Suzy: While we’re on this subject, could someone please take care of abolishing the BCS in favor of an 8-team sudden death playoff system?

I’d go a 12-team tourney with 4 first round byes, with 2 week regionals at the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange sites. Final Four (football style) to take place at shiny new Texas Stadium.

How could this fail to make money?

He doesn’t have a better view if the video is inconclusive. More viewing angles are not necessarily better than one when you are looking for a single thing.

I think you make a major mistake believing that a good camera angle will be present for every disputed call. Even goal line where I believe a camera is positioned already there may well be bodies in the way. The official on the field on the other hand is supposed to move to keep the best possible coverage of the developing play.

Two more points:

-Limiting the number of challenges at two (or three) is silly. What should be limited are the number of unsuccessful challenges. If the officials keep screwing up, the wronged team should not be limited in its relief.

-Review should be conducted by a panel of three officials, none of whom made the original call. Much is gained, I think, from discussing the play. Unanimity is required to overturn the call on the field.

Isn’t the record in a court case different from the “record” (video) in the game?

The record in a court case includes an opinion and explanation, but in a purely de novo review in football, it’s strictly the video. If you are giving deference to (or are being “persuaded by,” as you say), the original decision, that’s not really de novo in the football context, even though it would be in the court context where the judge could say “the original opinion persuades me and I agree.”

My assumption here is that the “record” in football is exclusively the video. If it includes descriptions and opinions of the other refs, then I’m wrong and you’re right.

The refs are FORCED to make a new decision, based EXCLUSIVELY on what the video shows, and if the video doesn’t show it, then ??

I don’t see why that is some sort of bar to the use of de novo review. In any case, both in court or in the context of instant replay, you have de novo review of certain judgments. While de novo review means that the original decision does not get any official deference, it does not mean it is completely ignored as if it doesn’t exist – appellate judges know what was in the lower court opinion and what the lower court judge(s) believed was the correct outcome and that opinion goes into the mix along with the arguments made by the parties, amici, etc. in the course of the appellate level case. If an appellate court reviews a legal question de novo, and the arguments are particularly close and the court is not sure, they are free to say that they are persuaded by the opinion of the lower court and they may choose to adopt parts (or all) of that opinion and its reasoning.

Likewise, while the ref under the hood would have to make a new decision without deferring to the on-field call, he is not precluded from taking into account that the field official believed that he saw the play come out a certain way. You could look at the call on the field as a kind of 6th (or 7th or 8th) replay angle – part of the series of data points that the ref considers in making the final call. My guess is that in those situations where the replays available leave the ref saying “I have no clue what happened here” his natural inclination will be to reason that “the guy on the field has as good a case as any, I will just go with that.”

However, how many cases will there be where the replays really leave a ref unable to make a call – either he can see, for example, the ball hit the ground before it was secured, or he can’t. If he can’t see the ball hit the ground, I don’t see how he could decide that it did. The chance that there will be chaos because the replays will leave refs completely unable to make any call seems slim, and no more likely than under the current regime when there are really close calls.

What if the video doesn’t show what happened (inconclusive)?

How would de novo review work?

“The play is being challenged, the original call gets no deference, and since the video doesn’t show what happened, the play results in…????”

The refs are FORCED to make a new decision, based EXCLUSIVELY on what the video shows, and if the video doesn’t show it, then ??

Take the WVU/Cincinnati game of a few weeks ago if anybody watched. Cincinnati’s running back dove for the end zone and lost the ball. The refs on the field called it a fumbled with WVU recovering. Upon review, it was changed to a touchdown. The video seems inconclusive to me. The player was reaching out the ball, losing control of it, it came close to the goal line, maybe touched it, and he lost it. The refs claimed it was conclusive.

Maybe I’m just pissed not because an inconclusive call was overturned, but because it was essentially claimed that the touchdown was clear based on video review, which was untrue. If preponderance of the evidence were the standard, I might have accepted it more readily, because I certainly hate it when refs pretend something is conclusive when it clearly is not.

It’s true that the ref on the field is an expert. But the ref who looks over the instant replay is an expert with a better view of the play and more time to consider his call. Therefore, he is more likely to get it right.

Why must we assume that the replay provides a better view, though? If the ref on the field could have a better view, then we need to account for that by initially favoring his judgment until evidence counters it. If the ref viewing the replay really does have a better view, and the call was wrong, then by definition there will be evidence to overturn the initial call.

In either case, what does de novo review actually accomplish for us, or change, that is not going to be accomplished with the present method? It seems that the only thing it does is discount the initial judgment of the ref on the field, without any good reason to discount the weight of that judgment.

It’s true that the ref on the field is an expert. But the ref who looks over the instant replay is an expert with a better view of the play and more time to consider his call. Therefore, he is more likely to get it right.

The answer is simple. Two reviews per game is enough to address mistakes on the most important calls, while avoiding any major increase in the length of games.

And, as I noted in my original post, switching to de novo review won’t make games appreciably longer by increasing the number of instant replay challenges issued by coaches, since the rules give each coach only two challenges per game.

Well, even if one is persuaded by all of your arguments before this final point, one wonders why only give them two challenges per game (and a third, of course, if both are correct)? Why not Four, Five, Six, or Unlimited? At that point, why not keep all reviews to the booth, like college? This would considerably slow the game, of course, is the answer. But the system you’ve just created practically begs for this, it seems to me.

My suspicion: if officials upon reflection think they probably messed up the call but the video evidence is not overwhelming or conclusive (or whatever the standard is), they will usually overturn the call on the field. Realistically, there is not nearly as much deference for the call on the field as the standard suggests. But deference gives them cover for when they don’t want to make a tough call on review that might cause considerable controversy. Their credibility is at stake, so it makes sense for an official to be able to tell an aggrieved coach that his hands are tied.

I think it’s a workable system. Formally switching to de novo review could unrealistically raise expectations on the part of teams and, most importantly, the fans.

Athletes play the game, but lawyers make the rules:).

But suppose instead a very close call goes for your team on the field, is challenged, and is overturned even though the video evidence is inconclusive.

Why would it be overturned if the evidence were “inconclusive?” Surely then the field official’s call should stand. That call, after all, is based on some information not available on video. If the video doesn’t have enough information to make a call the field official’s view should be decisive, no?