Blown call and lack of sportsmanship

JPB2 said:
I don’t think a ref can ever change a call on what a player says or decide to weigh credibility etc…. Watching a replay is different.
Click to expand...

Why not? Why can’t the ref listen to me say “the CB hit the 7 on the jump - it was a foul”? Why on earth would I ever lie to help my opponent?
 
Don't they have like resets and replays in snooker? Do that.
Complainant petitions (raises stink) and ref investigates for validity.
Options can be stinker plays the reset himself or lets the offender try again.

Or lol...
 
JPB2 said:
Actually, I don’t think it is clear the cue ball hit the 7. To me it looked like the cue hit the 7. It was an obvious foul to me, but it still isn’t perfectly clear what the foul was. Watch some more and tell me which you think moved the 7. I think that may explain how it could be missed - watching the cueball could take the eye away from the foul. Not sure. Maybe. I agree though that the ref should have done better.

Double hits and cue ball fouls I think are different and I do think players should call them on themselves. But I can see Maha’s point about when refs are there and supposed to make the calls.
Click to expand...
You do know if the cue moved the 7 it’s still a foul? Anytime the interference ball moves it’s a foul.
 
Bob Jewett said:
How about this: The ref is in position to see the most likely foul, but out of position for another. He does not call a foul. The seated player says, "I think he touched the seven." The head referee is seated, watching the match.
Click to expand...
I agree the instances where a replay is watched by the ref OR a second ref who is present is consulted - then the game ref can change a call - no question. Absence of those two instances, on play calls, not rule calls, I believe that the ref’s call or lack of call always has to be final- otherwise why have a ref at all?

All sports follow this rule- with appeals being decided by either consultation with other refs seeing the same play or appeals now reviewed on tape - but never having ref’s change a call solely on either player’s or team’s request. This is the sacred integrity of refereed sports.

You simply cannot have sports refs change calls only based on a player’s objections or admissions.
 
Because we are streaming more, we’re seeing more fouls. Is this a coincidence or is it just being captured at the same % rate as they occur all the time? The outcome of these fouls can affect the game and the offending player negatively. IMO if the match is streamed the opposing player should be allowed a predetermined number of video replays in such situations. If he’s correct in the objection he loses none of his replays and conversely if he’s wrong he’s will lose them. Kinda like baseball and football. This is what the viewing audience wants anyway.
 
mikemosconi said:
I agree the instances where a replay is watched by the ref OR a second ref who is present is consulted - then the game ref can change a call - no question. Absence of those two instances, on play calls, not rule calls, I believe that the ref’s call or lack of call always has to be final- otherwise why have a ref at all?

All sports follow this rule- with appeals being decided by either consultation with other refs seeing the same play or appeals now reviewed on tape - but never having ref’s change a call solely on either player’s or team’s request. This is the sacred integrity of refereed sports.

You simply cannot have sports refs change calls only based on a player’s objections or admissions.
Click to expand...

Golfers call penalties on themselves all the time.

Snooker players call fouls on themselves all the time. Touching a ball, double hits, feathering the CB. Even hitting the wrong ball first on close hits.

Both of these (golf and snooker) happen in instances in instances with referees or officials presiding who are supposed to call fouls. But the culture of the sports are based on honour and integrity. It’s also different from sports where fouls/penalties happen on every play and it’s about judgment (eg holding happens on every NFL play, interference in the NHL, fouls in basketball).

In snooker it’s not just calling fouls on themselves. When the referee is replacing the CB after a foul and miss, the shooter will correct the referee’s placement (making the shot harder for himself). In other instances a player will suggest that a referee’s judgment awarding a free ball is wrong (hurting their own potential shot) - sometimes the referee looks again and reconsiders, sometimes they stick with their decision.

IMO pool can and should be like snooker in this regard.
 
Baby Huey said:
Because we are streaming more, we’re seeing more fouls. Is this a coincidence or is it just being captured at the same % rate as they occur all the time? The outcome of these fouls can affect the game and the offending player negatively. IMO if the match is streamed the opposing player should be allowed a predetermined number of video replays in such situations. If he’s correct in the objection he loses none of his replays and conversely if he’s wrong he’s will lose them. Kinda like baseball and football. This is what the viewing audience wants anyway.
Click to expand...

yes, allowing a so called challenge is one way to do it. i actually would like soccer to adopt a limited challenge system, because soccer as it is now is how a sport looks when it has too many video reviews
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top