Well that is subjective right? It does not mean you have accepted the reasons, which in fact are true.

Peace

Doesn't make them good reasons.

Are you honestly telling me you don't think that play should be reviewable?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Some will criticize, some will ignore. Both are perfectly acceptable and viable options.

I hope you reread what you stated and see that you just did what you are arguing against.

a swing and a miss....

APG gave you the explanation of why this type of play is not reviewable. he gave you the logic behind the reason. (which is spot on) Then he gave an out where it may some day become reviewable.

You in turn stomped your feet, held your breath and said it should be reviewed.

Not logical

I think what his point was, was to criticize the opinion if you feel like it, but not the topic selection. If you don't like the topic selection, ignore the thread -- its pretty simple. The mods will (hopefully) take care of topics outside the realms of the forum.

This thread has more posts on off topic issues than it does on what the OP said. If you truly want to eliminate what YOU think are irrelevant or uninformative topics, DON'T RESPOND. No one is going to stay on here long if they start threads no one else responds to, even if the mods let the threads stay up. For the life of me, I can't understand why people don't see that.

Apparently you didn't read the whole thread.

I've stated that just because a lot of loose ball plays aren't going to have evidence to change the call, such as a pile of players jumping on a fumble, for example, doesn't mean you should automatically make every such play not reviewable.

Each play should be reviewable and evaluated based on the available information. In the case of this play from today, replay clearly would have been able to fix it, if it were reviewable. Just because the bulk of loose ball recoveries probably aren't going to be successfully challenged doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to choose to risk a challenge and timeout for a review of a play like the one today.

So everyone seems to have had his say on whether everyone else should be able to have his say.

Every play? So, should they be able to review a DPI play if it's clear there was no contact whatsoever? Should they be able to review a false start, or an illegal formation?

To streamline the process, some types of plays have to be reveiwable. Most review systems have started by saying only specific types of plays are reviewable while the rest are not. As situations happen, the reviewable plays naturally get expanded.

Your initial premise, that there's no logic behind the current system, is flawed. You may not agree, or like, or buy, the logic: but there is logic to the system.

I wasn't talking about penalties. It's clearly a flaw in the rules that didn't allow today's play to be reviewed, and the reasons people have stated in this thread don't really justify it not being reviewable.

My point was simply that there are logical reasons for limiting the number of plays that are reviewable. Your disagreement doesn't negate that point.

No one here works for the NFL, so your complaints will never be satisfied here. Try Tweeting Blandino.

Tomlin should have challenged that Clark was down by contact, that is reviewable.

Why aren't balls and strikes reviewable?

No. That wouldn't have been reviewable since the officials ruled he didn't have possession.

Such as?

It doesn't make sense to arbitrarily limit the usage of replay. It defeats the purpose of having it if it can't be used to right a wrong.

It's not delimited arbitrarily.

Do you see being unable to fix this play by rule as a problem with the replay rules?