A rational reason for more overturned calls by the league

[Poker]

I haven't heard one aspect of overturned TDs, by Al Riveron in NY, getting a lot of play.

A relatively new rule is that all turnovers and TDs are automatically reviewed.

Additionally, the guidance given out to officials seems to be that on a very close play on the field, call the TD or call the turnover, thus triggering a review to get the call "right". This is cleaner and easier than no TD/no turnover call and play continuing without automatic review and forcing one team to stop play burning a challenge.

But this guidance should call into question the whole standard everyone cites about letting the call on the field stand, unless there is indisputable evidence to overturn. That doesn't make sense on TDs or turnover calls if the official is heavily leaning to trigger the review. In other words, there's a little more going on in the officials head than 100% just call it as you see it.

Hence on TDs and turnover reviews, if I were NY review official Al Riveron , it seems like the only fair counter-balance to that bias I've told my refs to have is to put less weight on the field call during my HQ review, compared to the normal standard of indisputable visual evidence. I would basically ignore the field call and just look at the video in a vacuum. I think that's a plausible explanation on specifically on TDs for example, such as the Benjamin catch.

Does this make sense, and does anyone know what the data actually shows about how often close plays are called a TD (or turnover) and then how they ultimately fare on review?

 

[jah]

I've had this same thought process recently as well. It's all well and good to require indisputable evidence to overturn when you're trying to make the right call on the field, but that is no longer the approach. They don't want to make the right call on the field, they want to make the reviewable call on the field. Essentially deferring to the booth.

 

[Nikolai]

I've long thought this as well. The officials make the reviewable call and let a lot of plays go that they might not have in the past.

 

[Poker]

Exactly, well put. They make reviewable calls now. All these pundits talk about how there wasn't enough evidence to overturn some call on the field , and I've never heard one of them mention this unintended effect of the guidance to officials.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

It makes sense to get the call right, to the best of the evidence.

It makes no sense to have one conclusion if the call had been called on the field one way and a different conclusion if the call had been called on the field the other way.

It now seems to be that a preponderance of the evidence (51-49 standard) rules, paying no attention to the original call on the field. Which is fine, and fair, and maybe the best way to do it, but they ought to admit that the standard has changed.

All the furor over the Benjamin call was whether it was indisputable or not rather than people thinking that it was clearly a good catch.

 

[upstater1]

Kick the XP after the commercials, and much of the controversy would be gone.

Also, people would watch the commercials breathlessly waiting to see if their team's TD counted!!

 

[jah]

It makes sense to get the call right, to the best of the evidence.

It makes no sense to have one conclusion if the call had been called on the field one way and a different conclusion if the call had been called on the field the other way.

It now seems to be that a preponderance of the evidence (51-49 standard) rules, paying no attention to the original call on the field. Which is fine, and fair, and maybe the best way to do it, but they ought to admit that the standard has changed.

All the furor over the Benjamin call was whether it was indisputable or not rather than people thinking that it was clearly a good catch.

People keep saying stuff like "when you have this much argument over what a catch is, you know something is wrong."

Well, when you have people judging the result of a review based on whether the evidence was indisputable rather than whether the call was right...you know something is wrong.

 

[PatsWSB47]

Exactly. It's like any close call is going to be called a score so it can be reviewed to make sure it's right. Then they go overboard with high def, multiple angles where every pixel is counted and measured 10 times. Many things that were called in the past that were considered reasonable calls are now being reversed because a ball moved a mm or so.