Even though it is early in the game, it is a decision that can be seen by anyone, but it is declared from the video reading. However, in the important game, they make their own decisions. It is questionable whether the referees’ video readings are consistent.

It was when I went to the gym early to watch the morning training. After the players’ training, there will be rehearsals related to the event, such as cheerleaders’ choreography practice. At this time, the staff preparing for the relay are also busy.

In addition, employees who conduct video review also install additional cameras separate from relays. It is a camera that compensates for blind spots that are not easily captured on the relay screen. In some gyms, cameras are installed on the obstacle in front of the spectators.

At this time, the club staff stopped me by asking why the camera was installed there. Even after explaining that a camera was installed at the location every time, and that it had been installed at a home game here a while ago, the club staff refused to install the camera, saying that it was the first time they had heard it and that it interfered with the spectators’ view.

In the end, the club staff, who confirmed that the camera was installed in the location in the previous game video, realized their mistake.

You can make mistakes while working. So is the referee. No matter how much the players practice, they cannot record a 100% field goal success rate, and just as each team commits about 10 mistakes per game, referees cannot make perfect decisions.

However, there are judges who declare a very certain decision from the video review. Once, it was player A’s touchout, but referee B declared a video review. The referee, who clearly saw this touchout, resumed the game after reviewing the video because of referee B.

This kind of scene also appeared in the confrontation between Ulsan Hyundai Mobis and Changwon LG on the 24th. With 49.3 seconds left in the first quarter, Lee Gwan-hee hit the ball as Seo Myung-jin dribbled. The competition between Seo Myung-jin and Lee Kwan-hee took place. In the end, he took Lee Kwan-hee’s hand and went out of the end line.

At this time, a referee blew a whistle and declared a video review. Even though another referee indicated Hyundai Mobis’ right to attack. Eventually, after watching the video, Hyundai Mobis attacked and resumed the game.

In this scene, it is doubtful whether the game should have been stopped with a video review.

Let’s look back at the additional video review scene that came out that day.

With 3 minutes and 14 seconds left in the second quarter, Seo Myung-jin put up a fast-paced layup. Kim Jun-il hit the ball that came out of the backboard. The referee recognized the goal as goaltending. Kim Jun-il said it was not goaltending. Another referee asked to see the video, so after reviewing the video, he acknowledged Seo Myung-jin’s score.

With 1 minute and 13 seconds left in the third quarter, Asem Marey made an error and caught Ronjay Avarientos’ hand and foot once as he was about to hit. It is an intentional foul. After watching the video, the referees declared an unsportsmanlike foul (U-foul). When calling a U-foul, there are few cases where it is declared immediately. Even if it is clearly seen, it is far more common to declare whether or not a U-foul is a video review. The same is true in this case.

With 4 minutes and 44 seconds left in the fourth quarter, Lee Kwan-hee attempted a 3-point shot, but it missed. Lim Dong-seop took an offensive rebound and attempted a shot under the goal, but even that failed. Prim hit the ball Jeong Hee-jae was trying to catch. However, two referees declared the right to attack Hyundai Mobis. LG players jumped up and down. Then it was corrected to LG attack. However, no video reading was done this time.

Let’s take a look. The touch-out, which was clearly distinguished in the first quarter, was declared from the video reading. In the second quarter, only Kim Joon-il insisted, but the goaltending was clear, and even after the goal was acknowledged, I watched the video. Let’s exclude the U-foul watching the video out of habit. 안전놀이터

In the 4th quarter, they corrected their misjudgment without watching the video saying LG players were jumping. Of course, it was possible because other referees saw it.

It is questionable whether the video review process from a game is consistent. Moreover, considering the importance of the match, video reading should be added in the 4th quarter, not in the 1st and 2nd quarters, but it was not.

On December 27 last year, the confrontation between Goyang Carrot and Anyang KGC Ginseng Corporation is like that. There was a fuss over whether or not he stepped on the line at the end of the game. This single decision could have changed the game. Even so, the referee said he saw it clearly and did not even watch the video. Even though there are additional cameras installed for this situation. Even if he had seen it clearly, Carrot would not have reacted so strongly if he had done one more video review and made a final decision.

The most important thing for referees is consistency. Similar movements in a game must be judged with the same judging criteria.

However, was the video review conducted consistently in the Ulsan game on the 24th? At the beginning of the game, they relied on video reading rather than their own judgment, and at the end of the game, they corrected their wrong judgments themselves.

In addition, Moon Kyung-eun, head of KBL’s game headquarters, said, “At the beginning of the season, referees with lower years of experience should be assigned to games to gain experience so that referees can be developed.” Most referees or game head coaches do that.

Now that we are past the middle of the season, it is time to react more sensitively to one judgment. It is also necessary to think about excluding referees from assignment who often interrupt the flow of the game by declaring a video review, and also affect consistent judgment.