Tag: Instant Replay

The NBA’s wise tweak to the coach’s challenge rule is another step towards getting calls right

The NBA made a smart expansion to its replay rules.

Welcome to Layup Lines, For the Win’s basketball newsletter. Subscribe here to get it delivered to your inbox every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Have feedback for the Layup Lines Crew? Leave your questions, comments and concerns through this brief reader survey. Now, here’s Prince J. Grimes.

The NBA’s Board of Governors met this week, and the biggest headline to come out of it was that the league isn’t quite ready for expansion, as commissioner Adam Silver stated at his board of governors press conference.

One under-the-radar thing to come out of the meeting, though, was the governors’ approval of an expansion to the use of a Coach’s Challenge when reviewing out-of-bounds violations.

The new rule will go into effect this upcoming season and will allow officials to review whether a foul near the out-of-bounds play should have been called.

An example provided by the NBA was a challenge by the Dallas Mavericks in the Western Conference Finals on a ball that went out of bounds off Minnesota Timberwolves forward Jaden McDaniels after he was hit on the arm by Kyrie Irving. The Mavericks won the challenge and were awarded possession. Under the new rule, officials would have been able to instead call a foul on Irving.

This was a smart tweak to the rule and almost surprising it didn’t already exist. It eliminates the frustration of having to live with obvious fouls that officials couldn’t call retroactively. It also adds another element of getting things right without adding any of the extra time to a game that so many replay rules tend to add.

If anything, this rule could actually cut down on replay in certain instances. Coach’s may be hesitant to review some out-of-bounds violations if there’s a chance it backfires and ends with one of their players being assessed a foul.

What’s the hold on expansion?

Gary A. Vasquez-USA TODAY Sports

Back to the topic of expansion, Adam Silver said it wasn’t discussed much at the Board of Governors meeting because the league isn’t ready for it yet.

This was somewhat surprising to hear considering all the talk we’ve heard over the years of the NBA potentially opening shop in Las Vegas or getting a team back in Seattle. My colleague Mike Sykes wondered in today’s edition of The Morning Win, what’s the holdup?

“It sounds like the NBA is pressing the pause button on expansion for now. But you’ve got to wonder what the hold-up is here. The table is perfectly set. There’s so much talent around the league. The cash is flowing. Now is the time. It’s a peculiar decision not to at least begin to move forward.

Maybe it’s because the NBA isn’t quite settled with the television deal yet. With Warner Bros. Discovery suing the NBA, all the ducks aren’t quite in a row with that just yet.

Or maybe the league is waiting on LeBron James to retire. He did say he wanted to own a franchise eventually and has been eyeing Las Vegas as his start. Could there be an under-the-table handshake to keep things paused while James finishes out his career? I have no idea.

Regardless, we’re stuck here playing the waiting game. I guess we’ll see when the time comes.”

If you aren’t subscribed to The Morning Win, do it now for more of that from Sykes and the FTW team.

Shootaround

— Breanna Stewart ripped WNBA commissioner Cathy Engelbert for her response to Caitlin Clark, Angel Reese fan toxicity

— Joe Mazzulla had a weird explanation for why the Celtics won’t be ‘defending’ their title this season

— Mazzulla also credited the Pacers for pushing the Celtics the most during their title run

— Caitlin Clark calling A’ja Wilson unguardable put to bed any WNBA MVP debate

Ron Rivera explains why he didn’t challenge DeVonta Smith’s catch

Rivera explains why he didn’t challenge DeVonta Smith’s fourth-down “catch” in the third quarter.

There were some controversial moments in the Washington Commanders’ 38-31 loss to the Philadelphia Eagles on Sunday. There was the third-down catch by Commanders wide receiver Jahan Dotson that was later ruled by NFL officials not to be a catch, only to be challenged by Washington and upheld.

It was a strange sequence.

However, before that play, there was another controversial catch that significantly altered the game’s trajectory.

With 5:38 remaining in the third quarter, Washington led Philadelphia, 17-10. The Eagles faced a fourth-and-4 from the Commanders’ 45-yard line when QB Jalen Hurts found WR DeVonta Smith streaking across the field. The pass is complete for 17 yards and a first down. However, upon further review, the pass appeared incomplete as the ball hit the ground.

Washington’s sideline was jumping up and down, wanting head coach Ron Rivera to challenge the call. He didn’t. The Eagles got back to the line of scrimmage and ran the next play. Two plays later, Hurts hit A.J. Brown for a 25-yard touchdown to tie the game.

While we know there is a low bar for NFL officiating, there was no way the Smith “catch” wouldn’t have been overturned. It was obvious. And it was costly. It would have been Washington’s ball with around five minutes remaining in the third quarter, holding a 17-10 lead.

Check it out:

That was ruled a catch.

So, why didn’t Rivera challenge the play?

Here’s exactly what Rivera said.

“I didn’t see it on the screen,” Rivera said via Nicki Jhabvala of The Washington Post. “I was looking up at the screen to see if there was something that could help me with it. Then I was waiting to hear somebody upstairs on if they had seen it or not. We hadn’t seen the replay, so we weren’t sure. [The Eagles] did their hurry-up, ran up to the line, and snapped the ball. You almost think that in that amount of time, somebody else could have looked at it and saw if it was complete.”

We can’t assume we know what Rivera knew at the time. But that reasoning doesn’t sound good. Yes, the Eagles hurried to the line of scrimmage, but there should be someone upstairs watching every play, telling you if it was worth a challenge or not. Where was that person?

It was another bad look for Rivera and his coaching staff, and it proved costly.

NFL’s replay system botched a call in another NFC championship game

The NFL’s replay review system botched a call in another NFC championship game, setting up a crucial touchdown. Where have we seen that before?

Stop here if you’ve heard this before, but the NFL’s replay review system botched a call in the NFC championship game. Philadelphia Eagles wide receiver DeVonta Smith went viral on social media with a one-handed catch down the sideline, converting a crucial fourth down deep inside San Francisco 49ers territory. Two plays later, the Eagles scored an early touchdown run to go up 7-0.

Only it’s not what should have happened. Other angles from the play showed Smith losing the ball as he went to the ground, clearly losing possession of it in what should have been ruled an incomplete catch. That would have stopped Philadelphia on fourth down and set up the 49ers offense at their own 35-yard line. Any of the multiple official on the field should have seen that, but they missed it. And the NFL’s system for overseeing things remotely should have covered for them, but they missed it, too.

The replay assistant in New York has the ability to run an expedited review and look at the play from all angles, though a coach’s challenge would have been needed to start a full and thorough review. Still, it shouldn’t have taken long for the replay review system to do its job and make the correct call here. You have to tip your hat to Eagles coach Nick Sirriani and his offense for hurrying to snap the ball on first down to prevent a San Francisco challenge.

But this is twice in five years that NFL officiating and the league’s much-lauded instant replay system has fallen flat. We saw the same thing happen when the Los Angeles Rams got away with uncalled pass interference against the New Orleans Saints in the 2018 title game to help them get to the Super Bowl. The referees on the scene didn’t do their jobs, and the officials expressly employed to look out for them didn’t do their jobs either.

It’s embarrassing. But it is what it is. Until the NFL stops pinching pennies and invests in full-time officiating crews and greater transparency in how it manages games, these gaffes are going to continue to be a weakness for the sport.

[listicle id=121396]

Instant Replay: Clemson 17, No. 23 Pittsburgh 27

Clemson fell to No. 23 Pittsburgh, 27-17, on Saturday at Heinz Field in Pittsburgh. The Tigers dropped to 4-3 (3-2 ACC), while the Panthers improved to 6-1 (3-0). What happened? Clemson struck first with 1:29 left in the first quarter when freshman …

Clemson fell to No. 23 Pittsburgh, 27-17, on Saturday at Heinz Field in Pittsburgh.

The Tigers dropped to 4-3 (3-2 ACC), while the Panthers improved to 6-1 (3-0).

What happened?

Clemson struck first with 1:29 left in the first quarter when freshman running back Phil Mafah punched the ball into the end zone from 1 yard out. His first career touchdown capped an eight-play, 80-yard drive, which was keyed by a pretty 36-yard throw from D.J. Uiagalelei to Ajou Ajou down the sideline on third-and-6.

Pittsburgh answered with a 13-play, 90-yard touchdown march toward the end of the first half. Kenny Pickett rolled to his right and delivered a strike in the back of the end zone to Jordan Addison, who beat Nolan Turner for a 23-yard touchdown reception at the 3:18 mark of the second quarter.

The Panthers then took a 14-7 lead on their next possession. On fourth-and-5 from the Clemson 39-yard line, Pickett hooked up with Taysir Mack for a 39-yard touchdown with 40 seconds left before halftime to conclude a nine-play, 76-yard drive. Mack beat Clemson freshman linebacker Barrett Carter at the beginning of the route, and with no safety help over the top, Mack ran wide open up the seam and hauled in the pass from Pickett for the score.

After Pitt took a seven-point lead into the locker room at halftime thanks to the aforementioned touchdown, the Panthers tacked on to their lead on the first possession of the second half for either team. SirVocea Dennis intercepted a shovel pass from Uiagalelei and returned it 50 yards for a touchdown to make the score 21-7 less than four minutes into the third quarter.

Uiagalelei was replaced by redshirt sophomore quarterback Taisun Phommachanh following the pick-six, Uiagalelei’s second interception of the game. But the Tigers were still unable to get much going offensively in Phommachanh’s two drives.

So, Uiagalelei re-entered the game on Clemson’s first possession of the fourth quarter and led a touchdown drive, capping it with a 6-yard rushing score to cut the Tigers’ deficit to 27-17 with 7:56 left in the game.

Pittsburgh subsequently got the ball back and proceeded to run out the clock. Three kneel-downs by Pickett finished off a 15-play possession and ended the game.

Pickett finished 25-of-39 passing for 302 yards and two touchdowns, guiding the Panthers to 464 yards of total offense.

Meanwhile, Uiagalelei completed 12-of-25 passes for 128 yards and two interceptions with the rushing touchdown, while Phommachanh went 3-of-7 for 23 yards.

Game-changing moment:

Down 14-7 at halftime, Clemson received the opening kickoff of the second half and had a chance to tie the game with a touchdown. Instead, Pittsburgh came up with a game-changing pick-six.

A shovel pass from Uiagalelei was intercepted by Dennis, who came up the middle on a blitz and ran right into the path of Uiagalelei’s pass before taking it 50 yards to the house to give the Panthers a 21-7 lead at the 11:30 mark of the third quarter.

Pittsburgh never looked back and did what it had to do in order to close out the victory.

Clemson Variety & Frame is doing their part to help bring you some classic new barware and help one of the local businesses that helps make Clemson special.

Order your Nick’s barware and do your part to help.  #SaveNicks

Instant Replay: No. 3 Clemson 3, No. 5 Georgia 10

Third-ranked Clemson fell to No. 5 Georgia, 10-3, on Saturday night in the Duke’s Mayo Classic at Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte. Here’s a look back at how the Bulldogs came out on top in the marquee season-opening matchup: What happened? …

Third-ranked Clemson fell to No. 5 Georgia, 10-3, on Saturday night in the Duke’s Mayo Classic at Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte.

Here’s a look back at how the Bulldogs came out on top in the marquee season-opening matchup:

What happened?

Georgia entered the halftime locker room with a 7-0 lead thanks to stellar defensive play. The Bulldogs broke a scoreless tie with 2:58 to play in the second quarter on a 74-yard interception return for a touchdown by Christopher Smith.

Georgia added to its lead with 2:38 to go in the third quarter when Jack Podlesny knocked in a chip-shot 22-yard field goal to make it a 10-0 game.

Clemson’s offense finally got something going late in the game against Georgia, putting together a drive to get on the scoreboard and cut into the Bulldogs’ lead. B.T. Potter booted a 22-yard field goal at the 9:08 mark of the fourth quarter to trim the Tigers’ deficit to 10-3.

However, it was too little, too late. Clemson got the ball back with 7:36 remaining, but later failed to convert a fourth-and-5 attempt. It resulted in a turnover on downs, and the Bulldogs ran out the clock to seal the victory.

What went right?

The performance of Clemson’s defense was commendable and kept the Tigers in the game despite not much help from the offense. Clemson held Georgia to three offensive points and didn’t allow a defensive touchdown.

Offensively, wide receiver Joseph Ngata was a bright spot, tallying six receptions for 110 yards on eight targets.

What went wrong?

Clemson’s offense was stifled for most of the game and failed to capitalize on a couple of key opportunities – specifically, the special teams miscue by Georgia late in the second quarter and the interception by Baylon Spector early in the third quarter.

After Georgia muffed a punt around the five-minute mark of the second frame that was recovered by Clemson, the Tigers took over at the 50-yard line, but the possession ended in the aforementioned pick-six that resulted in the first points of the game for the Bulldogs.

In the third quarter, following the interception by Spector, Clemson gained possession at the Georgia 33-yard line. But again, the Tigers were unable to take advantage when back-to-back sacks pushed Clemson out of field goal range and forced a punt.

All in all, Clemson’s offense totaled only 180 yards — including just 2 rushing yards — while allowing seven sacks and turning it over once.

Game-changing moment:

The critical turning point in the game came late in the second quarter when Smith jumped in front of a Uiagalelei pass intended for Justyn Ross and intercepted it before returning it 74 yards for a pick-six.

The game-changing play occurred after what appeared to be a potential game-changing play in the Tigers’ favor. Around the five-minute mark of the second quarter, Georgia muffed a punt and gave the Tigers the ball at midfield, but Clemson was unable to take advantage due to the pick-six.

Clemson Variety & Frame is doing their part to help bring you some classic new barware and help one of the local businesses that helps make Clemson special.

Order your Nick’s barware and do your part to help.  #SaveNicks

Nevada still isn’t getting instant replay right

The Nevada State Athletic Commission should be applauded for using instant replay but fight action shouldn’t be interrupted in the process.

The Nevada State Athletic Commission instituted instant replay for combat sports about a decade ago.

Keith Kizer, the NSAC’s Executive Director at the time, made one thing clear: Replay would be used during the fight but the action itself would never be interrupted. He and the commissioners understood the importance of maintaining the structure of the sport, three minutes of fighting and one minute of rest. Timeouts were allowed only when fighter safety was an issue.

Kizer, a smart guy, and the commissioners at had it right. Current NSAC officials, who have expanded the process, have it wrong.

The NSAC employed instant replay during the Arnold Barboza Jr.-Alex Saucedo fight on the Teofimo Lopez-Vasiliy Lomachenko card Saturday in Las Vegas. Referee Celestino Ruiz ruled a slip when Barboza went down from a punch in Round 7.

The replay official, former referee Joe Cortez, knew better. He turned on a yellow light to indicate the referee’s ruling is under review and Ruiz stopped the action. Cortez informed Ruiz that Saucedo should’ve been credited with a knock down, the call was corrected and the corners were informed of the reversal.

All that is fine. Instant replay is used in an effort to get it right. And that’s what happened.

Here’s the problem: There was no reason whatsoever to stop the action to make the correction. Cortez could’ve waited until the end of the round to confer with Ruiz, who then could’ve informed the fighters of the ruling while they sat on their stools.

What did stopping the action accomplish? Was either fighter going to change his strategy or the way he was fighting because of the correction? Of course not.

One could argue that a fighter might change his or her tactics if that happened late in a close contest, although fighters aren’t apprised of the official scoring until the bout is over. Another possible example: The wrong call on whether a cut was caused by a punch or head butt could lead the injured fighter to coast when he should’ve been attacking or vice versa.

I acknowledge that there is no perfect approach to instant replay. However, in my opinion, the correction can almost always wait a minute or two – whatever time remains on the clock — until the end of the round to maintain the flow of the fight.

We’re frustrated when a tired or injured fighter purposely spits out his mouthpiece to buy time by forcing the referee to stop the action. We’re annoyed when the ref has to call a time-out because of loose tape on a fighter’s glove.

Why? Because it disrupts the flow of the fight.

And while stopping the action for instant replay can result in the correct call, as it did in the Barboza-Saucedo fight, it can also impact the fight in other ways. For example, it could give a tired or injured fighter extra time to recover. That’s not right. Boxing is not like football or baseball, which stops and starts anyway.

Nevada and other jurisdictions are on the right track by using instant replay. Again, it’s important to get these calls correct. The point here is that you don’t have to stop the action – which fundamentally changes the sport – to get that done.

[lawrence-related id=14772]

Nevada still isn’t getting instant replay right

The Nevada State Athletic Commission should be applauded for using instant replay but fight action shouldn’t be interrupted in the process.

The Nevada State Athletic Commission instituted instant replay for combat sports about a decade ago.

Keith Kizer, the NSAC’s Executive Director at the time, made one thing clear: Replay would be used during the fight but the action itself would never be interrupted. He and the commissioners understood the importance of maintaining the structure of the sport, three minutes of fighting and one minute of rest. Timeouts were allowed only when fighter safety was an issue.

Kizer, a smart guy, and the commissioners at had it right. Current NSAC officials, who have expanded the process, have it wrong.

The NSAC employed instant replay during the Arnold Barboza Jr.-Alex Saucedo fight on the Teofimo Lopez-Vasiliy Lomachenko card Saturday in Las Vegas. Referee Celestino Ruiz ruled a slip when Barboza went down from a punch in Round 7.

The replay official, former referee Joe Cortez, knew better. He turned on a yellow light to indicate the referee’s ruling is under review and Ruiz stopped the action. Cortez informed Ruiz that Saucedo should’ve been credited with a knock down, the call was corrected and the corners were informed of the reversal.

All that is fine. Instant replay is used in an effort to get it right. And that’s what happened.

Here’s the problem: There was no reason whatsoever to stop the action to make the correction. Cortez could’ve waited until the end of the round to confer with Ruiz, who then could’ve informed the fighters of the ruling while they sat on their stools.

What did stopping the action accomplish? Was either fighter going to change his strategy or the way he was fighting because of the correction? Of course not.

One could argue that a fighter might change his or her tactics if that happened late in a close contest, although fighters aren’t apprised of the official scoring until the bout is over. Another possible example: The wrong call on whether a cut was caused by a punch or head butt could lead the injured fighter to coast when he should’ve been attacking or vice versa.

I acknowledge that there is no perfect approach to instant replay. However, in my opinion, the correction can almost always wait a minute or two – whatever time remains on the clock — until the end of the round to maintain the flow of the fight.

We’re frustrated when a tired or injured fighter purposely spits out his mouthpiece to buy time by forcing the referee to stop the action. We’re annoyed when the ref has to call a time-out because of loose tape on a fighter’s glove.

Why? Because it disrupts the flow of the fight.

And while stopping the action for instant replay can result in the correct call, as it did in the Barboza-Saucedo fight, it can also impact the fight in other ways. For example, it could give a tired or injured fighter extra time to recover. That’s not right. Boxing is not like football or baseball, which stops and starts anyway.

Nevada and other jurisdictions are on the right track by using instant replay. Again, it’s important to get these calls correct. The point here is that you don’t have to stop the action – which fundamentally changes the sport – to get that done.

[lawrence-related id=14772]

Saints were hurt by a pass-interference non-call in a game they didn’t even play

The latest entry in the New Orleans Saints’ exhaustive feud with NFL officiating chief Al Riveron sprung from a game they didn’t even play.

[jwplayer 1qL1vXNd-ThvAeFxT]

Stop reading if you’ve heard this before, but the NFL’s over-complicated officiating process made the New Orleans Saints draw the short straw. The Saints needed the Seattle Seahawks to defeat the San Francisco 49ers so that New Orleans could clinch a first-round bye in the playoffs, and they nearly got it when Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson targeted tight end Jacob Hollister in the end zone. But Hollister’s arm was trapped by 49ers linebacker Fred Warner, and the pass fell incomplete. No penalty flags for defensive pass interference followed it.

And the officiating crew on-hand didn’t stop the game to review what happened. Neither did NFL officiating czar Al Riveron call in from his New York office, as he is supposed to do following offseason rules changes. The league instituted these changes after Riveron botched last year’s NFC championship game non-call between the Saints and Los Angeles Rams, and he didn’t learn anything from an experience that should have cost him his job.

If a flag had been thrown, the Seahawks would have had time to run another play or two from near the goal-line, potentially giving them the lead as time expired. Instead, they ended up turning it over on downs, and the 49ers won, clinching the first seed. The Saints were forced to begin preparing for the wild-card Minnesota Vikings, and the Seahawks had to focus on a road trip against the Philadelphia Eagles.

After the game ended, Riveron claimed that he did briefly review the play, but didn’t see enough from the NBC broadcast angles to justify stopping the game for further review with instant-replay.

“Well, we actually looked at it here in New York. We had a great look. NBC gives us a great look of the entire route,” Riveron told Tim Booth of the Associated Press. “So, we actually did perform a review, but based on what we saw, we didn’t see enough to stop the game. But we did review it.”

In other words, Riveron didn’t commit his due diligence. He saw the broadcast angle and didn’t think it was worth his time to review one of the biggest plays in the final game of the decade, with serious playoff implications for multiple games. If things played out as he described it, that’s serious neglect of his job responsibilities.

And if anything, Riveron suggested the play may have qualified for a foul on the offense, because the tight end made first contact. He continued: “What we see is, we see the offensive player come in and initiate contact on the defensive player — nothing that rises to the level of a foul which significantly hinders the defender, nothing that is clear and obvious through visual evidence, which hinders the defender. The defender then braces himself.”

That’s a lot of conviction for Riveron to have in a play he spent a few seconds, maybe a full minute at most, considering. But he doubled down on it in Booth’s pool report, saying, “And there is contact then by the defender on the receiver. Again, nothing which rises to the level of a foul based on visual evidence. Nothing happens that rises to the level of a foul while the ball is in the air before it gets there by either player.”

Let’s be clear: the NFL has not gotten these calls and reviews right throughout the season. The problem isn’t that they got this one completely wrong, either (it’s part of it, but not the entire issue). What should concern fans of every team is that Riveron was in position to follow the rule book and do his job, and consciously chose not to, making a snap decision with less information than he could have. He might have changed his mind had he and his crew in New York reviewed the play from different angles, but Riveron decided it wasn’t worth his time.

After a season full of discourse surrounding pass interference review challenges and the influence referees have on games, Riveron took a hard left on the eve of the playoffs to make it all meaningless. What’s the point of having the ability to initiate booth review of a possible pass-interference foul in the game’s closing minutes if the man in charge thinks doing that is beneath him? Who’s to say it won’t happen again in the playoffs, costing a team their Super Bowl hopes? It’s just further proof that Riveron doesn’t deserve this post, and the NFL should take action as soon as possible to course-correct after Riveron messed things up so dangerously.

[vertical-gallery id=26010]