When overturning plays why does the evidence need to be 100%

[therealjohncarlson]

So my friend brought up this point and I thought it was a really good one. When a questionable play happens and a team challenges a play, the refs go under the hood and review the play right? And they will only overturn the call if they are utterly convinced they got in wrong on the initial call. If a player is blocking the play or the ref cant see completely what is going on, however, the ref will be forced to stick with his initial call on the field.

So basically Im wondering why there is this precedent to only overturn a play if the evidence is undeniable that way? Why not just go with the call that is most likely after they review this play, no matter what the initial call was? The way they have it set up now its like a court of law or something. You can only overturn if there is no reasonable doubt that the initial call was right. But the difference between the courtroom and football is that there is never going to be a better view than what the refs see under the video replay. So why do refs act like their initial call is this sacred thing that can only be overturned when given complete evidence? Why does their potentially wrong call factor into their end decision at all?

I think a better system would be what I outlined. Just go with what they think probably happened after video replay. Just completely forget what they originally called on the field and go with the new evidence that is always going to give them a better idea of what happened.

 

[HawksFTW]

No.

 

[therealjohncarlson]

No.

Yes.

 

[HawksFTW]

Why would you EVER want them to use LESS evidence and logic? Dumb idea.

 

[Sarlacc83]

Your logic, in action:

"Well, I guess I can't see what happened, but I'm guessing he caught it. I mean, the ref who was there called it a trap, but since I can't see it now, a catch is most likely thing to have happened."

 

[Jville]

Lawyers make the rules, administer the rules and interprete the rules in this country ...... and that includes the NFL.

 

[seahawksflow]

Don't want that. Would bring in more opinion. Very subjective. Don't need that from these referees.

 

[therealjohncarlson]

Your logic, in action:

"Well, I guess I can't see what happened, but I'm guessing he caught it. I mean, the ref who was there called it a trap, but since I can't see it now, a catch is most likely thing to have happened."

I mean, not really. My point is basically to not confine the refs to arbitrary rules like "The replay needs to show 100% the other way to switch calls." In the rare case that the video replay doesnt make the call more clear for the refs, obviously they should probably stick with the original call if the ref that had the best view is pretty confident. Again, my point is basically, if the video replay indicates that what the refs originally called is probably wrong, which includes the confidence level of the refs with the best view in real time, why not go with that call? Why are the refs' original calls treated like some hard evidence that needs 100% evidence in the other direction to be overturned?

 

[Sarlacc83]

Your logic, in action:

"Well, I guess I can't see what happened, but I'm guessing he caught it. I mean, the ref who was there called it a trap, but since I can't see it now, a catch is most likely thing to have happened."

I mean, not really. My point is basically to not confine the refs to arbitrary rules like "The replay needs to show 100% the other way to switch calls." In the rare case that the video replay doesnt make the call more clear for the refs, obviously they should probably stick with the original call if the ref that had the best view is pretty confident. Again, my point is basically, if the video replay indicates that what the refs originally called is probably wrong, which includes the confidence level of the refs with the best view in real time, why not go with that call? Why are the refs' original calls treated like some hard evidence that needs 100% evidence in the other direction to be overturned?

It's not 100%. It's 'indisputable.' In other words, it should be a call as such that 99% of people wouldn't argue with. To say anything less is to put complete subjectivity back into the proceedings, and the point of instant replay is to remove that subjectivity. Otherwise, what constitutes "enough"? That could change every week, whereas 95-100% doesn't.

 

[Sac]

This is a bad idea.

 

[dontbelikethat]

This is a bad idea.

Yeah. This would basically make all of the challenges or whatever based on personal judgement instead of irrefutable evidence. Different refs may make different calls week in and week out, so it'll just bring up to much controversy when a similar play happens but with a different outcome because the refs judged it differently. It would threaten the consistency of the rules because they could vary so differently based on perception.

 

[minormillikin]

I don't understand why the initial call is weighted so heavily. When a play is reviewed, they should make the call. Just make the call, regardless of what was called on the field.

 

[mikeak]

I understand the point you are making but think the main reason is that if you don't have clear video showing 100% wrong ruling then you could overturn a call based on 80% evidence when in fact the ref that made the ruling saw it 100% clear and you just happen not to have the right video angle

 

[HawksFTW]

I don't understand why the initial call is weighted so heavily. When a play is reviewed, they should make the call. Just make the call, regardless of what was called on the field.

Because some of the time, the cameras cannot see all the action. Also, the idea is that the game is supposed to be called real time, not with super slowmo replay. Most people understand the game is hard to call, even for the most experienced refs. Making a split second decision in the heat of the moment does come with inherent biases, yes, but the refs are in the best position to make the calls most of the time, not the cameras. That doesn't mean they get the calls correct, but theoretically, they are well positioned on the field to do so.

 

[mikeak]

Lol funny typo meant to say I do understand your point BUT at the same time you can't have the main ref overrule if it wasn't clear on video because the other ref may have seen it clearly.

 

[Hawkfan77]

What you're proposing is to completely get rid of the human element.

Why not just get rid of on field officials? The game can certainly just be officiated by the "booth"...

 

[HawksFTW]

What you're proposing is to completely get rid of the human element.

Why not just get rid of on field officials? The game can certainly just be officiated by the "booth"...

I think he is actually proposing to make the human element MORE important. If a replay official can just decide "Eh, close enough" when watching a replay, that is allowing much more subjectivity into the process than currently alloted.

 

[therealjohncarlson]

What you're proposing is to completely get rid of the human element.

Why not just get rid of on field officials? The game can certainly just be officiated by the "booth"...

I think he is actually proposing to make the human element MORE important. If a replay official can just decide "Eh, close enough" when watching a replay, that is allowing much more subjectivity into the process than currently alloted.

Its actually basically the same amount of human element but imo skewed in a different way. The original call on the field is all human element. Just because its their gut instinct doesnt mean its not all human element as well. my point is basically why not let the refs convene after watching the video replay, and make a call based on all the evidence at their disposal, including video evidence and the ref who had the best view's orginal call? Get rid of the "overturn it only if the evidence is 100% the other way" and just give their best opinion based on all the evidence.

 

[HawksFTW]

What you're proposing is to completely get rid of the human element.

Why not just get rid of on field officials? The game can certainly just be officiated by the "booth"...

I think he is actually proposing to make the human element MORE important. If a replay official can just decide "Eh, close enough" when watching a replay, that is allowing much more subjectivity into the process than currently alloted.

Its actually basically the same amount of human element but imo skewed in a different way. The original call on the field is all human element. Just because its their gut instinct doesnt mean its not all human element as well. my point is basically why not let the refs convene after watching the video replay, and make a call based on all the evidence at their disposal, including video evidence and the ref who had the best view's orginal call? Get rid of the "overturn it only if the evidence is 100% the other way" and just give their best opinion based on all the evidence.

You realize, this is essentially what they do right now?

As to your second part, why make the standard of proof lower? Makes no sense, and it makes the game worse. Nothing you have said supports your argument, or gives any reason as to WHY it should change. Making the system less consistent is not a good thing, as it is already full of human error on multiple levels. Ideally, each ref would call the play the same way regardless, but that isn't always the case. Allowing the video to tell the story as much as possible, is the only way to remove as much of the human element as possible.

I say, take it even FURTHER than it is now, and take away the power from the refs to handle replays at all. I know it has been said before, but it is the most unbiased way to do it. Have a committee of replay specialists for each game, whatever they say goes.

 

[minormillikin]

What you're proposing is to completely get rid of the human element.

Why not just get rid of on field officials? The game can certainly just be officiated by the "booth"...

Ummm... Ok. This is a plan. Maybe a couple refs on the field to break up fights, and relay the calls. Sounds good, thanks for the suggestion!