Why do they have replay? | The Boneyard

Why do they have replay?

Status
Not open for further replies.
whaler11

whaler11

Head Happy Hour Coach
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,353
Reaction Score
68,192
I hate replay for three reasons:

1. Games are longer
2. Refs are timid
3. They don't even get the calls right

That TD replay just confirmed in the Penn State game is laughable. The ball isn't even in contact with his hands and his next step is out of bounds.

Ban replay. Play the games.
 
whaler11 said:
I hate replay for three reasons:

1. Games are longer
2. Refs are timid
3. They don't even get the calls right

That TD replay just confirmed in the Penn State game is laughable. The ball isn't even in contact with his hands and his next step is out of bounds.

Ban replay. Play the games.
Expand ...
Uh-oh. Somebody bet on USC.
 
shizzle787 said:
Uh-oh. Somebody bet on USC.
Expand ...

Nah - I hate replay. If they would get the calls right with replay I'd accept it but they get as many wrong with it as right - so it is just creates the illusion of accuracy while you can see the impact it has on officials.
 
whaler11 said:
Nah - I hate replay. If they would get the calls right with replay I'd accept it but they get as many wrong with it as right - so it is just creates the illusion of accuracy while you can see the impact it has on officials.
Expand ...

I don't believe that we should get rid of replay however.... more plays are being reviewed on YoY basis and more calls are being reversed. (For the NFL)

History of Instant Replay | NFL Football Operations
 
So now we get commercials for a replay review. Maybe they get this one right?
 
.-.
IMind said:
The other one that drives me nuts is in hockey when they wave off a goal because of a microscopic offsides that happened 90 seconds before the goal.
Expand ...

I can't watch hockey because the rules by which they make the standings are too painfully stupid.
 
whaler11 said:
I can't watch hockey because the rules by which they make the standings are too painfully stupid.
Expand ...

Yeah they got way to cute with that. I married Canadian so I'm watching if I want to or not. ;)
 
IMind said:
Yeah they got way to cute with that. I married Canadian so I'm watching if I want to or not. ;)
Expand ...

3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an OT/SO win, 1 for an OT/SO loss, 0 for a regulation loss.

Would improve the league 100% with one change but it wouldn't allow garbage teams to only be 10 points out of the playoffs mid-season
 
whaler11 said:
3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an OT/SO win, 1 for an OT/SO loss, 0 for a regulation loss.

Would improve the league 100% with one change but it wouldn't allow garbage teams to only be 10 points out of the playoffs mid-season
Expand ...
I'm pretty sure that's a feature... they want more teams involved later. I heard a report that the were looking at adding a 1 game wildcard like play in... because of "how successful" the baseball play in has been.
 
IMind said:
I'm pretty sure that's a feature... they want more teams involved later. I heard a report that the were looking at adding a 1 game wildcard like play in... because of "how successful" the baseball play in has been.
Expand ...

I know why they keep it. It's an affront to the concept of competition. Teams are rewarded for playing for ties.
 
.-.
whaler11 said:
I know why they keep it. It's an affront to the concept of competition. Teams are rewarded for playing for ties.
Expand ...

Um, you can't complain about the OT/standings thing in the same post as "teams are rewarded for playing for ties." The whole reason for the standings thing is trying to get rid of playing for OT / ties.
 
whaler11 said:
3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an OT/SO win, 1 for an OT/SO loss, 0 for a regulation loss.

Would improve the league 100% with one change but it wouldn't allow garbage teams to only be 10 points out of the playoffs mid-season
Expand ...

I'd just dump overtime and go back to the old rules. There's nothing wrong with ties.
 
pepband99 said:
Um, you can't complain about the OT/standings thing in the same post as "teams are rewarded for playing for ties." The whole reason for the standings thing is trying to get rid of playing for OT / ties.
Expand ...

Well they sort of botched then didn't they? A regulation win is worth a total of 2 points and games that go to OT are worth 3.

So you are giving the teams an incentive to go to OT.
 
.-.
History Geek said:
I'm cool with the way FIFA-sanctioned tournaments do it. Three points for a win and one for a tie. Adds a little more incentive for actually winning.
Expand ...

? The "old" rules in the NHL were this? Too many teams played for a tie, as the single point is valuable. It led to boring conservative 3rd periods and OT.

Not shocking the soccerheads will like boring and low-scoring. :)
 
whaler11 said:
Well they sort of botched then didn't they? A regulation win is worth a total of 2 points and games that go to OT are worth 3.

So you are giving the teams an incentive to go to OT.
Expand ...

Yes, but they're also giving incentive for the OT to not be a snoozefest. Nothing is boring about OT, if it's done correctly.
 
pepband99 said:
Yes, but they're also giving incentive for the OT to not be a snoozefest. Nothing is boring about OT, if it's done correctly.
Expand ...

I didn't say it was boring - I am saying the way they calculate points in the standings is idiotic. I get it's intentional so that the 12th place team can pretend they are in the playoff race.
 
pepband99 said:
? The "old" rules in the NHL were this? Too many teams played for a tie, as the single point is valuable. It led to boring conservative 3rd periods and OT.

Not shocking the soccerheads will like boring and low-scoring. :)
Expand ...

No you got 2 points for a win and 1 for a tie. That's why 3 for a regulation win would fix many problems.

Instead of needing ridiculous gimmicks to make the game 'exciting'.
 
Sky ball said:
Everyone gets gets a medal.
Expand ...

No... everyone is in the playoff hunt until late in the season so fans will continue to go to games and pay for merch, and teams wont tank as soon. Off course we all know how much better it was back in the day... and what not... :rolleyes:
 
Replay is necessary for the next time the Huskies are robbed on an obvious mistake. Or for that long USC sideline catch called incomplete in the 4th quarter of The Rose Bowl-- which was in fact complete. It would be insane for mistakes so clearly obvious to fans seeing them replayed on wide screens with HD/4K precision, to go uncorrected on the field. The delays are absolutely worth getting it right--even if at times they still get it wrong.
 
.-.
There have been some studies that say that slowing things down doesn't actually result in a more accurate result. Just a different interpretation because you lose time perspective. But I agree with whaler. It lengthens the game. It makes refs sloppy more than tentative I think because they don't need to "get it right" and it doesn't necessarily get to better results.
 
whaler11 said:
I hate replay for three reasons:

1. Games are longer
2. Refs are timid
3. They don't even get the calls right

That TD replay just confirmed in the Penn State game is laughable. The ball isn't even in contact with his hands and his next step is out of bounds.

Ban replay. Play the games.
Expand ...
Anyone who lived before replay knows that the refs completely suck and replay has made a huge difference for the better.

You can complain about a bad replay call here and there. But before replay it was a total mess with the refs making mistake after mistake.
 
In the balance I prefer replay. I think there should be a max 1 minute time limit put on the replay call though. 30-40 seconds to see various camera angles, 20 - 30 seconds to make the call. What drives me nuts are the replays that are so freaking obvious that the call should be easily made in 30 seconds which seem to drag on forever.
 
pepband99 said:
? The "old" rules in the NHL were this? Too many teams played for a tie, as the single point is valuable. It led to boring conservative 3rd periods and OT.

Not shocking the soccerheads will like boring and low-scoring. :)
Expand ...

I don't watch hockey, but if you get 3 points for a win and 1 for a tie, how could hockey teams be stupid enough to play for ties where going 1-2 is as good as tieing three teams, but getting to 2-1 is twice as good?
 
People argue replay makes baseball too long. It's probably shorter than watching the manager scream for as long as he feels like it.

Why DOES replay take so long? By the 3rd angle it's usually either clear one way or no evidence. For us at home and the commentators we get it done in 15 seconds how does it take several minutes?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,305
Messages
4,562,305
Members
10,455
Latest member
caw2


Top Bottom