Video Replay

The Place for BC Lion Discussion. A forum for Lions fans to talk and chat about our team.
Discussion, News, Information and Speculation regarding the BC Lions and the CFL.
Prowl, Growl and Roar!

Moderator: Team Captains

User avatar
cromartie
Hall of Famer
Posts: 4700
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 2:31 pm
Location: Clevelandish

Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:55 am

Just going to dump some comments and thoughts and look for feedback.

A few years into the rule change here and its evident that video replay isn't working the way it was intended for several reasons. That being said, I'm use to my opinions changing over time and they aren't; the primary problem with replay, as I see it is what you're allowed to challenge.

The short version:

The number of challenges is fine.
The automatic review of scores and turnovers is fine.
Reviewing a called penalty or a review able call on the field is fine.

The Command Center needs to get those right, and they don't, which I acknowledge is a problem.

What all of these have in common is that they serve the purpose of replay, which is to serve as a check on the calls made by the officials. If the Command Center misses one of these, there's limited subjectivity that impacts the game. The officials called it one way and it was either right, wrong or indeterminate so it stands as called.

And while the Command Center makes mistakes on these, there's at least a definitive baseline for review to begin with ( Official X made a call), and the problem, if there is one, is correctable.

What I don't like, have never liked and will never like, is the idea that I can challenge an uncalled penalty, or that I can ask for a play to be reviewed and a penalty can be called retroactively for an entirely different reason. This expands the scope of replay beyond it's original intention and it bit us in the butt, again, last night. This is not a feasible use for replay, is incredibly subjective and time consuming and, I think, ends up turning fans off from the game entirely. I say this fully aware that we've benefited from it in the past on more than one occasion.

I'm hard pressed to think of any other sport where replay is used to challenge an official who didn't make a decision that should have rather than an official who made a decision that may have been incorrect. It's a fine point, but an important one and what the CFL has proven is that it can't handle this aspect of replay. As such, I submit this should be removed from the rule book and non-challengable.
******
Just for fun, let me take you in the wayback machine and let's apply a few examples of how history would have been changed, or how much angrier you would have been as a fan, if this rule was in effect:

How would you feel if the Lions could have challenged whether or not Geroy was interfered with on the last play of the 2005 WDF? If they had won that challenge? If they had lost?

How would you feel if the Lions could have challenged whether or not Ray Alexander was interfered with in the end zone in the first quarter of the 1994 Grey Cup? (SPOILER ALERT: He was.) If they had won that challenge? If they had lost?

How would you feel if the Lions could have challenged whether or not Jacques Chapdelaine was interfered with in the 1983 Grey Cup? If they had won that challenge? If they had lost?
*******

Blitz
2017 MVP
2017 MVP
Posts: 8346
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:44 am

Sat Jul 29, 2017 8:24 am

I couldn't agree more Cromartie. Great post.!!
"When I went to Catholic high school in Philadelphia, we just had one coach for football and basketball. He took all of us who turned out and had us run through a forest. The ones who ran into the trees were on the football team". (George Raveling)

B.C.FAN
2017 MVP
2017 MVP
Posts: 8944
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:28 pm

Sat Jul 29, 2017 9:04 am

How would the Lions feel in Ray Alexander's controversial catch in the 1994 Grey Cup was ruled a non-catch? There are lots of examples where history could have been rewritten if video replay were used as it is today. It would have changed the results of classic games, and that's not a good thing.

The number of penalties in the CFL this year is down 11% from 2016 and 14% from 2014, and that is a good thing. Officials are letting the players play more and not throwing as many flags. I'm sure a certain woman in Winnipeg would wish they had thrown at least one fewer flag this year on a kick return.

You can call holding on every play. You can call an illegal block on every kick return. You can call pass interference or illegal contact on almost every play. Players hand fight and push off and jostle for position to play the ball. Coaches can challenge for penalties that may meet the rulebook definition but were considered inconsequential by the on-field officials, and that is a problem, as we saw last night with Maas fishing for a penalty on a desperate third-down pass into heavy coverage in the end zone. He got 6 points out of it. He challenged for 2 more points on the convert and lost that one. The challenges became more of a story than the plays themselves, and that is a problem.

The CFL standard of replay is clear, but misunderstood. There must be "indisputable video evidence" to overturn a call on the field. If the play is close and could go either way, the call on the field is to stand. That standard is fine for turnovers, sideline and goal-line plays but it is applied inconsistently to penalties. The problem is that penalties are judgment calls, and as such should not be reviewable. Fans hate when big plays are called back by penalties and they hate it even more when big plays are called back after challenges.

Coach's challenges and video review in general have put officiating in the spotlight. Plays are reviewed several times from various angles in HD, with stop action. And everyone has an opinion. For many, the lasting impression is that the on-field officials or the command centre are often wrong. That's not good for the league, or for any league. Allowing judgment calls to be subject to such ongoing official scrutiny is bad for the game and is turning off fans. Video review is doing more harm than good.

As I stated in another thread, I believe in letting the players play and the on-field officials officiate. I don't mind official reviews on turnovers and scoring plays but I would take coach's challenges out of the game completely, especially challenges for penalties that were called or not called. Fans may question some calls, as always in any sport, but those questions wouldn't linger for days and weeks as they do now. Another play would be underway in 20 seconds and games would go on without interruption. People would remember plays on the field for what they were, not for what they could have been. And that's a really good thing.
"I think [Fred Fateri] was like a lot of people who watch football, hockey or any professional sport on television. They sit there and think they could coach better than the professional. Some people really think that." - Bob Ackles, The Water Boy

User avatar
WestCoastJoe
2017 MVP
2017 MVP
Posts: 15485
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

Sat Jul 29, 2017 9:09 am

B.C.FAN wrote:
Sat Jul 29, 2017 9:04 am
How would the Lions feel in Ray Alexander's controversial catch in the 1994 Grey Cup was ruled a non-catch? There are lots of examples where history could have been rewritten if video replay were used as it is today. It would have changed the results of classic games, and that's not a good thing.
We remember that one well, BCFAN. Heck, I even broke it down on tape, primitive tape at the time.

By the rules in place then, it seemed like a legal catch. Alexander caught it while flying through the air. He seemed to fly for about 5 yards. He had a firm grip on the ball. He landed hard, with the ball in his grasp. The huge collision with the ground dislodged the ball. It squirted out like a watermelon seed. At that time the rules said ''the ground could not cause a fumble.''

I do not recall anybody agreeing with me. LOL But, heck, I was happy to take the Grey Cup victory. :thup:
........

Oh yeah. One person agreed with me. I happened to see Ray Alexander at the B.C. high school championships. He agreed that it was a catch. No surprise there, but those were the rules at the time.
John Madden's Team Policies: Be on time. Pay attention. Play like hell on game day.

Jimmy Johnson's Game Keys: Protect the ball. Make plays.

Walter Payton's Advice to Kids: Play hard. Play fair. Have fun.

User avatar
Big Time
Champion
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2003 6:45 pm

Sat Jul 29, 2017 11:09 am

The worst change every made to the replay is the ability to review pass interference. I have never understood why they did this, as it just leads to all sorts of "what the hell" challenges like last night. Last night's mistake by the command centre legitimately changed the course of the game. This could also legitimately cost the Lions a shot at first place. If the league is serious about attracting a younger audience, they simply MUST get these alls correct. Last night's call goes against the entire credibility of the league.

As a fan for nearly 30 years, I can tell you that I legitimately thought about giving up on the league last night. My main problem is that on any given play I feel like someone could just throw an arbitrary challenge for PI, and given the way the command centre seems to see things, on any given play they will call or not call a penalty. I honestly don't know what is allowed anymore, and this makes me simply not want to watch.

If they want to fix replay, I'd suggest the following:

1. No more challenges of PI.
2. No challenges on third down - only from the booth.
3. Coaches have 15 seconds to decide if they are going to challenge. After that, no further challenges.
4. One challenge per game. Period.

If they can make those changes, it would improve the game. What happened last night is unacceptable. I hope the league shows some real leadership on this one.

TheLionKing
Hall of Famer
Posts: 20895
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:13 pm
Location: Vancouver

Sat Jul 29, 2017 12:21 pm

Some really good points made by Big Time Champion especially #3 and 4

One of my pet peeve is that it's taking way too long for a decision. If there is no indisputable evidence upon initial review then the call on the field stands. None of this slowing down the play, view from different angles, let's blow up play for a close examination etc. etc. A doctor can make a diagnosis faster than the Command Centre.

DanoT
Hall of Famer
Posts: 3067
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:38 pm
Location: Victoria, B.C. in summer, Sun Peaks Resort in winter

Sat Jul 29, 2017 12:35 pm

TheLionKing wrote:
Sat Jul 29, 2017 12:21 pm
Some really good points made by Big Time Champion especially #3 and 4

One of my pet peeve is that it's taking way too long for a decision. If there is no indisputable evidence upon initial review then the call on the field stands. None of this slowing down the play, view from different angles, let's blow up play for a close examination etc. etc. A doctor can make a diagnosis faster than the Command Centre.

One of the changes should be that once a review is started the Command Centre has 60 seconds before the video review monitors shut down, then another 30 seconds to contact the ref with the CCs decision. So if no decision is made within the allotted time then, "Call on the field stands".

maxlion
Champion
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2015 12:49 am

Sat Jul 29, 2017 2:42 pm

Video review gets it right 90% of the time. It is needed and valuable. The on field officials miss a lot.

Where it really screws up is in the lack of consistency on PI calls. The reviewers need clear direction on this, and the direction needs to be communicated to the teams, broadcasters and fans.

They don't have to be "right" every time, just consistent and predictable.

User avatar
Hambone
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5086
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 10:25 pm
Location: Living in PG and on the road for work the next 2 years; Adams Lake, Castlegar and points beyond

Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:25 pm

I spent 4 hours prior to kickoff in a Horseshoe Bay ferry lineup and all but the final 9 minutes on the boat so still haven't seen even a highlight. After the DPI on Burnham BC challenged and lost Moj was thoroughly convinced the Command Centre was either high on pot or drunker than skunks on JD.
You're as old as you've ever been and as young as you're ever going to be.

User avatar
David
2017 MVP
2017 MVP
Posts: 7664
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 10:23 am
Location: Vancouver (Kitsilano)

Sun Jul 30, 2017 1:23 am

Hambone wrote:
Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:25 pm
I spent 4 hours prior to kickoff in a Horseshoe Bay ferry lineup and all but the final 9 minutes on the boat so still haven't seen even a highlight. After the DPI on Burnham BC challenged and lost Moj was thoroughly convinced the Command Centre was either high on pot or drunker than skunks on JD.
I don't normally get worked up about bad calls. They tend to even out over the course of the year. But that sequence starting with the lateral got me riled. Perhaps the combination of the importance of the game, the frustration of seeing our Leos get manhandled at the LOS and continually scorched by Reilly really magnified those egregiously awful decisions from command centre. If just one of those had gone our way (as they should have), we were in a position to steal a win in a game we had no business being in (especially with Whyte down).

I was more cynical than the Moj. I concluded the person making the calls was either grossly incompetent, biased, or had something riding on the outcome.


DH :cool:
Please sell the team, Mr. Braley.

User avatar
Rammer
2017 MVP
2017 MVP
Posts: 22071
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 6:04 pm
Location: Coquitlam, B.C.

Sun Jul 30, 2017 1:24 am

Hambone wrote:
Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:25 pm
I spent 4 hours prior to kickoff in a Horseshoe Bay ferry lineup and all but the final 9 minutes on the boat so still haven't seen even a highlight. After the DPI on Burnham BC challenged and lost Moj was thoroughly convinced the Command Centre was either high on pot or drunker than skunks on JD.
A frequent traveller like yourself should make reservations, drive up a half hour before your sailing and save hours of frustration in a ferry lineup. Of course this is only giving my view on the replay of your night in Horseshoe Bay.

As for replay itself, another aspect the Command Center should use on all but a fumble review is the review at full speed, no slow mo. Sweet at game speed and if there is no anything significant, then go with the infield call.

That said the lateral play shouldn't be blown dead, as the play on a turnover (well it should have been) should be played to conclusion.
Entertainment value = an all time low

DanoT
Hall of Famer
Posts: 3067
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:38 pm
Location: Victoria, B.C. in summer, Sun Peaks Resort in winter

Sun Jul 30, 2017 8:35 am

David wrote:
Sun Jul 30, 2017 1:23 am
Hambone wrote:
Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:25 pm
I spent 4 hours prior to kickoff in a Horseshoe Bay ferry lineup and all but the final 9 minutes on the boat so still haven't seen even a highlight. After the DPI on Burnham BC challenged and lost Moj was thoroughly convinced the Command Centre was either high on pot or drunker than skunks on JD.
I don't normally get worked up about bad calls. They tend to even out over the course of the year. But that sequence starting with the lateral got me riled. Perhaps the combination of the importance of the game, the frustration of seeing our Leos get manhandled at the LOS and continually scorched by Reilly really magnified those egregiously awful decisions from command centre. If just one of those had gone our way (as they should have), we were in a position to steal a win in a game we had no business being in (especially with Whyte down).

I was more cynical than the Moj. I concluded the person making the calls was either grossly incompetent, biased, or had something riding on the outcome.


DH :cool:
I try hard not to get too emotionally wound up over a football game, but when the Command Centre made the penalty call on Purifoy in the end zone I felt an urge to throw something at the TV so i went into the kitchen.

However watching real time replay of Jackson's int on the 2 point convert, I thought that there was more pre int contact than on the previous penalty on Purifoy, I concluded that the CC in their never ending incompetence would rule no penalty.

Then with the PI challenge on the Burnham catch, this was the most obvious defender arrived before the ball play, so naturally I was certain that the CC would get it wrong again. They didn't disappoint.

The Lions were being thoroughly outplayed in the trenches and had only a small chance for a win but still the score was close until the Command Centre incompetence removed any real opportunity for a comeback.

The good news, I hope, is that the CFL will now publicly admit that the Command Centre is broken and take steps to fix it, including firing or reassigning CC personnel.

User avatar
David
2017 MVP
2017 MVP
Posts: 7664
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 10:23 am
Location: Vancouver (Kitsilano)

Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:31 am

Yes! The one call that went our way was the one we didn't deserve. To me, Buddy Jackson arrived too early on the 2-pt convert and was face-guarding. We deserved that PI. But I didn't agree with the 3 other command centre calls either having watched each in super-slow mo on a large screen TV.


DH :cool:
Please sell the team, Mr. Braley.

DanoT
Hall of Famer
Posts: 3067
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:38 pm
Location: Victoria, B.C. in summer, Sun Peaks Resort in winter

Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:42 am

David wrote:
Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:31 am
Yes! The one call that went our way was the one we didn't deserve. To me, Buddy Jackson arrived too early on the 2-pt convert and was face-guarding. We deserved that PI. But I didn't agree with the 3 other command centre calls either having watched each in super-slow mo on a large screen TV.


DH :cool:
AFAIK a defender can go for the ball without having to turn and face it. Just like a receiver, the defender can make an over the shoulder catch/interception or pass knock down, he just cant contact the WR before the ball. He cannot put his hand in front of the receiver's face but he does not have to turn and face the ball to defend.

JaboVancouver
Rookie
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:44 pm

Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:43 am

Great topic on a lot of levels. As much as I want to gripe about what can or can't be challenged, the big issue continues to be quality. Being a ref is tough and thankless, and we all know the CFL has its moments of on-field lapses with officiating. But now there seems to be a trend of inconsistency out of the command centre, where very similar plays are called differently ie pass interference. Whether a call is agreeable or not almost doesn't matter, but if the group overseeing video replay is not providing quality and consistent calls, what is the point?
Just A Bit Outside: The Premier Vancouver Sports Podcast
justabitoutside.podbean.com

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests