reviewable plays
 

does anyone else agree that pass interference plays should be reviewable. i meen having most penaltys non reviewable is fine we dont want to slow the game down too much and usually a blown holding call only costs you five or ten yards and for the most part your defense has a chance to still shut the other team down but a pass interference call can cost you up to 70 yards and possibly give the other team first and goal on the one essentially giving them a touchdown or not giving you first and goal essentially robbing you of one (we found out the hard way) . what im saying is by having replays at all there admitting that referes can and will make mistakes and they dont want the refs to decide the game but for some reason they still have penaltys that can cost a team 60 or 70 yards (depending on the arm strength of the quarterback ) that are non reviewable.

There should be a crew of zebras in front of monitors in a booth somewhere so that they can add their viewpoint to any game. There are so many things that the field crew can't see.

If there is already a booth crew they need to stay awake during the game.

[QUOTE=RedskinRat]There should be a crew of zebras in front of monitors in a booth somewhere so that they can add their viewpoint to any game. There are so many things that the field crew can't see.

If there is already a booth crew they need to stay awake during the game.[/QUOTE]

I said almost the same thing on another thread. At the very least, there should be officials that are able to view it on a monitor and chime in on questionable calls.

with this new contact rule, interference is like holding. happens every play. imagine if holding was challengeable.

reviewable i think is good as long as its by the officials and on truly questionable calls.

[QUOTE=RedskinRat]There should be a crew of zebras in front of monitors in a booth somewhere so that they can add their viewpoint to any game. There are so many things that the field crew can't see.

If there is already a booth crew they need to stay awake during the game.[/QUOTE]


I always wondered why they didn't do that. Also, why have the head ref stick his head under the hood on the sideline? Why not have someone up in the booth do the whole review, instead of this odd process they do now? Isn't that what they do in the NHL? As for expanding replay, I don't know. The game is full of potential penalties. It could grind to a halt.

Still, I'd love to get those two from Monday back!

Interference calls should be reviewable. That's not to say that they will be overturned.

[QUOTE=illdefined]with this new contact rule, interference is like holding. happens every play. imagine if holding was challengeable.

reviewable i think is good as long as its by the officials and on truly questionable calls.[/QUOTE]

I don't really agree about interference on every play, although it is fairly frequent. No matter how often there IS interference, it SHOULD BE CALLED. Period. It bears no relation to holding, which is very hard to detect in the crowded area where it occurs. The interference is out in the open, and there is no excuse for not seeing it or not calling it. So what if there are frequent penalties stopping the game. That would get fixed REAL quick by the coaches - they don't like getting penalized.

The defensive backs need to learn to cover their guys without manhandling them - they used to do a damn good job of years ago, when you couldn't TOUCH the receiver without seeing a flag. This crap of giving defenders leeway to clobber the receiver if they turn to look at the ball, and ignoring pushoffs going down the field screws up the game. They should either change the rules so that anything goes for the defender AND receiver, or enforce the rules they have!!

Giving the officials all this leeway and no recourse for replay, invites , not just errors in judgement, but outright FAVORITISM that changes the outcome of games. I'm not convinced there was not bias by the officials in our game.

Either everything should be reviewable (and the loopholes the refs have, be tightened up), or nothing should be reviewable. I know there are judgment calls, but sometimes a judgment call is just not the right call once you see it on film. Maybe for such challenges, they can have the ref who threw the flag also watch the film and see if he wants to change his mind about it.

in the nba the refs will favor the better team, but the penalties there are for 2% or so of the total score or a change of possession (which only happens about 100 times a game), in football favoritism is just that much worse because (in this game), it could have changed each side's score by over 30%!! thats just two mistakes... bit harder to overcome than 4-10% score difference of bad calls (many more than 2 mistakes) in a crappily officiated nba game.

It's pretty bad though to think that the Refs on the field have to have other refs watching the monitors to help them do their jobs they should already be doing on the field. I know the refs cannot call every play exactly right..but NFL refs should be able to get pass interference calls (like the ones Monday Night) right.

The only changes I would like to see are, the down by contact rule, which is absolute nonesense, and if a challenge is inconclusive you should not be charged a time out, inconclusive mean's that the challenger could very well be right, but because of camera angle you can't tell, I believe that should be a wash, I then want younger referee's on the field, and they also have to be in top shape, they should have to pass a physical test, as well as an eye test, I don't know why we have guy's who can't get out of their own way, and probably can't pass an eye exam for a drivier's license, on the field decieding the outcome of games? It's like the NFL has gone to WWF for ref's.

[QUOTE=illdefined]with this new contact rule, interference is like holding. happens every play. imagine if holding was challengeable.

reviewable i think is good as long as its by the officials and on truly questionable calls.[/QUOTE]

Ok...
This is something that pisses me off because the damn game announcers do the same damn thing. The new contact rule (which isn't actually new at all...nor does it seem to have been enforced any more than normal) has very little to do with Pass Interference. Pass interference as we all know (especially Mr. Harris and Mr. Gardner) is interfering with the the rights of another player to attempt to catch a thrown ball. In essense whenever a ball is thrown one player may not physically prevent another eligible receiver from trying to catch to ball. The new/not exactly new contact rule pertains to preventing an eligible receiver from even getting open AFTER they have exited the 5 yard safety zone but PRIOR to a thrown ball. Inside that 5 yard zone the secondary can basically do perform any legal act of contact(IE: not holding) at any time.

Now contact DOES happen on just about any play but for the most part it is of the incidental and non-impeding type. The new enforcement is seeking to eliminate the absolute mauling(impeding with normally legal types of contact...again: not holding) of receivers after the 5 yard zone.

My whole point is that Pass Interference and Illegal Contact are not the same thing and should be treated differently. One can reasonably assume a player, who having been interfered with thus causing him to drop the ball, would have caught the ball and that seems like it should be reviewable since it's not really that subjective. I mean either they guy impeded him from catching the ball or he didn't. Illegal contact on the other hand doesn't allow you to assume a player would have caught a pass since the ball was never thrown his direction anyways.

I say PI should be the MOST reviewed play in all of football and it is a sham that it isn't even reviewable at all.

[QUOTE=offiss]The only changes I would like to see are, the down by contact rule, which is absolute nonesense, and if a challenge is inconclusive you should not be charged a time out, inconclusive mean's that the challenger could very well be right, but because of camera angle you can't tell, I believe that should be a wash, I then want younger referee's on the field, and they also have to be in top shape, they should have to pass a physical test, as well as an eye test, I don't know why we have guy's who can't get out of their own way, and probably can't pass an eye exam for a drivier's license, on the field decieding the outcome of games? It's like the NFL has gone to WWF for ref's.[/QUOTE]

The down by contact rule is a joke but I can't think of a good way to change it. I guess the reason the rule works the way it does is so a player doesn't pick up a fumbled ball and score while everyone else sits with their thumbs up their butts since they heard the whistle. Problem is, if they tell refs to curtail the quick whistles then we'll start seeing guys getting piled on after their down and there doesn't seem to be a good way to augment to rules to make this more defense friendly. I guess maybe they should get rid of the crappy refs like my man says.

Good idea on the inconclusive replays but then the refs are left to decide when the replay is inconclusive and when the challenge was just plain wrong. Now we expect these dunces to get this right also? Man this starts the ball tumbling down the mountain.

No review of pass interference or expansion of reviewable plays. The games already take 3 hours, add in all those reviews and challenges and it'll climb to 4 hours.

The refs are there to enforce the rules, one or two missed calls a game is acceptable. Bad calls are part of the game, good teams overcome them and bad teams use them as excuses.

Inconclusive means that there is no visual evidence to support a challenge, seems pretty straightforward to me. You disagree with what the ref says happened on a play, you think you see something that they missed, well let the videotape prove it. But if you're wrong there has to be some penalty, because there definitely is a reward.

[QUOTE=memphisskin]No review of pass interference or expansion of reviewable plays. The games already take 3 hours, add in all those reviews and challenges and it'll climb to 4 hours.[/QUOTE]
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.