Revising the "real-time or it didn't happen" theory

[TecnoGenius]

I offer as evidence of my "leak" theory AND "no slow-mo theory" what Rod Smith said in our WPG@HAM game tonight (Oct 4).

3Q0:08 HAM is challenging a DPI on our Nichols

Rod Smith: "Early in the season command centre would break everything down in slow-motion and then if there was any way of calling it they usually would if he was arriving first but they've softened their stance on PI calls on these challenges now, looking back at it live speed"

Every one of the talking heads has taken turns saying something similar since the August memo.  No, it's not just D.Forde (I used him as an example because he LIKES the new standard and has asked for it for years).  This time it's Rod Smith.  As I rewatch the season I can find dozens more examples of this if I have to, and I'm sure there will be another mention next week.

Note the use of the words "slow motion" and "live speed"... those words don't occur anywhere in the public memo, do they?  So where are they getting those fairly precise words, that they all parrot?  Are these talking heads giving this as much thought as I do?  Doubtful.  I maintain they got them from leaks: someone telling them or them reading memos that are not public.  Heck, it was probably Ambrosie telling them when he was in the booth a few weeks back!

Or maybe there's a third class of non-public memos: league to TSN memos.  That would actually make sense and explain the shared verbiage more than hearsay.  But they are nonetheless "leaks" because us public have still not seen any memo saying the words or even gist of "slow motion" and "live speed" -- it's just now the leaks are coming from TSN to us, not league people to TSN.

The fact Milanovitch challenged this play proves that Scott is not reading my diatribes, or thinking it through himself!  (And thus will continue to waste challenges and timeouts...)

[TecnoGenius]

If review shows a clear and obvious mistake, it gets called back. If its not clear and obvious, then of course, it is not overturned.

Pretty simple, really.

Super slow mo, stop action or infinite close ups are not part of "clear and obvious".   

You're missing the point.  I'm in full agreement with the above.  For most things slow-mo/FF are no longer taken into consideration.

But clearly there are times command is using slow-mo/FF.  If you are trying to say it always has to be "clear and obvious" and that always implies no "super slow mo", then 3-frame-long fumble instances like the Kenny elbow are not explainable.  I'm not satisfied with that.

The point of this thread is that slow-mo can be used in certain cases: like fumbles when no call is made on the field.  I needed to revise and clarify this because previously I had said slow-mo was never to be used.  I want to make sure my theory fits 99% of command review cases since the August change.  With this change, it does.

(And still does after this week's reviews, such as the Nichols non-DPI and the Maier lateral, which is an interesting case to delve into if you want!)

[TecnoGenius]

https://www.riderfans.com/forum/forum/main-forum/1178278-command-centre-standards#post1178278

Tyree on Riderfans has started a thread tonight that will probably gain traction, and is a mirror of this one.  They are trying to understand the new guidelines like we are.

Many Riderfans are getting what I'm saying in my interactions over there, and it's being mirrored by many of them in their various GDTs.  I'm glad fans are thinking and talking about this.

I would hope our thread(s) are better and more useful, but we'll see!  CFL fans can be united on this subject, no matter who their team is.