Blitz
Well-known member
- Mar 20, 2019
- 2,127
- 0
Getty Images
Seahawks coach Pete Carroll was careful on Monday not to criticize the replay-review process, as applied to calls and non-calls of offensive and defensive pass interference. Carroll nevertheless offered a bit of constructive criticism as to the quirk in the rules that prevented a finding that 49ers linebacker Fred Warner had hindered an attempt by tight end Jacob Hollister to catch what would have been a game-winning touchdown pass late in the fourth quarter of an eventual loss to San Francisco.
“I can’t imagine if we want to work to make this thing as good as it could possibly be that we should be victim sometimes to what the TV copy has as opposed to all the other angles we can present,” Carroll told reporters. “I think the coach’s copy, along with the TV copy of a play that was in question in this game, can be aided by seeing when the ball came out from the side view so that they can make a determination of where was the ball in the fight of the action and how that all happened.
“So I think there are advances yet to go to make it even better. If we’re going to rely on an outside source to factor in, I think we should give them everything that’s available, not just what happens to be on their broadcast that day and they got a good [view] of it or they didn’t. I know they’re talking about that stuff too, but we need to keep working at it if we’re going to go this way.”
Carroll later explained that the league is indeed trying to expand the number of camera angles that are available for immediate review.
“I’ve never been a replay guy just because of all the mess that it brings, but it’s here,” Carroll said. “We got to do it the best possible. For them, in the league office, I know they’re thinking about the options and they’re weighing all the ways they can get better at it. We’ll see what happens. I don’t know how fast if a result can flip to next season or not. We did a lot this year, from one year to the next. So maybe we can do it. We can continue to help them. It’s obviously really hard. If it was easy, everybody would’ve already figured it out. It’s a very difficult part of the game. It continues to be in question.”
Carroll’s idea includes having team camera feeds instantly accessible by the league office for replay review.
“That’s what I would suggest,” Carroll said. “Somehow either pay for two more cameras, or they find a way to feed right from us and see what we have. Just to gain more access. They have so many faculties there that they can do a lot of stuff in a hurry, and they have a lot of people and all that. Just take advantage of every outlook. We make it more consistent what they can see too because the TV shots are so varied you don’t know. Sometimes they get it sometimes they don’t. I know they want to get it right, they care, and it’s important and all that so, we need to keep working at it.”
Unlike many, Carroll was nevertheless satisfied by the explanation that the most controversial non-call of the night was reviewed based on the angles that were available.
“They did review it,” Carroll said. “They took all the time that they needed there. They thought that they had a conclusive thought on it and what they saw. It’s only based on the TV copies. When I’m talking to him I’m expressing what the coach’s copy looks like as well. We’re just talking our way through it. Al [Riveron has] been really good to work with. He’s been very open and very willing to discuss, and even the difficult discussions he’s willing to get into it. He knows how sensitive it is and all that. It’s comfortable to be in the discussions with him and work through it. Realize that they’ve got challenges too. It’s not as easy as it is for us after the fact.”
Carroll is being extremely charitable with his assessment that they “took all the time that they needed.” They most definitely didn’t; they did a preliminary review, which caused them to conclude that a longer, more careful, formal review wasn’t needed.
“There’s two TV looks,” Carroll said regarding the non-call of pass interference. “There’s one from the back and one from the front side of it. They thought they saw what they needed to see. That’s why it was worth talking to him about because when you see the rest of the available film, you can see other things too. There’s more to see in the video. We don’t always agree on those decisions but, you certainly can have a discussion, and talk it through, and try to get better.”
And there it is. In diplomatic terms that won’t (or at least shouldn’t) result in Carroll being fined, he made his point: He wants more camera angles including coach’s film immediately available because based on those angles that weren’t immediately available he believes that the visual evidence of defensive pass interference was more compelling.
Of course, many believe that the two TV angles were compelling enough. That the evidence showed defensive pass interference. That a full-blown review should have been conducted. And that the Seahawks should have gotten the first-and-goal from the one that they squandered when failing to get a play off in time just moments earlier in the game.
At a minimum, the full review should have happened. Too much was riding on the outcome for the Seahawks and, in turn, the Packers, who lost the No. 1 seed when the Seahawks lost, and the Saints, who lost a bye.