Master Index of Archived Threads


Distant Replay

Frayed Knot Jan 18 2010 12:58 PM

Both Phil Mushnick (NYPost) and Rob Raissman (NYDN) used their Sunday columns to note the recent incident involving a Pittsburgh Penguins game where a replay showing a nullified opponent's goal to actually be a goal remained un-shown until after the ruling of 'no goal' was confirmed. Several angles were shown during the stoppage that were inconclusive but the definitive one wasn't "found" until play had resumed. Turns out that a producer working for the Penguins' broadcast purposely withheld the telling angle, he has been suspended and some sort of investigation launched but of course it comes too late to change the result in this particular game. The larger point is the one where sports are increasingly embracing replay in cases where the home team not only controls the network responsible for the telecast but in some cases owns it and certainly has an interest in the outcome of the game. Anyone trust the Steinbrenners - who have shown themselves willing to control not only the spoken content at 'YES' but also the camera work over matters as silly as how much face time out-of-favor coaches get - to NOT interfere when a precious MFY win might hang in the balance? Shyeet, if the replay rule already existed I could see the tape of Delgado's shot to LF clanking off the YSIII foul-pole getting buried deeper than Jimmy Hoffa. One could argue that at least the NFL uses 'independent' networks to control what gets shown - although I remember a case from the first Gaints Super Bowl against Denver when the Gints were awarded a first-down on a pass play that otherwise would have resulted in a punt from deep in their own territory during the first half while the game was still close. There too a new angle magically popped up after play resumed which showed what the others didn't, that the ruling should have been for an incomplete pass. Little was made of it at the time (probably because it's the teflon NFL and that the play didn't involve either Farve or Ochocinco) but if I were a Broncos fan knowing that a NY-based network employee was likely the one responsible for not getting the truthful replay on air in time I would have been down at network headquarters the next day with a loaded uzi, Just other examples about how replay rules, IMO, always work much better in theory than they do in practice.

Centerfield Jan 18 2010 01:03 PM Re: Distant Replay

Do you mean Super Bowl XXI? I don't think instant replay was in effect at the time. But otherwise, I completely agree with your point. In fact, I can see YES firing the camera guy and the producer who turned over an incriminating replay. Hell, even fire the peanut salesman who failed to step in front of the offending camera.

Edgy DC Jan 18 2010 01:57 PM Re: Distant Replay

I don't think they do always work much better in theory than in practice, though you cite some examples where they have.

attgig Jan 18 2010 02:13 PM Re: Distant Replay

nfl routinely makes use of that within home field advantage - though I don't believe it involves keeping replay footage away from officials (which is going too far). But in the nfl, the home team will routinely not show the replay on the jumbotron if it goes against them, making the opposing coaches rely on their coaches upstairs to have access to replays before tossing a red flag (and sometimes it ends up being too late). other sports don't really have a red flag to throw. officials should be privy to all camera angles, and the angles should be standardized (especially in the nhl). those 'standardized' angles will be harder with mlb and different dimensions of their fields, but it should be standardized as much as it can (ie, every wall having a lateral angle to tell where the ball bounces off of).

Frayed Knot Jan 18 2010 02:19 PM Re: Distant Replay

[quote="Centerfield"]Do you mean Super Bowl XXI? I don't think instant replay was in effect at the time.

That was actually the first season they used it - although the process wasn't exactly the same as it is now.

I don't think they do always work much better in theory than in practice, though you cite some examples where they have

Those examples are important as they're going to come up if/when you implement the system.

Edgy DC Jan 18 2010 06:09 PM Re: Distant Replay

I don't get it. There already is a system implemented.

Frayed Knot Jan 18 2010 08:51 PM Re: Distant Replay

Sure they have, although at least (so far) in limited uses and only in dead ball situations and without ever addressing the possibility of the conflict of interests that invaded the hockey game in Pittsburgh because, at least in part, they implemented it so quickly in order to solve a pr problem of a handful of bad calls on national TV over a short period. It reminds me a bit of the time when the team with the best record got shut out of the 1981 post-season as a result of their hastily constructed 'solution' to the strike; most of the time that wouldn't happen but hoping that it won't (or never considering that it might) doesn't mean it can't. In the same vein there are numerous cries to expand MLB's use of replay, few if any of which consider the can of worms it can open while clinging to the incomplete argument of: 'anything that corrects one bad call is worth it'.

Edgy DC Jan 18 2010 09:22 PM Re: Distant Replay

This is too big. We're back in 1981, and I don't know what the issue really is. The possible expansion of the use of instant replay didn't even come to a vote at the GMs' meeting. Whose argument is that?

Frayed Knot Jan 19 2010 07:41 AM Re: Distant Replay

My thesis here is that the benefits of instant replay work out better in theory than they do in practice precisely because these 'what if' situations are either dismissed or never considered. In the case of baseball, MLB was so anxious to correct the problem of a handful of bad calls over a short span that (like they did in 1981) they altered the rules within a season without addressing the potential problems that might result. So now, after a handful of more bad ump calls in the post-season started numerous tongues wagging about expanding the use of the replay rules, I'm fearful that further action will come with a similar short-sighted approach to the possibilities of unintended consequences by ignoring what's in the box that Pandora chick might be opening. The Pittsburgh situation is, among others, a cautionary tale worthy of consideration.

Edgy DC Jan 19 2010 07:50 AM Re: Distant Replay

But what they've done, limiting the usage to boundary calls, hasn't opened up any can of worms. It's been used in a limited manner --- 54 times since August 2008. It's been instrumental when used --- overturning 22 calls. When given the chance to expand it to basepath calls, GMs sensibly rejected the notion in November, no matter how many tongues wagged in October, cooly recognizing the single egregious error as not being due to the limitations of what umps can see, but a gross dereliction of duty by a guy who had all the resources he needed to get the call correct.

Frayed Knot Jan 19 2010 08:15 AM Re: Distant Replay

[quote="Edgy DC"]But what they've done, limiting the usage to boundary calls, hasn't opened up any can of worms. It's been used in a limited manner --- 54 times since August 2008. It's been instrumental when used --- overturning 22 calls.

And if they leave it there I don't have a problem with it although I'd like to know if/how they've addressed or considered the potential for chicanery by team-owned and/or controlled media.

When given the chance to expand it to basepath calls, GMs sensibly rejected the notion in November, no matter how many tongues wagged in October, cooly recognizing the single egregious error as not being due to the limitations of what umps can see, but a gross dereliction of duty by a guy who had all the resources he needed to get the call correct.

My complaints here are mainly directed at those voices who are calling for expansion because I don't think they consider anything beyond the overly-simplistic, 'if it corrects one bad call it's worth it' argument.

Centerfield Jan 19 2010 09:47 AM Re: Distant Replay

[quote="Frayed Knot":2do3bwzo][quote="Centerfield":2do3bwzo]Do you mean Super Bowl XXI? I don't think instant replay was in effect at the time.[/quote:2do3bwzo] That was actually the first season they used it - although the process wasn't exactly the same as it is now. [/quote:2do3bwzo] Wow, really? I could have sworn it was instituted much later. I must be getting old.