[greenhippo]

I'm real old school when it comes to things like instant replay. I do not like it, in just about every instance. My line of thought is, sports have been played for decades beforehand without it and they were just fine. The human element played a role in sports big and small before instant replay. If you can rely on big time calls being reversed by video then today's game is in no way related to anything pre 1990's. Maybe a call that was called wrong in the 50's gave the Yankees a win they shouldn't have which propelled them to winning the division and later the World Series? Very real possibility but no one looks at things like this now, they just see the Yanks won the WS in such and such year and that's it. But today with video reviews that same call could be reversed which could have a different affect on the game and a team's season. You might as well have the games today separated from those before because it's no where near the same game.

With all of that, how can you today have clear as day visual evidence on a replay and STILL get the call wrong. See Duke/Wake Forest, everything from the knee is down on the ground while he had 100% control of the ball and they still say he fumbled. Maybe the refs are like me and won't let video evidence get in the way of their judgement?

[sbrhedge]

What NFL game was it where they call an extra-pt no good, went to video review, and they still called it no good even though it was clearly good?

Video review is no good for games that are being point-shaved or juiced.

[greenhippo]

Not sure but it does remind me of a college bowl game a few years back. Team misses the extra point, they review it, fukkin reviewed it STILL called it good. Team goes on to win in OT. No doubt all of those refs kept their job.

[BriGuy]

I didn't see the play you're talking about so I cannot offer an an opinion as to that. But regarding the issue of reply in general, clearly replay reduces the number of bad calls in a game. That fact cannot be disputed. It's certainly not foolproof, but it is better than nothing. So why anyone would oppose reducing the number of bad calls is beyond me. I don't see how them not having replay in the 50's is terribly relevant.

[TwoWays]

all sports is fixed. got to pay the bills

[BriGuy]

What NFL game was it where they call an extra-pt no good, went to video review, and they still called it no good even though it was clearly good?

Video review is no good for games that are being point-shaved or juiced.

That wasn't an NFL game and it wasn't a bowl game. It was Syracuse-Toledo. If that was an NFL game, we'd still be hearing about it.

[greenhippo]

I didn't see the play you're talking about so I cannot offer an an opinion as to that. But regarding the issue of reply in general, clearly replay reduces the number of bad calls in a game. That fact cannot be disputed. It's certainly not foolproof, but it is better than nothing. So why anyone would oppose reducing the number of bad calls is beyond me. I don't see how them not having replay in the 50's is terribly relevant.

What? That's the point I'm making here. Games in the 50's are not relevant today.

[fried cheese]

problem in college is the ref doesnt actually look at the replay himself. home teams use to provide the replay official before the cheating in the oregon onside kick call awhile ago and im not sure who is in charge of looking at the replay now.