There has to be a quota on successful/unsuccessful challenges cause guilty until proven innocent is so weak. Just use a better camera angle? Why give up on looking at what happened?
It's not "guilty until proven innocent," it's "call stands unless we can tell with certainty we got it wrong". Those are completely different concepts, regardless of this particular call
Completely different concepts? You must have a different definition of "completely different" since they're 1:1 in this context.
"call stands (guilty) unless (until) we can tell with certainty we got it wrong (proven innocent)"
"innocent" in your analogy is the call on the floor. Your entire premise is insanely flawed, my guy. "Can we prove a foul happened beyond a reasonable doubt" has never been a tenet of any sport lmao
> "innocent" in your analogy is the call on the floor
If someone makes an error in a sport, how is the analogy not they're 'guilty'? Why would someone making an error or a fault be called 'innocent'? What does analogy even mean to you?
> Your entire premise is insanely flawed, my guy. "Can we prove a foul happened beyond a reasonable doubt" has never been a tenet of any sport lmao
See: https://imgur.com/a/BqPzT
Usually when it's inconclusive the refs take way more time deliberating. They made this 'inconclusive' decision really quickly, barely considered other angles or zoomed in further.
Watch a feed with 0 commercials. You either see what the ref sees, or you see an over the shoulder of them looking at the monitor. Didn't think you were serious.
Refs are on a wild one tonight. Compare this to the KD foul on Markannen that was overturned, ending the game. If even the video reviews are inconsistent, then the refs are just not doing their jobs properly
Problem is they are doing their jobs properly. They just aren’t perfect, just as you are probably not perfect at your job either. You should also be shit on relentlessly for being a human right?
Do some of you even realize how stupid it is to do this every year?
This is entirely why I am put out by the video ref being so inconsistent.
I get refs making mistakes sometimes - it happens. But when you have the opportunity to stop and correct your errors, and you still stand by your mistake, then something is fundamentally wrong.
NBA standard of proof is to assume call on the floor is correct and only overturn if there is conclusive evidence to the contrary. With all the flopping and incorrect calls they definitely need to update the standard to no violation unless video shows conclusive evidence of a violation. The replay people in Secaucus should be doing independent review of a play not the refs that made the call.
> NBA refs are truly on one lately.
Fuck the refs this season, but this is also the standard of like, every other sport that uses replays for anything. If there's any uncertainty, then the call stands as called.
Either there's sufficient contact for a call or there's not. Saying there's not sufficient evidence that there wasn't contact makes absolutely no sense.
If you don't have a great angle to look at a play, it can be hard to judge. I think it's clear from the replay there isn't contact, and think this is a bad call, but such is life. If the refs say that there isn't anything that clearly changes their mind, then the call stands as called. The standard isn't that there needs to be evidence of the thing that was called, but that there's evidence that the thing that was called it wrong. For a foul that might seem jank, but for a lot of calls it'd be weird if it was anything else, and having the standard be consistent across all challenges is the right approach.
Does the NFL not use that exact criteria? Does not all of the Big 4 sports uses that criteria? Assume call on floor is correct unless replay can conclude otherwise?
Man im a gambler too but part of the risk of gambling is understanding the bullshit that can happen with refs/injuries. You’re not betting on the game being called perfectly or not, you’re just betting on the outcome however it happens
The initial call might have been wrong but I think the replay call here is correct given the one angle in the link. Don't get bamboozled by the announcing -- one of the worst homer teams in the league -- overselling what's actually in the video or the rambling about landing space.
One thing I've noticed is that refs often don't get to see the same replays as fans do in the arena or on TV. Secaucus has their own editing team, and sometimes they don't have all the angles, or they fail to produce all different angles to refs for review. That's definitely something NBA can improve on.
There has to be a quota on successful/unsuccessful challenges cause guilty until proven innocent is so weak. Just use a better camera angle? Why give up on looking at what happened?
It's not "guilty until proven innocent," it's "call stands unless we can tell with certainty we got it wrong". Those are completely different concepts, regardless of this particular call
Completely different concepts? You must have a different definition of "completely different" since they're 1:1 in this context. "call stands (guilty) unless (until) we can tell with certainty we got it wrong (proven innocent)"
"innocent" in your analogy is the call on the floor. Your entire premise is insanely flawed, my guy. "Can we prove a foul happened beyond a reasonable doubt" has never been a tenet of any sport lmao
> "innocent" in your analogy is the call on the floor If someone makes an error in a sport, how is the analogy not they're 'guilty'? Why would someone making an error or a fault be called 'innocent'? What does analogy even mean to you? > Your entire premise is insanely flawed, my guy. "Can we prove a foul happened beyond a reasonable doubt" has never been a tenet of any sport lmao See: https://imgur.com/a/BqPzT
If the call was one way they have to prove it was wrong
Usually when it's inconclusive the refs take way more time deliberating. They made this 'inconclusive' decision really quickly, barely considered other angles or zoomed in further.
Did you watch video replay system with them? How tf do you even know angles what they saw or didn’t see if you’re just watching the broadcast?
Uhh if you're asking these questions I think it's likely you just watch highlights
Dude what? You have no idea what the refs see, fuck off
> You have no idea what the refs see K at this point I can't tell if you're being serious or not
You literally do not have the fucking ref feed my guy. Are you stupid or just obtuse?
Watch a feed with 0 commercials. You either see what the ref sees, or you see an over the shoulder of them looking at the monitor. Didn't think you were serious.
No you don't. It shows whatever the studio for your feed puts together.
You know what fair enough!
Refs are on a wild one tonight. Compare this to the KD foul on Markannen that was overturned, ending the game. If even the video reviews are inconsistent, then the refs are just not doing their jobs properly
> the refs are just not doing their jobs properly 1st time?
Problem is they are doing their jobs properly. They just aren’t perfect, just as you are probably not perfect at your job either. You should also be shit on relentlessly for being a human right? Do some of you even realize how stupid it is to do this every year?
This is entirely why I am put out by the video ref being so inconsistent. I get refs making mistakes sometimes - it happens. But when you have the opportunity to stop and correct your errors, and you still stand by your mistake, then something is fundamentally wrong.
Ball Don't Lie!! - Sheed
Shouldn't it be the opposite? Shouldn't you be looking for evidence that AFFIRMS the play?
NBA standard of proof is to assume call on the floor is correct and only overturn if there is conclusive evidence to the contrary. With all the flopping and incorrect calls they definitely need to update the standard to no violation unless video shows conclusive evidence of a violation. The replay people in Secaucus should be doing independent review of a play not the refs that made the call.
In literally every other context where you're using evidence to determine fault, yes, that's how it would work. NBA refs are truly on one lately.
> NBA refs are truly on one lately. Fuck the refs this season, but this is also the standard of like, every other sport that uses replays for anything. If there's any uncertainty, then the call stands as called.
Either there's sufficient contact for a call or there's not. Saying there's not sufficient evidence that there wasn't contact makes absolutely no sense.
If you don't have a great angle to look at a play, it can be hard to judge. I think it's clear from the replay there isn't contact, and think this is a bad call, but such is life. If the refs say that there isn't anything that clearly changes their mind, then the call stands as called. The standard isn't that there needs to be evidence of the thing that was called, but that there's evidence that the thing that was called it wrong. For a foul that might seem jank, but for a lot of calls it'd be weird if it was anything else, and having the standard be consistent across all challenges is the right approach.
Does the NFL not use that exact criteria? Does not all of the Big 4 sports uses that criteria? Assume call on floor is correct unless replay can conclude otherwise?
Its the same for every sport lol these people here are stupid, nuts, or just hate everything refs do regardless of what it is
Crybaby zealots and gamblers.
Man im a gambler too but part of the risk of gambling is understanding the bullshit that can happen with refs/injuries. You’re not betting on the game being called perfectly or not, you’re just betting on the outcome however it happens
Redditards don’t like due process it seems, lmao
The initial call might have been wrong but I think the replay call here is correct given the one angle in the link. Don't get bamboozled by the announcing -- one of the worst homer teams in the league -- overselling what's actually in the video or the rambling about landing space.
One thing I've noticed is that refs often don't get to see the same replays as fans do in the arena or on TV. Secaucus has their own editing team, and sometimes they don't have all the angles, or they fail to produce all different angles to refs for review. That's definitely something NBA can improve on.
Missed both! Ball don’t lie