[QUOTE=Hogskin]That is exactly the kind of argument the people that were against the original replay plan made. And it never happened. If it is implemented correctly, it won't add an hour to the games. It will just GREATLY improve the accuracy of calls, and decreade the number of times each year that a win is stolen from a team by incompetent refs. None of this would be necessary if the NFL would make the refs FULL TIME, and DEDICATED to this job. This is a side job for most, who have another primary job. If they spent their weeks working out with teams, they would be MUCH more competent. Every other major sport has dedicated refs.[/QUOTE]

This is a good point. Does anyone know why the NFL lets their refs make this side job? I mean I know they only have one game a week unlike NBA and MLB but still doesn't that make it MORE important that the refs are of good quality since each game means so much?

The coaches are only allowed two challenges, plus a third if their first two are successful. I can't possibly see how allowing more plays to be reviewable would slow the game down at all. We're not talking about increasing the actual number of challenges are we?

Plus, there ARE review officials upstairs all the time. They're the ones who step in after the two minute warning. I like that rule. If the guys upstairs were changing calls throughout the whole game, it definitely WOULD slow things down a lot. Plus, since they're the only ones allowed to call for a review in the last two minutes, it obviously stops either team from gaining 'extra' time-outs.

I don't see anything wrong with allowing the coaches to challenge any type of call by the refs; be it a penalty, down by contact, fumble, premature whistle, ball placement, or whatever. It would be stupid to ask for a review when no penalty was called, but if a player is called for pass interference and the replay clearly shows that the opposing player initiated the contact, it only seems fair that the call should not only be reviewable, but the proper penalty should be implemented in it's place.

It does seem petty to challenge a 'holding' call, and I don't think any coaches really would. But, if it comes at a key moment, where the game outcome is on the line, and the guys in the booth can see it was a bogus call, why not make it challengeable?

The coaches have precious few challenges, so they're not going to throw them away unnecessarily. Also, has anyone noticed that there are still a lot of coaches who throw out the red flag on unreviewable calls? This, in effect, still gives them a brief time-out, and they aren't charged for it. By making more plays reviewable, it would erase these 'free' clock-stoppers.

I was going to say what Bunglehead said. It wouldn't slow the game down any more than it does now and coaches wouldn't waste one of their 2 (or 3) challenges to challenge a silly 5 yard penelty. Only fumbles, PI, etc.

I definately believe that pass-interference calls should be challengeable. They result is 50 yard gains/losses; they are game changers.

[QUOTE=Bunglehead]The coaches are only allowed two challenges, plus a third if their first two are successful. I can't possibly see how allowing more plays to be reviewable would slow the game down at all. We're not talking about increasing the actual number of challenges are we?

Plus, there ARE review officials upstairs all the time. They're the ones who step in after the two minute warning. I like that rule. If the guys upstairs were changing calls throughout the whole game, it definitely WOULD slow things down a lot. Plus, since they're the only ones allowed to call for a review in the last two minutes, it obviously stops either team from gaining 'extra' time-outs.

I don't see anything wrong with allowing the coaches to challenge any type of call by the refs; be it a penalty, down by contact, fumble, premature whistle, ball placement, or whatever. It would be stupid to ask for a review when no penalty was called, but if a player is called for pass interference and the replay clearly shows that the opposing player initiated the contact, it only seems fair that the call should not only be reviewable, but the proper penalty should be implemented in it's place.

It does seem petty to challenge a 'holding' call, and I don't think any coaches really would. But, if it comes at a key moment, where the game outcome is on the line, and the guys in the booth can see it was a bogus call, why not make it challengeable?

The coaches have precious few challenges, so they're not going to throw them away unnecessarily. Also, has anyone noticed that there are still a lot of coaches who throw out the red flag on unreviewable calls? This, in effect, still gives them a brief time-out, and they aren't charged for it. By making more plays reviewable, it would erase these 'free' clock-stoppers.[/QUOTE]


If you make more plays reviewable then why even have refs on the field? The reason some plays are reviewable and some aren't is because it's an imperfect game. The rules are subjective and open to interpretation, to review every potential game changing call means that you no longer need refs on the field to call the action. The refs have to make decisions and some of those decisions have to be binding, everything cannot be open for interpretation because if everything is then chaos results.

There are missed calls, its part of the game. It adds to the drama, but looking back on the game we still had a chance to win that game if we don't blow two timeouts early in the 2nd half. So the poor officiating, and it was definitely poor, didn't cost us the game. Poor clock management, wasted timeouts and dropped passes cost us the game. It's easy to use the officials as scapegoats, but it's part of the game and reviewing every play doesn't seem to make the game better to me.

I remember a playoff game between the 49ers and somebody. Jerry Rice caught a pass, was hit and fumbled but the refs blew the whistle and ruled him down by contact. Some things you just have to live with, blown calls being one of them.

The funny thing is if those two Pass Interference calls went in our favor instead of against us we'd never even be discussing expanding or changing replay.

In defense of the refs, I really think they're doing their best on every play. I have a good friend who's been a high-school referee for many years and he tells me what goes on in those official's huddles. Many times flags are picked up because one or more officials over-rule it on the field. He also reprimands over-zealous officials who throw flags for technically correct penalties that occur in an area that doesn't affect the outcome of the play.

For most of us, the NFL officials operate like some sort of secret society. We don't know what type of training they receive, how they're chosen, where they come from, or even what their names are. We learn to recognize the TRUE referees, the guys wearing the white hats, who announce all the penalties, but the other officials are just nameless, faceless, entities in zebra suits.

I truly believe that it takes a special individual to become a referee, and they don't just throw a bunch of guys out there who appear to know a couple of rules. Maybe they SHOULD make the officials full time, it's not as though the NFL doesn't have enough money to pay them! But, they do have only one game a week and a very extended off-season...they might want other jobs just because they get bored.

The officials in any sport are essential, but you can't deny that modern technology has put them in a very tough spot. In the last twenty years or so, the number of cameras on the field has certainly quadrupled, and you can't find a stadium or arena today that doesn't have multiple big screen displays for all the fans to see each and every replay. It seems like the officiating has gotten worse, but most likely it's gotten better, only the spectators get to see everything from multiple angles and in slow-motion replay.

Everyone knows that the officials make incorrect calls, even when trying their best to be fair to both teams. I don't think you can find an official who won't admit that himself. With that said, I don't think that expanding the range of challengeable calls will undermind the authority of the officials on the field. It actually is to their benefit, because it gives them the ability to make the RIGHT call in the end, and that's exactly what they were trying to do in the first place.

Those penlties can change a game way too much ( ala Monday ), to not be reviewable. I think any PI penalty that is over 20 yards should be reviewable as one of the coaches challenges.

[quote]This is a good point. Does anyone know why the NFL lets their refs make this side job? I mean I know they only have one game a week unlike NBA and MLB but still doesn't that make it MORE important that the refs are of good quality since each game means so much?[/quote]

6 refs per game right? x 16 games (first two weeks, then 14 etc) = 96 refs + 10 subs (minimum) that the league would have to pay full time, year round, for four months of work... lotta money for 48 hours of on field work.

[quote]If you make more plays reviewable then why even have refs on the field? The reason some plays are reviewable and some aren't is because it's an imperfect game. The rules are subjective and open to interpretation, to review every potential game changing call means that you no longer need refs on the field to call the action. The refs have to make decisions and some of those decisions have to be binding, everything cannot be open for interpretation because if everything is then chaos results.

There are missed calls, its part of the game. It adds to the drama, but looking back on the game we still had a chance to win that game if we don't blow two timeouts early in the 2nd half. So the poor officiating, and it was definitely poor, didn't cost us the game. Poor clock management, wasted timeouts and dropped passes cost us the game. It's easy to use the officials as scapegoats, but it's part of the game and reviewing every play doesn't seem to make the game better to me.[/quote]

maybe it adds to the drama to you, to me its total bull. and yes, those calls did lose us the game. if we did better on time management etc we could have won, but if one of those plays went the other way, we also would have won... changing the scoring by 60% is a lot to overcome, usually too much.

the refs aren't their to randomize the results of who wins, they're there to make CORRECT calls. I get no joy out of watch the "human element" completely destroy a game. the refs are their to get it right and keep the game flowing, usually they do it pretty well... the problem is when they don't, the only recourse is some toilet paper from the league a week too late to matter. I'd say getting the plays right more often means that the officiating would be far LESS chaotic... making something binding just for the hell of it is dumb. Changing that rule wouldn't make any more chaos than is already present in the current red flag challenge rules.

If a whistle blow's that's fine, but to many times the whistle doesn't blow and they still say down by contact, for instance, if a player legitamitly fumbles a ball, he is not down, and the opposing player recover's immediatly, why can't that be challenged? The whistle hasen't blown, you don't here the ref's saying they incorrectly blew the play dead, they say down by contact, in other word's they deciede whether or not the play will stand, that gives these guy's to much power to deciede games, how many times have the whistles blown after the ball comes out and there is a mad scramble at the bottom of the pile to see who get's possession, the whistle has blown, and the ref doesn't know who has the ball, why doesn't it go back to the offense being they had the ball last? How is it any different, if the whistle has sounded, then don't allow the ball to be advanced, but don't take away a turnover.

I have expierence as a football ref, [pre HS] and it's not a problem whatsoever to allow a play, to play out, everyone who has played football know's, regardless of the whistle, if you see the ball on the ground there will be a scramble, unless it's blatantly obvious, almost all these call's are immediate recoveries, it's bang, bang, it should be reviewable, down by contact is a cute way of saying we are controlling the game, those pass interference call's the other night are inexcusable, those ref's should be fired on the spot, both call's were easy call's, if you have any ability as a ref, as I said earlier, watching those 2 call's was like watching a WWF tag team wrestling match, where the ref turn's his back on the bad guy's, to chastise the good guy, while the bad guy's go to town on the other opponent, it really tick's me off, because I think it's more than poor judgement, I think it's dishonest, and I think the rules have been set up to allow it, down by contact circumvents instant replay, and allow's the ref's to controll the game.

I don't know about you but that damn fumble ruled a dead ball was a bunch of bull. How many times have we seen one player at the bottom of the pile appear to have possession but when the smoke clears he doesn't have the ball? This play was the first of what was instored for the Redskins. I am convinced that there are many people in the NFL including officials who do not want to see Gibbs and the
Redskins succeed. They look at the team's owner and it's worth and they say, we'll fix their asses and I can tell you this we've just begun. I love haters of the Redskins, don't you?

"never blame on malice that which can be attributed to stupidity" ;)

PI is such a huge call at times and can really swing a game. We're talking about 40 or 50 yard penalties at times. To not be able to review these crucial plays that can have such a huge effect on the outcome of the game is just silly.

Everyone says that these PI penalties should be reviewable, and I don't disagree, but remember that the Gardner play was a non-call. I think that would create a gray area of challenging a play when no penalty has been called.
I still say a better option is to have an official, or officials, either in the booth or next to the field that are viewing the game on a monitor, and can give their input when there is a questionable call or non-call....basically to give their input when the officials confer before officially calling the penalty. They would have the advantage of the TV angles that the on field refs don't have. To cut down on it taking too long, maybe only make it for penalties of over 20 yards or something....

[QUOTE=SkinsRock]Everyone says that these PI penalties should be reviewable, and I don't disagree, but remember that the Gardner play was a non-call. I think that would create a gray area of challenging a play when no penalty has been called.
I still say a better option is to have an official, or officials, either in the booth or next to the field that are viewing the game on a monitor, and can give their input when there is a questionable call or non-call....basically to give their input when the officials confer before officially calling the penalty. They would have the advantage of the TV angles that the on field refs don't have. To cut down on it taking too long, maybe only make it for penalties of over 20 yards or something....[/QUOTE]

This is the best idea I have heard. Have the Referee wear an ear piece and the booth official can make determinations about "subjective" calls too. It could be implemented so it was almost like the booth official can essentially throw a virtual flag. There would be less need for challenges and basically no delay since they'd only have until the ball is snapped to call a penalty just like the on fiel officials can.

Perfect...solves problems with PI and judgment calls about whether a guy was in or out of the 5 yard chuck zone which isn't subjective at all it is just difficult to determine with the human eye sometimes.

5 stars for SkinsRock

Simple answer is the rules and the officials themselves. To my mind the crew has to be tested regularly, and guys doing day jobs mostly (or retired) are maybe not getting enough time in game type situations to hone their reactions and skills. In the UK Premier football officials are all pro, but to honest it hasn't stopped bad decisions. What has increased the number of bad decisions is the rule changes. PLayers can't remove shirts, can't leave the field of play to celebrate, can't geture to opposing fans etc. All these things are over and above rules affecting play and an added responsibility of officials. They have no impact on the game so shouldn't be in the rule book.

In the NFL I think the issues about removing your helmet, gesturing to provoke opponents/fans, TD celebrations et al have all caused the fun level to be diminished, but for what? The league seems soworried about image and political correctness, they seem to be slowly forgetting what the game is about. Safety and fairness rules are fine (such as offsides, false start, holding or helmet to helmet contact), but the obsession with protecting QB's like the can throw ball away once outside the pocket etc. just over complicate the officials responsibilities. They really need to look at whether the rule book can be trimmed to aid officials.

Incidentally, one more thing about those 2 PI calls. There are 2 if not 3 officials in position to call PI or not on those plays. The one line judge facing the players faces, and the back judge should both have seen the first contacts made on each play and called it. the other line judge should have also had a view. Yet all 6 officials decided the call or non-call were both fine? I'm not sure I go with the conspiracy theories, but in both cases those officials showed gross incompetence, not to mention a level of incompetence on the other bum calls. As such they shouldn't officiate another NFL game this season (at least not as a team). I'd also query how they were rated prior to the game, considering they were given the job on a MNF game played out in front of millions worldwide.

I can't see how replay challenges on bad or missed penalties would ever work, but the teams should be permitted to critisize said offials and where justified request their suspension etc.