Article - Video replay is ruining professional sports

[Hockey Stache]

Below is a good article regarding video replay and how it is killing sports. Enjoy!

 

http://www.macleans.ca/sports/video-replay-is-ruining-professional-sports/

 

Video replay is ruining professional sports
High-definition, slow-motion video reviews aren’t providing sports infallibility. It’s time for a new standard.
Peter Shawn Taylor
May 7, 2017

 

Referee Garrett Rank #48, working his first NHL game, awaits a video replay ruling during the game between the Buffalo Sabres and the Minnesota Wild on January 15, 2015 at the First Niagara Center in Buffalo, New York. (Bill Wippert/NHLI/Getty Images)

 

Say what you will about whether golf is a real sport or not—you might consider it a long walk spent hitting things with sticks, or the pinnacle of individual athleticism and mental toughness. But golf has just established itself as the leader of the entire sporting world. How? By defending spectators’ right to be entertained by events on the playing field, and putting that great scourge of modern sports—video replay—in its proper place. In the wake of the NHL’s latest replay controversy, with the Edmonton Oilers claiming they were robbed of a playoff victory as the result of a failure of video evidence, the rest of the professional sports league universe should be following golf’s lead.
In April, professional golfer Lexi Thompson was assessed a four-stroke penalty for a ball placement infraction. After putting down a coin to mark the spot of her ball, Thompson subsequently replaced her ball about an inch or so away from its original location. This error, which appeared entirely inadvertent, went unnoticed by everyone on the course—because it couldn’t be seen by the unaided eye. It was a self-appointed referee, a fan watching at home on television with the ability to slow the footage down in high definition, who spotted the error and alerted LPGA officials. While leading at the time of her mistake, Thompson ended regulation play tied for first thanks to the ensuing penalty, and eventually lost in a playoff round.
Last week, golf’s ruling bodies announced new rules to ensure no other golfer would suffer Thompson’s fate again. In particular, video replay evidence is now subject to a “naked eye” standard: “The use of video technology can make it possible to identify things that could not reasonably be seen with the naked eye,” golf’s rule book now advises, giving as an example a few grains of sand that might be visible during the backswing of a bunker shot in a high-definition, slow-motion replay. Such forensic evidence will no longer be admissible.

Technology, the new rule states, “should not be used to hold players to a higher standard than human beings can reasonably be expected to meet.” Effective immediately, professional golfers cannot be punished for infractions that are only apparent in some distant control room or basement. Just because video replay shows us something doesn’t mean we need to act on it.

 

This is a very good thing.

 

Constant evolution in video replay suggests it is both feasible and desirable to produce a sporting event free of officiating controversies. Simply by adding ever-increasing amounts of technology—more cameras, super slow motion, state-of-the-art command centres, mandatory video review—it will eventually be possible to achieve the flawless game.
But every professional sport would do well to adopt its own “naked eye” standard for all replay rulings. If it is impossible to spot an infraction at normal speed while watching it live, it shouldn’t matter.

 

Yes, this would mean that some on-the-field calls will inevitably be proven wrong after the fact. Choosing to ignore video evidence such as this—conclusive and incontrovertible proof, perhaps—means refs and umps will continue screwing up, just as they have for centuries. Games will be lost as a result. Boo hoo.
The most obvious cost of our quest for perfection is in lost time and pleasure. Every time a football coach tosses his red flag or an NHL coach calls a challenge, play stops while the video evidence is reviewed. All angles must be checked. Is it clear enough to overturn the call? Let’s watch it one more time…
Meanwhile, your endorphins are held hostage by technology. The NHL replay turns crowd participation into an absurd multi-stage, energy-sapping process. Cheer when the puck enters the net. Wait patiently while the Situation Room decides. Then cheer again (or complain) depending on the final outcome. Video reviews are black holes into which the all the excitement and spontaneity of live sports is sucked.

 

And none of this bother actually delivers on the promise of an end to officiating controversies. Consider the outrage felt by Edmonton over the last-minute tying goal by the Anaheim Ducks over their Oilers on Friday. While slow-mo replays showed convincing proof the Ducks’ Ryan Kesler had grabbed Oiler goalie Cam Talbot’s pad in the crease, the resulting goal was allowed to stand. If there’s no such thing as a perfectly officiated game—if fans are going to complain about the refs regardless of technology applied—then why bother?
Some leagues are trying to limit the distraction. Major League Baseball this year instituted a two-minute “guideline” on video reviews. If an on-field call can’t be overturned in 120 seconds, umpires are supposed to let the play stand. It’s a start, but hardly a coherent trend. Where Major League Soccer once restricted video evidence to whether the ball entered the net or not, it’s now allowing it to influence on-field calls as well.

 

The thrill of spectator sports like football or hockey lie in their blur of speed and violence. Slow the action to below the capacity of normal human comprehension, and you end up focusing on minutiae. Last year, the Toronto Blue Jays successfully challenged a stolen base because video replay showed that as Yonder Alonso of the Oakland A’s slid into second base his knee lifted off the bag for a split second while a tag was applied. To the naked eye, such a thing is impossible to discern. It is an infraction that only exists in the presence of technology. Hi-def video replay swamps us with irrelevant micro-physics moments such as these.

 

And while technology allows us to extrude shots of a wide receiver’s foot so we can watch as it delicately crosses the painted side line—frame by frame with a degree of exactness and clarity that was found wanting in the Zapruder footage—this is false precision. You might prove the catch was good, but another camera focused elsewhere could just as easily show a lineman tugging ever-so-slightly on another’s jersey, or a foot suggesting intent to trip a defensive back. And then what? The closer we look and the more cameras we add, the more penalties we’ll find.

 

Rather than going further down the rabbit hole of technology, we ought to limit video replay to the biggest moments in sport. Did the puck go in the net? Did the ball travel around the foul pole? In these simple situations, replay can usefully offer a fresh set of eyes trained at the exact spot necessary. But there’s no need for resolution that exceeds golf’s standard of the naked eye.

 

Sport is supposed to provide an emotional escape from everyday life. It’s not the pursuit of particle physics by other means. If the naked eye is good enough to enjoy a game live, it ought to be good enough to render judgment on how that game is played.

 

[SabreFan1]

It's a lousy overly opinionated blog posting from a guy who recently wrote another article ranting against people feeding squirrels...  

[Where's Wellwood]

This lost credibility at "golf is the leader of the sporting world".

 

I can accept that golf is a legitimate sport but to believe that golf leads the sport world is ludicrous. 

 

There are good points made that players maybe shouldn't be held to millimetres of accuracy that people couldn't see during the run of play. 

 

It says something about the speed of golf that a fan watching at home could contact officials and point something out before the opportunity passed. It also says something about someone that the fans' ruling was accepted. Fans should not be able to enforce a live game. Unlike refs, their position is absolutely biased and they aren't looking for transgressions for every player. And that example of video replay should not be considered a reason to not use it.

[goalie13]

I agree with much of what the article is getting at.

 

I always thought that video replay would make the game better.  Video replay would have shown that Otto kicked it in.  However, how many times have we been baffled by a decision regarding a distinct kicking motion?  And it's not just us, the completely biased fan.  You often hear commentators admit they are basically guessing which way a call will go.  We would almost be better off with a coin-toss to decide a goal review, at least we would understand the process.

[SabreFan1]

23 minutes ago, goalie13 said:

I agree with much of what the article is getting at.

 

I always thought that video replay would make the game better.  Video replay would have shown that Otto kicked it in.  However, how many times have we been baffled by a decision regarding a distinct kicking motion?  And it's not just us, the completely biased fan.  You often hear commentators admit they are basically guessing which way a call will go.  We would almost be better off with a coin-toss to decide a goal review, at least we would understand the process.

Unfortunately, human error is still a part of the process when it comes to replay.  It gets right, catches, and fixes more mistakes than it doesn't.

 

This is coming from someone who will never forgive the NHL for screwing the Brett Hull call up then trying to cover the screw-up with a BS excuse about possession and when that didn't work, finally a secret memo that only the league's GMs were privy to.

 

I'm still bitter 18 years later...

[goalie13]

Just now, SabreFan1 said:

Unfortunately, human error is still a part of the process when it comes to replay.  It gets right, catches, and fixes more mistakes than it doesn't.

 

This is coming from someone who will never forgive the NHL for screwing the Brett Hull call then trying to cover the screw-up with a BS excuse about possession and when that didn't work, finally a secret memo that only the league's GMs were privy to.

 

I'm still bitter 18 years later...

I'm sure you're right, but sometimes it doesn't feel that way.

 

Some of the situations, I'm not even that concerned about getting it right.  I think some calls should be left up to the on-ice officials.  Take off-sides for example.  If you can get an advantage by gaining the zone faster than the linesman can see, then maybe you deserve that advantage.

 

I like the idea of replays to determine if the puck crossed the line, but I wonder if that could be taken care of by using other technology.  FoxTrax is 20 years old.  Surely there have been enough technological advances so they could do something with sensors to detect the puck crossing the line.

 

What would be left is just replays to determine if a goal was valid or not.  Brett Hull, Joel Otto, Perry / Kesler the other night, high-sticks, etc.  The question would be, are we better off with the human error on the ice, or the human error from the situation room?

[Hockey Stache]

1 hour ago, SabreFan1 said:

It's a lousy overly opinionated blog posting from a guy who recently wrote another article ranting against people feeding squirrels...  

Yikes! You are bitter after 18 years. I don't care much whether the author is a blogger or has recently written an article about squirrels. The ultimate story is valid in that too much video replay is slowing down and killing sport is true. As the article states, part of the love of sport is the intrigue and excitement involved in all sports is the highs and lows of the game. Slowing down the game multiple times during any match is only hurting the games natural ebb and flow of momentum. Human error has and always will be a part of sports.

[TimberWolf]

Clearly a fan of a team that didn't lose because Otto kicked it in

[mephnick]

As a soccer purist I consider wrong calls to be an inherent part of sports. I think instant replay takes a little bit of the magic away from important events. Missed/wrong calls are part of many legendary sporting moments. Would it have been better for soccer if Maradona's Hand of God delayed the game for 10 minutes and then was called back? It's now a famous play in soccer history that will never be forgotten. Maybe it would have been better if Hull's goal had be called back....but we're still talking about it. Isn't that more fun as a (non-Sabers) sports fan?

[Xbox]

I'll say one thing. Offside reviews are ruining hockey 100%

 

[SabreFan1]

16 minutes ago, Hockey Stache said:

Yikes! You are bitter after 18 years. I don't care much whether the author is a blogger or has recently written an article about squirrels. The ultimate story is valid in that too much video replay is slowing down and killing sport is true. As the article states, part of the love of sport is the intrigue and excitement involved in all sports is the highs and lows of the game. Slowing down the game multiple times during any match is only hurting the games natural ebb and flow of momentum. Human error has and always will be a part of sports.

I'll be bitter until my dying day or until the Sabres win the Cup.  Whichever comes first...

 

We both view the article very differently.  I checked on his past writings because I could tell by the way that he wrote about this subject that he was just basically spouting off a personal opinion without telling the other side of the story about the positives of replay.  It was easy enough to realize that he didn't write about sports for a living.

[SabreFan1]

29 minutes ago, goalie13 said:

I'm sure you're right, but sometimes it doesn't feel that way.

 

Some of the situations, I'm not even that concerned about getting it right.  I think some calls should be left up to the on-ice officials.  Take off-sides for example.  If you can get an advantage by gaining the zone faster than the linesman can see, then maybe you deserve that advantage.

 

I like the idea of replays to determine if the puck crossed the line, but I wonder if that could be taken care of by using other technology.  FoxTrax is 20 years old.  Surely there have been enough technological advances so they could do something with sensors to detect the puck crossing the line.

 

What would be left is just replays to determine if a goal was valid or not.  Brett Hull, Joel Otto, Perry / Kesler the other night, high-sticks, etc.  The question would be, are we better off with the human error on the ice, or the human error from the situation room?

The offsides challenge is annoying.  But the rules are the rules.  Now if the replay rule was taken away in the future and the Canucks lost a Cup because a TV replay showed that a players skate was an inch offsides, nearly all of CDC would complain about it for years on end all the while screaming that the league hates the Canucks and removed the replay on purpose just to spite them.  Same with the 30 other teams' fanbases although to a lesser extant.

[SabreFan1]

26 minutes ago, mephnick said:

As a soccer purist I consider wrong calls to be an inherent part of sports. I think instant replay takes a little bit of the magic away from important events. Missed/wrong calls are part of many legendary sporting moments. Would it have been better for soccer if Maradona's Hand of God delayed the game for 10 minutes and then was called back? It's now a famous play in soccer history that will never be forgotten. Maybe it would have been better if Hull's goal had be called back....but we're still talking about it. Isn't that more fun as a (non-Sabers) sports fan?

Replay was around in 1999, and the goal was still allowed.

[mephnick]

1 minute ago, SabreFan1 said:

Replay was around in 1999, and the goal was still allowed.

Oh I know, I watched it. So it doesn't work anyway. Sabers fans would probably be less salty if it was just a snap on ice decision that was wrong rather than a studied decision that was still wrong. Another reason to not even bother.

[SabreFan1]

Just now, mephnick said:

Oh I know, I watched it. So it doesn't work anyway. Sabers fans would probably be less salty if it was just a snap on ice decision that was wrong rather than a studied decision that was still wrong. Another reason to not even bother.

My point in an earlier post was that even though that was a miscarriage of justice that hit home, I still prefer replay.  It gets it right much more than it gets it wrong.  Although like others here have said, I could definitely live without the offsides replay.

[DeNiro]

It's not ruining the sport, it's revealing how incompetent NHL officials actually are.

 

I hope the NHL is looking to address better referee training in the future, because it's making the NHL look bush league right now.

[Salmonberries]

I hate replay, the refs screwing up is part of the game. The reviewing of every goal is threatening my sanity. Please stop.

[48MPHSlapShot]

Yeah no. Not buying anything this "article" is selling. 

 

Getting calls right is important. Not doing what it takes to get calls right does a disservice to the entire pro sporting world, including the fans.

 

As far as bad calls being "part of the game", imagine if the Canucks were in game 7 of the Stanley Cup final, there's a scrum in front of our net during OT in which the puck appears to slide into our net, and the call on the ice is "goal".  The thing is, the puck never did cross the line, but since we're not doing reviews any more, oh well.

 

Would it still be part of the game then?

[Hockey Stache]

2 hours ago, DeNiro said:

It's not ruining the sport, it's revealing how incompetent NHL officials actually are.

 

I hope the NHL is looking to address better referee training in the future, because it's making the NHL look bush league right now.

I'm not sure officiating has progressed so much over the years to warrant the league is now bush league. Officiating wasn't much better before all the replays and networks having cameras at every angle to nitpick every single play. Like SabreFan says, 18 years ago the Sabres got screwed by a Hull skate. What about the refereeing back in the '70's, 80's or even before then? Sure there were issues with missed calls and errors but it was accepted to an extent. Unfortunately, now we have much better technology that allows for immediate and minute reviews. I am a purist and wish that all sports would cut out all the tinkering and coaches challenges and reviews. I'm not saying don't use the technology we have available but keep it for whether or not the puck goes in the net, the ball goes across the line, if the ball is in fair territory or in foul territory, etc.

 

It also seems to me that video review gets wrong just as many times as it gets it right. Just ask the Oilers about Kesler's hand on Talbot's pad the other night.

[Gaudette Celly]

2 hours ago, DeNiro said:

It's not ruining the sport, it's revealing how incompetent NHL officials actually are.

 

I hope the NHL is looking to address better referee training in the future, because it's making the NHL look bush league right now.

To be fair, the speed at which the game it is played now doesn't make it any easier.  Things like checking to see if the puck actually went across the line are one thing because it can be missed, but allowing someone to speed-bag an opponent's face without a penalty is inexcusable.  If they get into checking for things like penalties then it's going to interrupt and slow the game down even more.