This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

Yeah the problem becomes how literal the refs feel they have by Carlos Huerta

to be when reviewing a non-PI call. The college basketball replay rule shows some of the downside of this. Many times in these late game situations you'll see some contact on a loose ball or rebound attempt where the refs will decide to just award the ball to the team that was fouled instead of calling the foul. Then they go to the replay and see that the ball actually last touched the finger tip of the team they awarded the ball to. Of course the replay also shows the foul they let slide but there's nothing they can do about that. Sometimes these subjective plays require a human who is skilled at determining what the fair outcome should be, a rule like this risks losing that.