OT: Instant Replay does it again!!

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Ruins the Kentucky Derby this year, and subsequently kills the other two horse races for this year's Triple Crown.

I totally agree with Bob Baffert, the champion trainer of horses including the last two Triple Crown winners. Basically said "It's the Derby. It's a crowded field, and a muddy track, especially a muddy track, there will be bumping, it is impossible not to. That was a joke to even contest, let alone overturn the results".

Those who say they want to "get it right" and support these types of things, "get what right"? To me, the only thing that should be "getting right" is egregious mistakes that directly effect the result. The horse who originally won, would have won regardless. His actions were not egregious, and didn't prevent the other horses from winning. It was his race, easily.

To me, that is like a Punt Return for a TD, and someone calling for a replay, to see maybe if on the opposite side of the field, far away from the play, having no impact on it, but is technically a clip or a hold and trying to get replay to reverse it? Or in hockey, if a skater's skate is a millimeter off of the ice, which technically is "offsides" even though the skater gains no advantage and the team goes on to score a goal 30 seconds later that is waved off because of a challenge. This is not what replay was supposed to do.

No those of us Penguin fans, when Daniel Briere was 8 feet inside the blue line in Game 1 of the 2012 playoffs (Pens/Flyers), now that should have been reviewed it was ridiculously offsides that directly led to a goal. That is what replay was designed to do.

Or a runner beating a tag, not pixel by pixel blown up at the bag during the tagging process the runner's hand for a millisecond leaves the bag as the tag is still held, again that is not what is supposed to be about.

The now infamous Rams/Saints PI call in the NFC Champ game will now be reviewable. Now what? Every end of half or Hail Mary situation is going to be reviewed for the slightest bit of contact during essentially a jump ball scrum? We are now going to leave this up to replay? That sucks the enjoyment out of the game. It is not "getting it right". Getting it right is about getting the obvious mistake right and reversing it. Not adding even more nuanced subjectivity into a review, just because we have technology.

Replay should be about if a goal crosses the goal line, or a ball is fair or foul or a home run good, or a three point shot a guy had his toe on the line. That's cut and dry stuff. Subjective calls are subjective calls, and adding replay to interpret these mostly doesn't help in "getting it right".

 

[prez41]

Get rid of it all.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Get rid of it all.

That's just it. How do you separate it from being what it was supposed to be, to being what is essentially a "Hail Mary" on its own and having some abstract rule or interpretation of a rule come into play and completely reverse what is or seemed to be obvious to all of us. Another good example, the Jesse James non catch.

 

[McKee Place]

I never liked the idea of starting use of instant reply, even to very limited situations, because it was opening pandora's box to the eventual roboticizing of sports. It looks like it is here now. But once started, I don't know how this could have been avoided. Each time a situation like the NFC champ debacle occurs, where replay couldn't or didn't apply, you know they will just increase the scope more and more (indeed as the NFL has done for the coming year). So i can't see ever going back. Unfortunately.

 

[wbrpanther]

Ruins the Kentucky Derby this year, and subsequently kills the other two horse races for this year's Triple Crown.

I totally agree with Bob Baffert, the champion trainer of horses including the last two Triple Crown winners. Basically said "It's the Derby. It's a crowded field, and a muddy track, especially a muddy track, there will be bumping, it is impossible not to. That was a joke to even contest, let alone overturn the results".

Those who say they want to "get it right" and support these types of things, "get what right"? To me, the only thing that should be "getting right" is egregious mistakes that directly effect the result. The horse who originally won, would have won regardless. His actions were not egregious, and didn't prevent the other horses from winning. It was his race, easily.

To me, that is like a Punt Return for a TD, and someone calling for a replay, to see maybe if on the opposite side of the field, far away from the play, having no impact on it, but is technically a clip or a hold and trying to get replay to reverse it? Or in hockey, if a skater's skate is a millimeter off of the ice, which technically is "offsides" even though the skater gains no advantage and the team goes on to score a goal 30 seconds later that is waved off because of a challenge. This is not what replay was supposed to do.

No those of us Penguin fans, when Daniel Briere was 8 feet inside the blue line in Game 1 of the 2012 playoffs (Pens/Flyers), now that should have been reviewed it was ridiculously offsides that directly led to a goal. That is what replay was designed to do.

Or a runner beating a tag, not pixel by pixel blown up at the bag during the tagging process the runner's hand for a millisecond leaves the bag as the tag is still held, again that is not what is supposed to be about.

The now infamous Rams/Saints PI call in the NFC Champ game will now be reviewable. Now what? Every end of half or Hail Mary situation is going to be reviewed for the slightest bit of contact during essentially a jump ball scrum? We are now going to leave this up to replay? That sucks the enjoyment out of the game. It is not "getting it right". Getting it right is about getting the obvious mistake right and reversing it. Not adding even more nuanced subjectivity into a review, just because we have technology.

Replay should be about if a goal crosses the goal line, or a ball is fair or foul or a home run good, or a three point shot a guy had his toe on the line. That's cut and dry stuff. Subjective calls are subjective calls, and adding replay to interpret these mostly doesn't help in "getting it right".

My only question is did this bumping of another horse cause an unfair advantage to the horse who won. That 65-1 shot could have conceivably won that race. It was close enough. I don't know enough about horse racing to pass judgement.

As far as the NO Saints whinefest, if they could have reviewed those kinds of calls last year then they would have lost to the Stillers on the horrible call in the endzone against Joe Haden which allowed them to beat the Stillers and gave them home field. Funny I never hear them mention that call. They were on the right side of that one.

 

[Zeldas Open Roof]

I want to get rid of it all or go full replay. One or the other, not this 1/2 assed crap now. some things are replayable some aren't. Horse puckey, if you are gonna do it, go all out. I am talking electronic strike zones, no fat old guy behind the plate, I just want a red light and a green light telling me if it's a strike.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

My only question is did this bumping of another horse cause an unfair advantage to the horse who won. That 65-1 shot could have conceivably won that race. It was close enough. I don't know enough about horse racing to pass judgement.

As far as the NO Saints whinefest, if they could have reviewed those kinds of calls last year then they would have lost to the Stillers on the horrible call in the endzone against Joe Haden which allowed them to beat the Stillers and gave them home field. Funny I never hear them mention that call. They were on the right side of that one.

Oh totally agree on the Haden PI call, actually both of them.

 

[BuffetParrothead]

And the technology that they don't use is baseball's pitch trac or whatever it's called that appears to make calling balls and strikes "fool " proof!

Leave the guy behind the plate to do all the other things umpires do, give him a handheld device, and he can still make the ball and strike calls.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

I want to get rid of it all or go full replay. One or the other, not this 1/2 assed crap now. some things are replayable some aren't. Horse puckey, if you are gonna do it, go all out. I am talking electronic strike zones, no fat old guy behind the plate, I just want a red light and a green light telling me if it's a strike.

Here's the deal. I can go for additional replay only under the premise of the following qualifications.

1) The base rules are clarified. In some cases, the rules (ie the NFL catch rule) is so convoluted, doesn't matter how much replay is used, everyone interprets things differently. Make them a bit clearer and easier to interpret and apply a ruling.

2) I can go for more calls (hockey, football Pass Interference for example) as "Flagrant 1 and Flagrant 2" in assessing penalties. Say you are going to review a PI, Flagrant 1 is an obvious take down, Flagrant 2 is slightly early contact on a play on the ball. Or in hockey, an accident or something that is intentional.

3) All Replays done within 30-40 seconds. This takes out the Zapruder like frame by frame parsing and reading into a play more than there was. This should be about confirming or reversing obvious calls. You do this, along with the first two, there would be much less heartache. Again, like in baseball the intent was did the runner beat the tag or the tag beat the runner. Not during the 5 seconds of the tag the sheer momentum and angle of the hand during the slide causes the pinky and forefinger to leave the bag for an instant which the runner is now called out even though he clearly beat the throw. No. That is not what replay is supposed to do.

 

[BuffetParrothead]

Ruins the Kentucky Derby this year, and subsequently kills the other two horse races for this year's Triple Crown.

I totally agree with Bob Baffert, the champion trainer of horses including the last two Triple Crown winners. Basically said "It's the Derby. It's a crowded field, and a muddy track, especially a muddy track, there will be bumping, it is impossible not to. That was a joke to even contest, let alone overturn the results".

Those who say they want to "get it right" and support these types of things, "get what right"? To me, the only thing that should be "getting right" is egregious mistakes that directly effect the result. The horse who originally won, would have won regardless. His actions were not egregious, and didn't prevent the other horses from winning. It was his race, easily.

To me, that is like a Punt Return for a TD, and someone calling for a replay, to see maybe if on the opposite side of the field, far away from the play, having no impact on it, but is technically a clip or a hold and trying to get replay to reverse it? Or in hockey, if a skater's skate is a millimeter off of the ice, which technically is "offsides" even though the skater gains no advantage and the team goes on to score a goal 30 seconds later that is waved off because of a challenge. This is not what replay was supposed to do.

No those of us Penguin fans, when Daniel Briere was 8 feet inside the blue line in Game 1 of the 2012 playoffs (Pens/Flyers), now that should have been reviewed it was ridiculously offsides that directly led to a goal. That is what replay was designed to do.

Or a runner beating a tag, not pixel by pixel blown up at the bag during the tagging process the runner's hand for a millisecond leaves the bag as the tag is still held, again that is not what is supposed to be about.

The now infamous Rams/Saints PI call in the NFC Champ game will now be reviewable. Now what? Every end of half or Hail Mary situation is going to be reviewed for the slightest bit of contact during essentially a jump ball scrum? We are now going to leave this up to replay? That sucks the enjoyment out of the game. It is not "getting it right". Getting it right is about getting the obvious mistake right and reversing it. Not adding even more nuanced subjectivity into a review, just because we have technology.

Replay should be about if a goal crosses the goal line, or a ball is fair or foul or a home run good, or a three point shot a guy had his toe on the line. That's cut and dry stuff. Subjective calls are subjective calls, and adding replay to interpret these mostly doesn't help in "getting it right".

Most experts during the 30 min wait for the decision agreed with you and Baffert. In addition to all the things you mentioned bumping goes on all the time on crowded tracks, muddy track, large field, a lot of horses haven't been on a track with a large field and 150k screaming people.

The horse who might have actually been fouled wasn't up for the run and dropped way back and didn't file an inquiry. The horse that filed the inquiry was like two horses away and was lightly bumped and most experts said it had no impact on the horses finish.

I believe they get caught up in detail, angles, and talk themselves into things that go against common sense!

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Most experts during the 30 min wait for the decision agreed with you and Baffert. In addition to all the things you mentioned bumping goes on all the time on crowded tracks, muddy track, large field, a lot of horses haven't been on a track with a large field and 150k screaming people.

The horse who might have actually been fouled wasn't up for the run and dropped way back and didn't file an inquiry. The horse that filed the inquiry was like two horses away and was lightly bumped and most experts said it had no impact on the horses finish.

I believe they get caught up in detail, angles, and talk themselves into things that go against common sense!

What you are doing is essentially weaponizing the subjectivity of rules, to allow losers to say "what the hell, might as well take a chance" and just throw a challenge out there just because there could be a chance. That's not in the spirit of competition.

 

[BuffetParrothead]

What you are doing is essentially weaponizing the subjectivity of rules, to allow losers to say "what the hell, might as well take a chance" and just throw a challenge out there just because there could be a chance. That's not in the spirit of competition.

I forgot this in my previous post.
Almost everyone on the broadcast announcers, experts, mentioned they should have a time limit, 5 mins ?? not unlimited time. With unlimited time you can talk yourself or be talked into something you actually don't agree with.

Go watch a reply over and over 30 times now multiple that by five available replays ( they mentioned there were five views) and see what that does to your ability to make a decision.

 

[CJsE]

I don't follow horse racing enough, not at all actually, to argue the rules but every analyst that I have heard talk about it agrees that what the horse did was against the rules and extremely dangerous. Everyone seems to be in agreement that the horse made an illegal move when he jerked 3 lanes to the outside causing contact with multiple horses then swerved back in and contacted the horse passing on the inside. Two different jockey's filed a complaint, a third owner said he would have if he wasn't friends with the other owner and it went against a "code".

I don't think your comparison of the punt return is equivalent. I'd say it would be closer to argue that a corner aggressively grabs a receiver's facemask on a bump and run then intercepts the ball after it's thrown. You can't say the facemask forced the interception, but it could have thrown off the timing route and was clearly against the rules. Do you call the penalty?

 

[McKee Place]

Looking back on Steeler super bowls, good or bad, there were controversial calls or non calls in many of them that could have flipped a lot of those wins if max instant replay eventually infests itself into football.

For example in SBIX, it wasn't totally clear on inspection that Fran Tarkenton hadn't downed the ball outside the end zone. I bet that safety might have been reversed. And a critical interception by the Steelers as the Vikings drove for a TD was definitely a result of a 'targeting' by Glen Edwards on John Gilliam.

Super Bowl X, one of those fabulous catches by Lynn Swann (when he tip toed the sideline) might well have been reversed. Though i don't believe the Steelers scored after that catch anyway.

Super Bowl XIII, it's possibly dubious John Stallworth got his feet down for the first TD catch he had. Definitely a long review would have occurred. And a really controversial penalty was called on Bennie Barnes against Lynn Swann later in the game that led to a Steelers score. Probably not reviewable / reversible, even today, but I bet in a couple years, it would be. Flip side, when Mike Hegman and Hollywood Henderson held up Bradshaw and took the ball from him for a td return. In today's game, the Steelers definitely challenge that and it probably gets reversed.

And of course there are the many gripes the Seahawks had against calls favoring the Steelers in that win. When/ if replay gets extended to each and every minute situation, maybe that game is still going on.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Looking back on Steeler super bowls, good or bad, there were controversial calls or non calls in many of them that could have flipped a lot of those wins if max instant replay eventually infests itself into football.

For example in SBIX, it wasn't totally clear on inspection that Fran Tarkenton hadn't downed the ball outside the end zone. I bet that safety might have been reversed. And a critical interception by the Steelers as the Vikings drove for a TD was definitely a result of a 'targeting' by Glen Edwards on John Gilliam.

Super Bowl X, one of those fabulous catches by Lynn Swann (when he tip toed the sideline) might well have been reversed. Though i don't believe the Steelers scored after that catch anyway.

Super Bowl XIII, it's possibly dubious John Stallworth got his feet down for the first TD catch he had. Definitely a long review would have occurred. And a really controversial penalty was called on Bennie Barnes against Lynn Swann later in the game that led to a Steelers score. Probably not reviewable / reversible, even today, but I bet in a couple years, it would be. Flip side, when Mike Hegman and Hollywood Henderson held up Bradshaw and took the ball from him for a td return. In today's game, the Steelers definitely challenge that and it probably gets reversed.

And of course there are the many gripes the Seahawks had against calls favoring the Steelers in that win. When/ if replay gets extended to each and every minute situation, maybe that game is still going on.

Stan Belinda's obvious strike 3 to Damon Berryhill still would be called ball 4 in todays MLB.

 

[McKee Place]

Stan Belinda's obvious strike 3 to Damon Berryhill still would be called ball 4 in todays MLB.

Yeah, and Greg Maddux 4 feet outside pitches would still be called strikes!

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I don't get the angst over the Derby. First of all, the notion that using replay in horse racing is some new phenomena is silly. Tracks all over the country have used replay as part of the process when a foul is claimed for literally decades. What happened at Churchhill Downs on Saturday was no different than something that may have happened at the Meadows or Mountaineer a decade ago, other than the stakes involved.

Secondly, even the guys on the broadcast on Saturday who thought that the result should stand pretty much all agreed it was a foul. One guy went so far as to say that if it was a random Tuesday night race that the DQ would have been obvious, but basically argued that you can't DQ someone in the Kentucky Derby for that. Well why not? If it's a foul, it's a foul. If the penalty for the foul is to take away the win and move the horse's finishing position back to behind the lowest finishing horse that was fouled then that's the punishment. Whether it's a regular Tuesday night race or the Kentucky Derby.

The only real problem with what happened is that if that did occur at some random Tuesday night race the stewards would have taken about two minutes to make the call, and other than the owners/trainers of the disqualified horse no one would have even questioned the decision.

 

[pitt-girl]

My only question is did this bumping of another horse cause an unfair advantage to the horse who won. That 65-1 shot could have conceivably won that race. It was close enough. I don't know enough about horse racing to pass judgement.

As far as the NO Saints whinefest, if they could have reviewed those kinds of calls last year then they would have lost to the Stillers on the horrible call in the endzone against Joe Haden which allowed them to beat the Stillers and gave them home field. Funny I never hear them mention that call. They were on the right side of that one.

FWIW - we were out with friends when this happened. Honestly all of us were like, "What???". I have zero knowledge of horse racing rules or if it was applied correctly. And I bet at least 99% of the casual viewers out there thought the same thing. I still don't get it tbh.

I do understand however that there are rules in horse racing that are typically applied in these situations. It's just that THIS was the Kentucky Derby with all kinds of people like me watching who have zero idea what happened. That doesn't take away from the rule, and if it was broken, then the resulting DQ should stand. Change the rule if you don't like it.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Change the rule if you don't like it.

The problem is that if you take away the rule that forbids the jockey from switching lanes and cutting off/bumping into another horse then sometimes, especially when the stakes are high, jockeys are going to do that. On purpose. And it will eventually cause a horse to fall, and if that happens in a pack like the one on Saturday both horses and jockey are going to get hurt. Bad.

 

[Gunga_Galunga]

From everything I know and can gather, it was the correct call. I'm not sure how anyone can complain about it.

Also, I don't think the jockey had anything to do with it. He had the lead and position on the rail. No way he's going to give that up, run his horse out of position, risk a serious collision, and then have to run his horse back to the position he was in. To use a Nascar term, the horse "got loose" and the jockey had to pull him back in.

 

[pitt-girl]

The problem is that if you take away the rule that forbids the jockey from switching lanes and cutting off/bumping into another horse then sometimes, especially when the stakes are high, jockeys are going to do that. On purpose. And it will eventually cause a horse to fall, and if that happens in a pack like the one on Saturday both horses and jockey are going to get hurt. Bad.

Can't disagree. Like I said, I know nothing about horse racing. My point is if this particular ruling causes such an uproar in the horse racing industry, it seems they have 2 different options - live with the rule (for all the reasons you pointed out) or change it.

Personally I'm not a fan because as an animal lover, it makes me wince watching these races. But I get that it is a business and like I said, I really don't know the intricacies of the industry. I will say our oldest volunteered at an equine farm at NCSU and he said those horses were brutal. He loved it but "giving wide berth" was good advice. Not an easy industry I suspect.

 

[President Stache]

Ruins the Kentucky Derby this year, and subsequently kills the other two horse races for this year's Triple Crown.

I totally agree with Bob Baffert, the champion trainer of horses including the last two Triple Crown winners. Basically said "It's the Derby. It's a crowded field, and a muddy track, especially a muddy track, there will be bumping, it is impossible not to. That was a joke to even contest, let alone overturn the results".

Those who say they want to "get it right" and support these types of things, "get what right"? To me, the only thing that should be "getting right" is egregious mistakes that directly effect the result. The horse who originally won, would have won regardless. His actions were not egregious, and didn't prevent the other horses from winning. It was his race, easily.

To me, that is like a Punt Return for a TD, and someone calling for a replay, to see maybe if on the opposite side of the field, far away from the play, having no impact on it, but is technically a clip or a hold and trying to get replay to reverse it? Or in hockey, if a skater's skate is a millimeter off of the ice, which technically is "offsides" even though the skater gains no advantage and the team goes on to score a goal 30 seconds later that is waved off because of a challenge. This is not what replay was supposed to do.

No those of us Penguin fans, when Daniel Briere was 8 feet inside the blue line in Game 1 of the 2012 playoffs (Pens/Flyers), now that should have been reviewed it was ridiculously offsides that directly led to a goal. That is what replay was designed to do.

Or a runner beating a tag, not pixel by pixel blown up at the bag during the tagging process the runner's hand for a millisecond leaves the bag as the tag is still held, again that is not what is supposed to be about.

The now infamous Rams/Saints PI call in the NFC Champ game will now be reviewable. Now what? Every end of half or Hail Mary situation is going to be reviewed for the slightest bit of contact during essentially a jump ball scrum? We are now going to leave this up to replay? That sucks the enjoyment out of the game. It is not "getting it right". Getting it right is about getting the obvious mistake right and reversing it. Not adding even more nuanced subjectivity into a review, just because we have technology.

Replay should be about if a goal crosses the goal line, or a ball is fair or foul or a home run good, or a three point shot a guy had his toe on the line. That's cut and dry stuff. Subjective calls are subjective calls, and adding replay to interpret these mostly doesn't help in "getting it right".

Looked like a very obvious call to me. One horse was passing the leader and the horse went wildly out of the lane to cut it off. I don’t see why anyone is upset except the cut off horse who probably would have won it all.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

I don't get the angst over the Derby. First of all, the notion that using replay in horse racing is some new phenomena is silly. Tracks all over the country have used replay as part of the process when a foul is claimed for literally decades. What happened at Churchhill Downs on Saturday was no different than something that may have happened at the Meadows or Mountaineer a decade ago, other than the stakes involved.

Secondly, even the guys on the broadcast on Saturday who thought that the result should stand pretty much all agreed it was a foul. One guy went so far as to say that if it was a random Tuesday night race that the DQ would have been obvious, but basically argued that you can't DQ someone in the Kentucky Derby for that. Well why not? If it's a foul, it's a foul. If the penalty for the foul is to take away the win and move the horse's finishing position back to behind the lowest finishing horse that was fouled then that's the punishment. Whether it's a regular Tuesday night race or the Kentucky Derby.

The only real problem with what happened is that if that did occur at some random Tuesday night race the stewards would have taken about two minutes to make the call, and other than the owners/trainers of the disqualified horse no one would have even questioned the decision.

But angst!
Oh the angst!

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

The problem is that if you take away the rule that forbids the jockey from switching lanes and cutting off/bumping into another horse then sometimes, especially when the stakes are high, jockeys are going to do that. On purpose. And it will eventually cause a horse to fall, and if that happens in a pack like the one on Saturday both horses and jockey are going to get hurt. Bad.

Then if safety is a concern, should they be running 20 horses in the Derby? Is the their truly "20 lanes"?

 

[happjack]

One of the NBC announcers was on Sirius yesterday and made the comment that they had to DQ Maximum Security since it would have set a precedent that anything goes for the lead horse at the Derby. The refs can swallow the whistle during the last few minutes of the NBA or Stanley Cup Finals but in Horse Racing they really can't since there's a risk of dead horses and crippled jockeys.

While I get this is a big story it's a shame that there was barely a peep about all of the dead horses at Santa Anita, the faster horse racing is outlawed the better.

 

[Zeldas Open Roof]

One of the NBC announcers was on Sirius yesterday and made the comment that they had to DQ Maximum Security since it would have set a precedent that anything goes for the lead horse at the Derby. The refs can swallow the whistle during the last few minutes of the NBA or Stanley Cup Finals but in Horse Racing they really can't since there's a risk of dead horses and crippled jockeys.

While I get this is a big story it's a shame that there was barely a peep about all of the dead horses at Santa Anita, the faster horse racing is outlawed the better.

the crisis of the Dead horse scandal at Santa Anita.. talk about a story that will turn a nation on it's side.. animals alive one minute and dead the next.. beyond words..

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Then if safety is a concern, should they be running 20 horses in the Derby? Is the their truly "20 lanes"?

I'm not sure there's 20 actual racing lanes at any track in America. The fact that they have to add an auxiliary starting gate because there aren't 20 spaces in the regular starting gate tells you that 20 is too many.

 

[pbrad]

They used to run 14 horses back in the day, but the Derby got so popular they increased the number. It is the only Triple Crown race with 20 entries.

 

[Burgh15]

Count me in the crowd that if you can't overturn a replay within about 15-20 seconds then it isn't obvious enough to overturn. At this point I'm ready to get rid of it all.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

I'm not sure there's 20 actual racing lanes at any track in America. The fact that they have to add an auxiliary starting gate because there aren't 20 spaces in the regular starting gate tells you that 20 is too many.

Exactly. So......that many, muddy track, I bet if you go back to other Derby's, in those conditions with that many horses, you would see that this happens all the time.

 

[McKee Place]

Count me in the crowd that if you can't overturn a replay within about 15-20 seconds then it isn't obvious enough to overturn. At this point I'm ready to get rid of it all.

What's lost in the whole replay debate and especially this argument... the networks like longer replay reviews so they can fit in more commercials during them. It's one reason scope of reviews continue to increase... they don't really care about getting it right, they are gradually getting viewers more accommodated to them. No doubt much research and focus gets done annually by each league and network on how much delay for reviews viewers are now willing to tolerate (game attendees sitting in rain, snow, bitter cold or boiling sun and heat be dammed of course). Notice the guidelines to conduct them within X minutes are liberally ignored too. Because so far, the sheep are willing to keep watching.

 

[Zeldas Open Roof]

You boys need to do what I do and wait an hour, dvr game then watch. You can FF thru endless instant replays. It makes watching pitt and Steelers tolerable. No commercials, no replays. Get thru a game in 1/2 the time.

Just got to learn to turn off phone to avoid any spoiler alert texts from the outside world.

 

[McKee Place]

You boys need to do what I do and wait an hour, dvr game then watch. You can FF thru endless instant replays. It makes watching pitt and Steelers tolerable. No commercials, no replays. Get thru a game in 1/2 the time.

Just got to learn to turn off phone to avoid any spoiler alert texts from the outside world.

It's a good idea but I have to say I rarely do it. If I'm home, I just gotta tune in immediately.

Plus, this is the mystique / superstition of the sports fan, whenever I've DVRd a game I have rooting interest in, "my" team invariably loses. Yeah, i know it's Pitt, but it happens to me for Steelers and Pens too.

It's only remotely on topic, but anyone else have a mix of different TVs (some newer HD, some old non HD) and hence if different members of the house are watching the same game (don't ask why we are not watching the same, it's a generation thing and wife hates my emotional outbursts during games but HERS are okay thing). One of the TV is not quite caught up with the other, they are several seconds different, so you hear someone cheering or swearing in the other room, but your TV hasn't shown the play yet...

 

[Zeldas Open Roof]

It's a good idea but I have to say I rarely do it. If I'm home, I just gotta tune in immediately.

Plus, this is the mystique / superstition of the sports fan, whenever I've DVRd a game I have rooting interest in, "my" team invariably loses. Yeah, i know it's Pitt, but it happens to me for Steelers and Pens too.

It's only remotely on topic, but anyone else have a mix of different TVs (some newer HD, some old non HD) and hence if different members of the house are watching the same game (don't ask why we are not watching the same, it's a generation thing and wife hates my emotional outbursts thing). One of the TV is not quite caught up with the other, they are several seconds different, so you hear someone cheering or swearing in the other room, but your TV hasn't shown the play yet...

I used to live on grandview in my. Washington in the early 2000’s and I’d be watching Steeler game on tv and I could hear the roar of the crowd from the stadium before the play happened on tv.

 

[pittdan77]

The reason "getting the call right" matters so much is because the entire sports gambling industry depends on people believing everything is fair. If people lose interest in wagering, a very large portion of the audience goes away. Nobody watches horse racing because they enjoy seeing horses run fast so I don't know why anyone would question the motivation of the Derby folks here.