Should the IHSA use instant replay at the State Championships?

[ClownBaby]

At the Wisconsin State Championships today they are using instant replay for the first time to review all scoring plays and turnovers. Hopefully the IHSA will follow suit and start this in 2020.

The WIAA paid $6,000 for this project for seven total games.

 

[eireog]

At the Wisconsin State Championships today they are using instant replay for the first time to review all scoring plays and turnovers. Hopefully the IHSA will follow suit and start this in 2020.

The WIAA paid $6,000 for this project for seven total games.

I like the idea but if NFHS is involved it could take til Christmas to finish the 8 games.

 

[RockSoup]

I’d rather adults put HS sport outcomes in perspective and correctly value the lessons learned in the journey. But who am I kidding?Pylon cams it is

 

[brucealmighy]

No. I do not like the move if it is not used for the entire playoffs. There was a game last year in LaGrange Park that could have used it even with the extra official on the sideline.

 

[JVCoach1]

I don't think the NCAA or NFL should use replay.

 

[ClownBaby]

I don't think the NCAA or NFL should use replay.

I actually kinda agree with this but the problem is when a game is covered with 20 tv cameras you are almost forced to otherwise people say the games are rigged.

 

[godfthr53]

I actually kinda agree with this but the problem is when a game is covered with 20 tv cameras you are almost forced to otherwise people say the games are rigged.

And that the refs have other interests $$$$

 

[JVCoach1]

Each NFL game averages around 154 plays. Game officials are typically accurate on 97% of calls.

 

[ClownBaby]

Each NFL game averages around 154 plays. Game officials are typically accurate on 97% of calls.

The NFL owes so much of their success to fantasy football and gambling so anything less then 100% is unacceptable if you are asking people to gamble on it.

 

[PowerI66]

Each NFL game averages around 154 plays. Game officials are typically accurate on 97% of calls.

So the best of the best are typically accurate on 95-97% of calls. You don't think there should be a support system for that final percentage? Especially when we see week in and week out game changing calls? I strongly disagree. Replay helps improve accuracy. I would venture to guess that the accuracy number drops significantly from the NFL to high school football, despite referees best efforts. If the IHSA could get an efficient system in place (HAH!), then I see no issue with replay.

 

[JVCoach1]

So the best of the best are typically accurate on 95-97% of calls. You don't think there should be a support system for that final percentage? Especially when we see week in and week out game changing calls? I strongly disagree. Replay helps improve accuracy. I would venture to guess that the accuracy number drops significantly from the NFL to high school football, despite referees best efforts. If the IHSA could get an efficient system in place (HAH!), then I see no issue with replay.

I don't. It's just a game. Slows down play.

 

[JVCoach1]

The NFL owes so much of their success to fantasy football and gambling so anything less then 100% is unacceptable if you are asking people to gamble on it.

You can gamble on all sports, that didn't make soccer popular.

 

[JVCoach1]

I would venture to guess that the accuracy number drops significantly from the NFL to high school football, despite referees best efforts.

I think you'd be surprised if you could even get data on that. Guessing highschool officials would be will into the 90%+. There just aren't that many plays that call for replay. Again, just my opinion. I know i'm in the overwhelming minority here. I don't gamble on sports because I value my money. So I really could care less if the officials botch a call and the Bears end up 6-10 instead of 7-9.

 

[Irish LB]

No. I do not like the move if it is not used for the entire playoffs. There was a game last year in LaGrange Park that could have used it even with the extra official on the sideline.

Not LaGrange Park. There’s never been an issue in LGP.

 

[McCaravan]

Absolutely not. It’s just high school football.

 

[Trojan Fox]

No way,

Lack of camera's, lack of angles, and let's be honest...these replays would take forever.

I'm a firm believer, the IHSA would find new ways to "F" it up than we can imagine.

 

[ClownBaby]

Absolutely not. It’s just high school football.

So you’re saying when the ground causes a fumble on the final drive inside the 10 and MC loses 24-20 your not going to complain about how bad the refs are right?

 

[JVCoach1]

So you’re saying when the ground causes a fumble on the final drive inside the 10 and MC loses 24-20 your not going to complain about how bad the refs are right?

How often has that happened in a state final?

 

[ClownBaby]

How often has that happened in a state final?

MS/ HC in 2008 had fumble where the kid from HC was down and MS picked it up and ran it in for a TD to put the game away. MS was the better team but the point is a blown fumble call had an impact on the game.

That stands out but I’m sure there are others.

 

[CaravanMan]

How often has that happened in a state final?

Last time I can remember was in 2012, Aledo vs. Althoff. Althoff fumbled and Aledo recovered and returned it for the a TD. Althoff runner was down from the replays I saw.



Start at the 1:15:00 mark. You decide.

 

[MC63]

Absolutely not. It’s just high school football.

While I hate d\replays, we got burned in '95 vs MS. Their last second field goal was wide, but one of our players got blocked into the MS kicker by another MS player. They got 15 yards and another attempt. Guess what happened.

I still don't want replays, however.

Back in the early 60s when video replays were used for highlights, Jack Brickhouse said that many people thought video would make the umpires look bad. "Actually," he said, "it shows how good they are." That, of course, was before Fox Sports had 15 different camera angles.

 

[Oddy]

I hope not.

 

[JVCoach1]

Last time I can remember was in 2012, Aledo vs. Althoff. Althoff fumbled and Aledo recovered and returned it for the a TD. Althoff runner was down from the replays I saw.

View embedded media

Start at the 1:15:00 mark. You decide.

that really doesn’t show much of anything that could be overturned.

 

[McCaravan]

While I hate d\replays, we got burned in '95 vs MS. Their last second field goal was wide, but one of our players got blocked into the MS kicker by another MS player. They got 15 yards and another attempt. Guess what happened.

I still don't want replays, however.

Back in the early 60s when video replays were used for highlights, Jack Brickhouse said that many people thought video would make the umpires look bad. "Actually," he said, "it shows how good they are." That, of course, was before Fox Sports had 15 different camera angles.

We won the 91 game vs Wheaton on a phantom pass interference flag so the football Gods evened things out. 95 hurt though being Dowling’s year.

 

[CaravanMan]

that really doesn’t show much of anything that could be overturned.

Yea I mean I guess the runner laying on the ground then fumbling wasn't a dead giveaway.

 

[No Bias---Just Reality]

I don't. It's just a game. Slows down play.

Except for a total mismatch blowout... and we are assuming this is a fairly close state championship game..... when was the last time you were at a football game thinking damn this is taking forever I wish it were over so I can get outta here? And if that is happening to you please just stay home to start with.... “slows down the game”

 

[Kevin JCHS 81]

Last time I can remember was in 2012, Aledo vs. Althoff. Althoff fumbled and Aledo recovered and returned it for the a TD. Althoff runner was down from the replays I saw.

Start at the 1:15:00 mark. You decide.

I played it frame by frame and Refs got it right. The ball came out before he was down. At a very minimum there is no conclusive evidence for a reversal.

 

[LTHSALUM76]

No, no and F*** NO!!

 

[PowerI66]

I wonder what the percentage of people against this are below the age of 40

 

[ClownBaby]

I played it frame by frame and Refs got it right. The ball came out before he was down. At a very minimum there is no conclusive evidence for a reversal.

Did you watch after the commercial break when they show the reverse angle where he is laying on the ground and they pull the ball out? Assume your right what about the fumble what about the recovery where the defender is on the ground for the recovery? That is reviewable also so it’s first down on the 3 yard line instead of a TD.

 

[greatgig13]

Man, the game is long enough with the constant loop of sponsorship commercials and I already get the stink eye from the wife when paying more attention to the games than her family. I have to vote no.

 

[William Foster]

that really doesn’t show much of anything that could be overturned.

Replay after the extra point shows Aledo player with ball tucked and knee on the ground, and IF the fumble was legit, the play would end there.

 

[Kevin JCHS 81]

Did you watch after the commercial break when they show the reverse angle where he is laying on the ground and they pull the ball out? Assume your right what about the fumble what about the recovery where the defender is on the ground for the recovery? That is reviewable also so it’s first down on the 3 yard line instead of a TD.

I was only watching for whether or not it was a fumble (or) could it be overturned as fumble. I watched all the angles I think but I'm going to watch it again looking for if the defender was down.

 

[Kevin JCHS 81]

Assume your right what about the fumble what about the recovery where the defender is on the ground for the recovery? That is reviewable also so it’s first down on the 3 yard line instead of a TD.

Yes, I would have to say you are correct the defender was down when he made the recovery. That part could probably be reversed (no TD).

 

[ClownBaby]

Yes, I would have to say you are correct the defender was down when he made the recovery. That part could probably be reversed (no TD).

I hate how replay slows games down but I hate lame threads blaming the refs for a teams loss even more so I’m in favor of it.

 

[eireog]

I hate how replay slows games down but I hate lame threads blaming the refs for a teams loss even more so I’m in favor of it.

I hate them more when they win by 70.

 

[SiuCubFan8]

Not until every class is 1-32 and then I still might say no.

 

[ref2]

If they could put in the right system I would not mind it. After all contrary to popular belief we want to get the call right.
Funny someone in this thread mentioned the accuracy of the NFL refs, yet people bash the high school refs for missing one play.

 

[dapiech]

MS/ HC in 2008 had fumble where the kid from HC was down and MS picked it up and ran it in for a TD to put the game away. MS was the better team but the point is a blown fumble call had an impact on the game.

That stands out but I’m sure there are others.

If Pass Interference were to be reviewable, we could go back to the 1991 state championship and the rogue penalty on the WWS DB (Christian Wing) on 4th and 16 vs. Mount Carmel. The receiver wasnt touched and the game should have ended with a WWS win. I'm not bitter or anything. haha.

 

[shoot3r]

If they have the means to do it, then they should do it. I have seen so many games in the past have questionable calls that could have been easily cleared up with replay. Why play a guessing game when video review can make it clear as day?

It's a long season and these kids already put it all out on the line to get the big game. I'm in favor of something that can determine the CORRECT outcome.