Down by contact.

According to John Clayton's latest article (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2016392&num=2) the NFL owners plan on changing down by contact. Personally I hope it's challengable because we've lost some key fumbles because of this rule. I think if you can change the play to be correct, do it!

2. Instant replay: Now that replay is locked in for five years – this is officially year two of the five-year commitment – it's time to improve the system. The Competition Committee wants to eliminate the buzzer system between the head coaches and the referee. Too many times, the buzzer goes off and the ref has to stop the game and see if the coach has "buzzed" him. So, the committee wants to junk the sideline buzzer and stick with the red flags thrown by coaches. Makes sense. The buzzer is more of a distraction than an asset. That should pass simply. The trickier talk is whether to expand the types of reviewable plays. Coaches have been frustrated by the inadvertent whistles by officials for years. What the committee wants owners to consider is expanding replay to include "down by contact" plays. As the rule stands now, any time an official rules a player down by contact the play is dead, and can't be reviewed, even if it was an obvious fumble. By reviewing the down-by-contact plays, referees can make sure the right team ends up with the ball in case of fumbles. Advancement of the ball after a down-by-contact play won't be allowed, but an adjustment such as this would be an upgrade.

now we need pass interference as challengeable and we'll be set... quite possibly could have gone 8-8 if it was challengeable last year.

I have been saying it since they started it down by contact rule is a sham, and should be done away with.

The down by contact rule makes total sense. The problem is that the refs are too moronic and stuck in their ways to enforce the rule appropriately. There are way too many of them blowing whistles when they should let the play come to an obvious end before blowing the whistle. If they could be trusted not to negate at least one fumble a game this way then the NFL wouldn't need to enact some rule that might blow up in their faces.

Why shouldn't you be able to challenge any play you want? Considering you have 2 (or 3 if you get the first two correct) challenges it won't slow the game down any more. Plus, some of the most crucial plays in the game are down by contact plays and PI calls.

I wish we could have challenged the play calling when S......r was here.

Why shouldn't you be able to challenge any play you want? Considering you have 2 (or 3 if you get the first two correct) challenges it won't slow the game down any more. Plus, some of the most crucial plays in the game are down by contact plays and PI calls.
I agree... I'll never understand why exactly they are willing to admit that the refs make mistakes but only some of those are fixable. People like to say that there are judgement calls, like PI for example. True, at full speed PI is pretty subjective. But the rules on PI are pretty straight forward and at review speed it is usually very easy to determine whether a guy was intereferred with or not. It is only subjective at full speed.

Everything should be challengeable. The game would be much more of a chess game. You only get two so you have to use them wisely. I don't about you guys but I thought Gibbs and company were horrible when it came to challenging calls last year.

I wish we could have challenged the play calling when S......r was here.

Because the playcalling last year made Spurriers pale in comparison!

The down by contact rule makes total sense. The problem is that the refs are too moronic and stuck in their ways to enforce the rule appropriately. There are way too many of them blowing whistles when they should let the play come to an obvious end before blowing the whistle. If they could be trusted not to negate at least one fumble a game this way then the NFL wouldn't need to enact some rule that might blow up in their faces.


What you have to understand about the DBC rule FRPLG is that it's not caused by an early whistle it's a judgement call by the referee on when he want's the play stopped. In other word's he's given the ability to essentially control the outcome of a game by whom he award's the ball to anytime something happen's that he may not like he can stop the play and say down by contact. As well he can blow the whistle after a turnover and and stop the play and because he stopped the play can overturn the turnover, if they take away the ability to do that the only way to overturn a big play is if he actually blow's the whistle to soon which is a common misconception, because when you watch the replay's with full audio most of the time the ref's are pretty good at making sure the play is fully over before blowing the whistle, and even if they blow the whistle prematuraly if it's deemed that the ball came out before the whistle the recovery should stand, advancement of the ball should be disallowed but taking away turnovers can break a team and change the outcome of a game in a hurry, let them play let instant replay sort it out if need be.

I also wouldn't punish a team by taking away a time out when a particular replay is inconclusive, it's not the challenging team's fault if the camera angle is not sufficient, they could very well be right it's just not visible by replay. I would give each team 2 challenges and so long as you are right you can continue to challenge as many play's as you want, even during the final 2 minutes, I am very leary of that rule and why at the most crucial part of the game the NFL say's sorry no challenges we will take it from here? So long as you have a time out you should be able to challenge.