Proposal -- It's Way Past Time to Move Official Reviews to the Booth!
After the mess in East Landfill -- and I do not like to whine about refs except about how long reviews generally take -- I just don't understand why sports leagues assign official reviews to on-the-field refs when there is a much better option. On-the-field refs are stuck with a single small screen, glare (witness the sun screens or cloth covers they sometimes duck under), no rule book for quick consult, and is in the middle of the action (having to jog to the screen, sounds, hostile crowds, standing amongst teams, coaches, etc.) all of which can unconsciously influence review.
A ref in the booth can have multiple large hi-def screens to carefully examine the play from multiple angles at the same time, silence, and a bench book to take a quick look to clarify any rule issues or remind themselves of the applicable burden of proof (incontrovertible evidence the call was erroneous).
Over the years I've watched M games, depending on the stakes and what I have going on in my life, in my iPhone, on my Surface Pro (which has a very high def screen and is approximately the same size as the screen the on-the-field refs have), and in my man cave on my high def LED 52" screen.
Radical differences in experience and my ability to see what is going on. If I was tasked with review, it's a no brainer where I'd go if I wanted to do an adequate job, let alone my best work on which so many people rely and so much $$ has been spent to make the experience special.
As I've mentioned over the years in my intermittent posts, I'm an active trial attorney, and have been so for now thirty years. That means four years of college, three years of law school, regular continuing education (attending and presenting), and phlanx of books at the ready when I'm at work or in trial. Pretty sure I have a lot more training than the refs, but I don't go to trial without my reference books, notes, etc., at hand. And that's not enough. At the top of every single page of every single notepad page, and often on a post-it stuck to counsel table, are short reminders ("Smile", "Be Nice"), and maybe a word or two about the themes which I need to emphasize in some way throughout. Judges do it too-- I've seen judges' sticky notes with only a word or two on them. I've seen judges with their "bench books" which are essentially Cliff Notes to help them make correct in-court snap decisions. Judges have lots and lots of training too. Yet all too often I am required to remind really, really bright judges of the applicable burden of proof on a particular issue (they can differ depending on the circumstances).
If I was a ref, "incontrovertible evidence the call was erroneous" would be on my sticky to make sure I applied the right standard every single time, in-the-booth, with multiple high def screens.
This is not a spilled milk post because Sparty still might have ended up on top if the strip-sack TD had not been reversed. Still, there is a better way to conduct reviews and it's obvious. I accept that bad calls are part of the game, but if we're going to have review, give the refs a better chance to get it right.
November 4th, 2021 at 8:43 PM ^
I think it’s because that out of bounds rule is stupid. If I hit the ball and knock it out your hand I guarantee that 95% of the time you “technically” will touch it last but it would be stupid to give the defense the ball because they keep swatting it and it rolled off your finger last by millimeters - it’s obvious in that situation that he defender knocked the ball out. That rule drives me nuts and it’s only ever enforced in the closing seconds of games anyway.
November 4th, 2021 at 4:05 PM ^
I will never understand where those refs saw an angle that "confirmed" that his shin was on the ground with the ball in his hands. Absolutely zero angles showed anything close to that. I don't know how any sensible ref could've came to that conclusion. If they originally ruled that he was down, then I could sort of, maybe, understand sticking with the call on the field and him being down... but to originally rule it that he fumbled and then to reverse the call even though no angle showed anything that any sensible person could consider to be "Confirmation", just screams to me that the ref is corrupt or completely incompetent. There's no other way around it.
November 4th, 2021 at 4:07 PM ^
Big Ten does not want Michigan to succeed in football. They would still find a way to fix games and screw Michigan.
November 4th, 2021 at 7:10 PM ^
This has seriously become a rational explanation. It's happened far too often for it to be coincidental incompetence.
November 4th, 2021 at 4:19 PM ^
Seems like on field officials should be provided larger high def monitors on the field to do reviews instead of the tiny ass screens that they currently have. I mean, 50+ inch high def LED televisions are a few hundred dollars nowadays. Set the damn thing up in a portable tent on the sideline. Doesn't seem all that difficult to me. If the problem is really that it's too small to see the detail necessary to make the call. But I think the main issue is the inept refs.
November 4th, 2021 at 6:57 PM ^
How about using the 50+ft HD screens on the field already... Just make it mandatory all televised replays need to be shown on the end zone screens, and let the refs get a look from there. An earpiece to the booth to communicate, and we're all in business getting reviews done quickly... and hopefully more accurately.
November 4th, 2021 at 4:20 PM ^
Deletion in T minus 69 minutes. Countdown commences.
November 4th, 2021 at 4:23 PM ^
If the officials are too incompetent to get the calls right, I wouldn't expect them to be competent enough to carry out a conspiracy against one opponent. You can't have it both ways. Hanlon's Razor, where are you?
November 4th, 2021 at 4:37 PM ^
Another thing I want to mention... don't officials realize, at some point, "geez, we're really calling this game one-sided. I think we should try to call something borderline against the other team so that we don't seem so corrupt". Still pisses me off that they couldn't even give Michigan one freakin makeup call.
November 4th, 2021 at 4:50 PM ^
don't officials realize, at some point, "geez, we're really calling this game one-sided. I think we should try to call something borderline against the other team so that we don't seem so corrupt"
You must not have watched the 2016 UM OSU game...
November 4th, 2021 at 5:06 PM ^
There was a roughing the passer penalty on MSU after a Walker score that was very marginal. I thought at the time that it was a blatant make-up call.
November 4th, 2021 at 7:56 PM ^
If your talking about right before Cade's INT I don't think that was very marginal. It wasn't a huge hit or anything but it was super late. That is a easy call particularly nowadays.
November 4th, 2021 at 4:58 PM ^
How about a central location like baseball? Obviously you need one for each conference with this model but this takes away everything the op was saying may influence the on-field version.
November 4th, 2021 at 4:59 PM ^
won't let me remove this double post so I'll just show you another booth overturn.
November 4th, 2021 at 5:59 PM ^
I’m sick of reviews because of how often they get the call wrong. For that reason it should go back to officiating without review. Let alone the time it takes and the disruption in the flow of a game.
the replay should be done by 3 officials with access to large screen monitors that can be synchronized to show action from several angles. This is a crucial concept which an on the field official does not have capability of doing. The video replay should only be available for 2 min then it completely stops. The 3 officials must come to an unanimous vote as to the outcome of the call. None of the 3 officials can know the vote of the other 2. If it’s not unanimous then the call on the field should stand.
November 4th, 2021 at 6:45 PM ^
Good starting concept. I would separate the refs so they can't concur. They make the review and cast their vote independently of one another. I would use more replay officials and make it 3 out 4, 4/5 that way one ref couldn't veto by refusing to overturn.
November 4th, 2021 at 6:06 PM ^
Good point, hopefully they'll adopt what you suggest
November 4th, 2021 at 8:02 PM ^
Oregon Wolverine, thank you for your post, enjoyed it. I think what happened last Saturday against East Landfill A & M is a good justification to also limit the scope of review in the earlier stages of the game. There is nothing more irritating than having some type of review over a minor turn of play in the 1st or 2nd quarter. Between the slow replays and the (Fox) barrage of commercials and shoddy game narration, it drives me crazy.
I am not referencing our reversed fumble TD, which was, in counterpoint, was a big turn of play that got re-reffed in replay and is A Whole Other Thing.
November 4th, 2021 at 8:41 PM ^
Here’s my bitch as a M fan since 1969, I’m convinced that since Nebraska got the 5th down kick in 1997 denying us the undisputed NC the universe is against us in football, yes we have gotten our share of calls but the laundry list of calls against us and replay calls go against far outnumber those. So I’m numb to what should be done!
November 4th, 2021 at 8:47 PM ^
If they do need to stop play (for review or injury), what I wish they would do is immediately break for commercials and come back when the decision is made, giving viewers a few seconds to see the conclusive review, and resume play. And consequently eliminate the maddening commercial interruptions at other times when they make no sense..
November 4th, 2021 at 10:56 PM ^
I’m sorry but this shit is simple.
The play was inconclusive. Everyone knows it. Period.
If you changed that call you are bias or corrupt. End of fucking story.
November 6th, 2021 at 3:39 PM ^
Agree
should have been that way all along