I don't know why the NCAA seems to believe there cannot be the slightest hint of nuance to their rules . . . they favor one-size-fits-all solutions and leave no room for distinctions that actually, you know, make sense
Posted on September 17, 2026 at 01:34:47 PM by WestSideBlue
The "clock protocol" debacle is the latest example. There is no reason whatsoever that the rule should be anything other than "use whatever tools are available to make the correct call." If a stadium has Hawkeye tech, use it. If not, use the broadcast network image capture of the stadium clock. If there is no broadcast image, use whatever is next most reliable. Use the best technology available in that particular venue. You don't need to dumb down the rule to make it universal in all situations.
The replay standard of review is similar. I get that in most cases, the default is the on-field call unless there is irrefutable video evidence, and that basically makes sense for most calls. But in the case of fumble calls, it doesn't since the refs are instructed to always treat an even arguable fumble like a fumble, don't blow the play dead, and let things play out on the field. Again, that makes sense. But if you have a protocol where you *always* err on the side of "fumble" when there is even the slightest doubt, and you *always* err on the side of confirming the on-field call unless there is incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, you have introduced unnecessary bias into that particular call. There is no reason the rule couldn't be to apply the "incontrovertible" standard to non-fumble calls but apply what lawyers would call a de novo standard of review to fumbles.
Back to the board
Thread:
-
I don't know why the NCAA seems to believe there cannot be the slightest hint of nuance to their rules . . . they favor one-size-fits-all solutions and leave no room for distinctions that actually, you know, make sense
- By WestSideBlue
September 17, 2026 at 01:34:47 PM
Log in to reply.