upstairs should then further review special plays based on the outcome

 

[MillerTime]

Because sometimes it is hard to tell, so instead of just guessing they stick to their initial thought on the field

 

[DolfanTom]

Basically, they're giving the benefit of the doubt in these situations to the human ref. Call it a compromise with the human side of the game.

That said, I thought the knee was down and he had the ball, But I'm biased, I guess.

 

[yankeehillbilly]

The officials on the field see the play and make the call. The only way their call should be overturned is if the video evidence is indisuptable. The alternative is "disputable evidence" Do you really want to overrule an official with evidence you aren't sure about? That would make a lot of sense..... "the ruling on the field is overturned because the ballcarrier PROBABLY had a knee down before he fumbled"
Talk about utter chaos and accusations of fixed/corrupt officials.....

If you can absolutely tell from the video then fine, overturn the call
If you aren't sure, you have to let the call stand.
Thats the way it is and thats the way it should be.