FBS vs. FCS biased officiating using 'review'

[furpop16]

I wish there were no reviews. It has made college football on tv unwatchable.

George F. Will:
Football, in its disproportionate pursuit of error-free officiating, now relies on instant replays because ... well, because it can. This technology does indeed reduce human error. But it also reduces games to coagulation as players stand around waiting for officials to study video in the hope of achieving a degree of precision and certainty more appropriate to delicate surgery than to the violent thrashing of huge padded men in what is — lest we forget, as the judicial solemnities of instant replay cause us to forget — a game.

[Bootie]

I wish there were no reviews. It has made college football on tv unwatchable.

George F. Will:
Football, in its disproportionate pursuit of error-free officiating, now relies on instant replays because ... well, because it can. This technology does indeed reduce human error. But it also reduces games to coagulation as players stand around waiting for officials to study video in the hope of achieving a degree of precision and certainty more appropriate to delicate surgery than to the violent thrashing of huge padded men in what is — lest we forget, as the judicial solemnities of instant replay cause us to forget — a game.

Agreed, but there are some cases where a call is an obvious mistake and needs correcting. My replay suggestion has always been that if it takes longer than 10-15 seconds to determine if the call was wrong, move on and stop wasting everyone's time. That can usually be done between plays without disrupting the game.

[gofurman]

I wish there were no reviews. It has made college football on tv unwatchable.

George F. Will:
Football, in its disproportionate pursuit of error-free officiating, now relies on instant replays because ... well, because it can. This technology does indeed reduce human error. But it also reduces games to coagulation as players stand around waiting for officials to study video in the hope of achieving a degree of precision and certainty more appropriate to delicate surgery than to the violent thrashing of huge padded men in what is — lest we forget, as the judicial solemnities of instant replay cause us to forget — a game.

Agreed, but there are some cases where a call is an obvious mistake and needs correcting. My replay suggestion has always been that if it takes longer than 10-15 seconds to determine if the call was wrong, move on and stop wasting everyone's time. That can usually be done between plays without disrupting the game.

I would have been MORE than happy to give up a minute or two of my life to get the fumble or INT call. I don't think it is a waste of time to get the call right on KEY plays.

By saying we should take longer than 10/15 seconds to look at a call you are basically advocating that we don't have an INT because it would have taken longer than 30 seconds to review it.

[Bootie]

I wish there were no reviews. It has made college football on tv unwatchable.

George F. Will:
Football, in its disproportionate pursuit of error-free officiating, now relies on instant replays because ... well, because it can. This technology does indeed reduce human error. But it also reduces games to coagulation as players stand around waiting for officials to study video in the hope of achieving a degree of precision and certainty more appropriate to delicate surgery than to the violent thrashing of huge padded men in what is — lest we forget, as the judicial solemnities of instant replay cause us to forget — a game.

Agreed, but there are some cases where a call is an obvious mistake and needs correcting. My replay suggestion has always been that if it takes longer than 10-15 seconds to determine if the call was wrong, move on and stop wasting everyone's time. That can usually be done between plays without disrupting the game.

I would have been MORE than happy to give up a minute or two of my life to get the fumble or INT call. I don't think it is a waste of time to get the call right on KEY plays.

By saying we should take longer than 10/15 seconds to look at a call you are basically advocating that we don't have an INT because it would have taken longer than 30 seconds to review it.

That's exactly what I'm saying. It goes both ways, which also means when the call might have gone against us we get that benefit. If it's not obvious enough to make the call that fast, I think it takes away from the game. How many incorrect calls that weren't corrected in the past have really affected my life? None. Maybe Furman would've gained an extra TD or even won a game because of an incorrect call in the past. At the same time, maybe there were other games where we should've/would've lost. I want to get the calls right, but within reason. 2-3 minutes on a replay is too much.

Just my opinion. You're free to disagree

[Davemeister]

In the not -too-distant future, when a ruling on the field is reviewed the final decision will be made by artificial intelligence.

[gofurman]

In the not -too-distant future, when a ruling on the field is reviewed the final decision will be made by artificial intelligence.

sometimes I think the refs intelligence is somewhat artificial