Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
tbrandel
Published Letters: 349 Editor's Choice: 32
this comment is not so much about the game, which was downright enjoyable to watch, but more so about a giant pet peeve of mine that has been repeated over and over again in this column and in the letters.
that pet peeve is when people casually forget that every sporting event is one giant sequence of butterfly effects - you CANNOT assume the exact same sequence of events would have played out if you subtract one play, let alone a controversial one. yes, vince young's knee was down before he lateraled the ball to his streaking teammate for the tuddie. but one cannot assume that had the call been made, texas would or would not have scored a tuddie. or that they would or would not have kicked a field goal.
the beauty of sports is that every subsequent sequence of events is dependent on the prior sequence of events. coaches call different plays depending on the time left in the game, the score, the weather, the referees, and the adjustments the other team makes, just to name a few factors. these factors are constantly shifting, and shifting on both sides of the ball (and consequently on both sidelines). so you have an offense that is reacting to a defense, a defense that is reacting to an offense, x 2, with various other factors built in.
thus, to say that the same EXACT sequence of events would have played out if early events were different (ie scoring plays, non-scoring plays, calls) is absolutely ridiculous. if vince young is called down before he laterals, the game could have taken an entirely different turn. on the next play, a different play is called, the defense adjusts accordingly, and maybe vince breaks his leg. or maybe a cornerback is out of position, leading to a touchdown pass, and various adjustments by both teams which leads to a slightly different game plan.
the entire point of this diatribe is that it pisses me off to no end when fans, announcers, and commentators say things like "if shaq makes those 2 first quarter free throws, we're tied now" - everything changes based on every play. so please stop assuming the game would have played out in the same fashion if one call/stop/play was made.
The games that are on NFL network are still broadcast in the local market for free. Thus, if you live in San Antonio and you're a Cowboys fan, there's a chance you wouldn't get the 'boys game on Sunday if it's not the game of the week. This is no different. If you are a hardcore NFL fan that does not have cable, go down to the local watering hole and watch the game. All this move does is make 8 more games available to a national-ish audience, thus increasing the exposure of the NFL.
I hear about spreading the seeds of freedom and ending totalitarian radical Islamic rule, I'm excited, right? Assuming I'm not a radical Islamic cleric, I guess. But about 30 minutes later, when I hear the president chastising his nation for its dependence on foreign oil, and basically saying we're gonna make the OPEC countries drink their oil, how am I supposed to feel? You want to prop up a government on me, and then completely eradicate our entire economy...good plan. And our country is supposed to support itself how, exactly?
The technology involved in today's broadcast is obviously as good as it's ever been, which is a boon to the viewer and an absolute curse to the official. Multiple cameras with multiple angles and multiple speeds pretty much leave nary a square inch of the gridiron uncovered or unable to be broken down to the molecular level. Any given play on any given Sunday, which occur at literally breakneck speed between men the size of small cars, can be slowed to the nanosecond, zoomed to the millimeter, and scrutinized under the cozy artificial conditions of non-instantaneous judgment.
The officials, unfortunately, are saddled with the constraints of limited human senses.
True, instant replay gives them somewhat of a reprieve. But that only affects the small percentage of completed plays that are actually reviewable, and it's nearly impossible to expand that universe of reviewable plays without significantly altering the manner in which the game is played and the time it takes to play it. Games are too long as it is...more replay reviews would completely destroy whatever continuity is left in the game (no thanks to you, Mr. TV Timeout).
Until the Japanese invent a robot official that has the same abilities as modern day digital video equipment, the problem seems like it will only get worse before it gets better. Football could consider some rules changes, but it won't change the fact that it, like virtually all sports, is a game of inches...but is judged by men.
Therefore, I propose as a solution that we revert back to 1991 game technology - no super slo-mo, no overhead cam on guy-wires, no 75 camera angles that can zoom in on every drip of sweat that trickles off every offensive lineman's nostrils. The ignorant fan is the happy fan - if nobody ever knows that the receiver's toe actually knicked a blade of white-painted sideline grass, the referees can continue doing their job - making instantaneous decisions on events that are over before they start - anonymously, just how they want it.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
