I had a conversation with Dad earlier, and as usually happens this time of year, our discussion turned to college football. We discussed TU's big win over BYU on Saturday, and we talked about what it would take for OU to get to the national championship game. Dad talked about how he thinks that OU's game against Texas Tech will be their most difficult, since Tech has their pass-happy system, run by a seasoned junior quarterback. Dad also asked a question, just off-hand, about if I had seen any calls overturned by replay this season. (I think he asked because we joked briefly about OU's "defeat" in Lubbock in 2005.) As a matter of fact, I had seen some reversals, but he hadn't, and so we went talked about it briefly. He saw it this way: the guys in the booth don't want to overturn calls of their buddies, because of professional courtesy, and so the proof has to be absolutely indisputable for a call to be reversed. I agree to a certain extent, but I don't feel that's a consistent issue with college replay. I think the more critical issues arise simply from an insufficient number of camera angles, as well as a general lack of willingness on the parts of ESPN/ABC, CBS, Fox Sports, Versus, or whoever is doing the game, in either providing more angles or using the cameras they have more effectively in certain situations, even if this might affect the quality of their visual presentation of the game. In this way, the networks merely prove that despite their bluster about the purity and integrity of college football, they're in it for the money just like everyone else. This isn't an issue for NFL games, because there are so many fewer of them and everything at those games is set to provide 300 camera angles on every play.
Let's look at some examples of how they might make these changes. There are certain situations in which it might be good to provide a better angle, and in which a single camera or two cameras could be allocated for specific plays. And let's face facts; the most common challenges come in two situations: possession-oriented calls (fumbles, catches), and line-oriented calls (goal lines, sidelines, ball spots, and onside kicks). Possession-oriented calls are handled pretty well as the system is currently put together, because sometimes 10 camera angles can't show conclusive proof either way; that's the nature of the game.
Line-oriented calls are a totally different story, however. A prime example is any goal line play. Either set up a camera or two on each goal line permanently, or move at least one camera to cover the goal line on plays where goal line issues are common, say, when a play starts inside the 10. That way, the camera is there when it really needs to be, like when there's a question regarding whether the ball crosses the plane or not. I would argue for a camera looking down each goal line from about 12 feet in the air permanently, because that would simplify the view, keep the officials from obstructing the cameras' views (since football officiating mechanics dictate that officials stand on the goal line in identical situations), and the networks could probably spare the extra cameras. The cameras don't even need to be ultra-high-quality units, just something to provide the correct view for replays.
Another example is on situations for onside kicks. The mobile cameras on each sideline could easily be set to look straight down the yard-line 10 yards down-field from the kicking spot, especially if everyone knows and understands going in that this will be happening. This would all but eliminate any concerns regarding touches before the ball has gone 10 yards, and it would also be a helpful angle for possession disputes, which typically occur right around that line. Those cameras could also be moved to cover ball spots near the first-down line, to help resolve the somewhat-common challenges of those plays. This might be more of a challenge because it would keep a cameraman or two in the players' areas on the sidelines for most of the game. However, if it's possible, I say find a way to make it happen.
Finally, cameras should be set up on or near sidelines and endlines as much as possible to help resolve common out-of-bounds concerns, especially for in-bounds catch rulings. So many of these are shown from a great distance, because the cameras that commonly are used to help rule on these in challenge situations are the cameras in the standard spots along the stadium perimeter. Perhaps a good enhancement would be to use the HD capabilities that are already built in to so many of these cameras, particularly since ABC/ESPN already provides HD broadcasts for the higher-profile games, where passions run hotter and the stakes on challenged calls are perceived to be higher.
Another part of this discussion should be who makes the calls. In the NFL, the referee goes to the sidelines and works with the TV guys to view the play from as many angles as possible, then makes the call as he sees it from the replay. College uses the faceless, nameless (well, mostly nameless...hello, Gordon Reise) replay officials up in the replay booth. I prefer the NFL system because, as a former baseball and football official myself, if you're going to do it, let the power stay in the hands of the guys on the field, then hold them and only them accountable for the calls made. Most of the college crews stay together as crews, just like they do in the pros, and if the pros can do it and make it work that way, the college guys can do it the same way. The officials would probably prefer it that way, because that's what the on-field officials are supposed to do: be empowered to make the correct final call. There wouldn't be any hard feelings because most officials know they're not perfect and can never be perfect. Football moves too quickly sometimes for it to be any other way. Making college reviews more like the pros' system would help the odd dynamic that seems to have set in since replay came in during college, which goes like this:
1. The guys in the booth don't ever want to overrule calls on the field unless there is ultra-obvious, crystal-clear, conclusive, bet-your-family-farm evidence to overturn it.
2. The guys on the field feel they can be more lackadaisical on some calls, because "the replay guys will fix it if I get it wrong."
This isn't necessarily always the case, because there are many instances where the existing system works well. However, the first point is doubly true late in games, where the guys in the booth have the capability to initiate the review on their own. If they're going to do it, then they dadgum sure better review every part of the play to get it right.
In the OU-Oregon fiasco last year, the guys in the booth could have reversed the whole thing. Forget the "Oregon touched it too early" excuse, because the camera angle gave enough possible doubt that made it "it really, really looks like he touched it early but the camera angle isn't good enough to make it conclusive." OK, that's fair. What turned a subtle error into a totally egregious mistake that cost OU the game, however, was the obvious miss by all officials involved, both on the field and in the replay booth, that OU had recovered the onside kick; they ball had bounced around in the pile with no clear possession until it squirted out the OU side of the pile and was picked up by OU's Allen Patrick. Multiple replays conclusively showed this, and yet no one thought to look at that, because all the on-field officials were frantically digging in the gigantic pile of football players and poor Allen was too low-key with his recovery and didn't think to go crazy at getting the ball. If the goal of instant replay review is to get the call right first and foremost, regardless of the situation surrounding the play, it failed miserably.
Regarding the first point, I've noticed a drop-off in the quality of calls, even ones that should be obvious, and especially on calls that are reviewable, and I fully believe it's because they know replay is there. I say this not out of a sense of sour grapes or not to rag on the refs, but because I know what those guys do and I know what they think and feel, because I've done it. As an official you always want to get the call right; people who become officials usually have a pretty innate sense of integrity, fair play, and love for the sport they officiate, and that's why they do it. I'm not saying they don't work as hard at getting those reviewable calls right, but if you know that if you mess up someone else can fix it for you, aren't you going to maybe be a little less careful? And besides, what's the incentive to get it right? "Let them just challenge it," many refs probably think as they make these calls today. Again, it's probably not common and probably not conscious, but it has been noticeable to me in what I've seen the past few years.
There's a lot of money and a lot of passion and a lot of pride in college games. If they're going to use a replay system, let's do our best to have one that works. Otherwise, let's cancel the program altogether and leave it with the guys on the field for good, like we did for the previous century of incredible football action.
No comments:
Post a Comment