Is the NFL ever going to use logic with its replay rules?

[asdf]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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

No. It's not a big deal to me. I don't bet on the games or play fantassy football.

If the NFL sees enough of this play (I have now seen 1) that significantly alter the game, they will change it. The old "down by contact" ruling when the ball came loose prior to being down is a perfect example. They realized the number of plays were becoming significant, and the scope of the play was equally significant.

So they fixed it.

Until they satisfy you on this, just deal with it.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by hbk314

You know the point of a forum is to discuss things?

I honestly appreciate the officials perspective and feel you guys here have a much better handle on things than your typical fan you'll see online.

While I may debate certain points here, you at least have to acknowledge that my points are logical. I'm not just debating for the sake of debating.

Four sentences. One is simply false. Two I strongly don't believe. The other is generic, but if applied to this forum, is also false.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by hbk314

should be

Here we are again. Seems to me all of your posts, your supposed logic that we cannot disagree with (yet do), hinge on things that YOU think SHOULD be. You don't seem to understand that the people who have made and will continue to make decisions on regarding what SHOULD BE are far more invested in this game - in the success of the league, in the safety of the players, in the entertainment value of the product on the screen. ALL of these factors come into play regarding replay ... not just one. I'm continually flabbergasted how you seem to think your opinion about what SHOULD BE is the only possible opinion, even in the face of numerous posters telling you they believe differently, and in the face of the fact that those in charge of this league believe differently. The enormity of that arrogance stuns me.

[Altor]

ar·bi·trar·y (ärb-trr)
adj.
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle

Again, you were told their reasons for not allowing it. You just do not agree. That doesn't make the decision arbitrary.

Again, you are arguing with officials who did not make the rule and who have no say in the matter. Send an e-mail to Roger Goodell.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Four sentences. One is simply false. Two I strongly don't believe. The other is generic, but if applied to this forum, is also false.

So you guys are as stupid as the typical NFL fan on an ESPN comment board?

This play not being reviewable is clearly a problem. It honestly seems as though some of you are disagreeing just to disagree.

There's no reason to not allow a review to take place on a play such as this where the evidence to overturn is so clear. Nobody who's objective would disagree. And I've backed up my opinions with solid reasoning.

[HLin NC]

So you guys are as stupid as the typical NFL fan on an ESPN comment board?

No, we're just not so stupid to :

a) argue over issues none of us have ANY control or input over.
b) Give two $#!tZ about it.
c) Keep chasing our tail.

We are all pretty much happy discussing HS and NCAA rules, which is what we do dabble in. The occasional NFL discussion pops up, gets discussed, and shuts down pretty quickly because none (I guess) of us are involved enough with the NFL to know much about it. Sure, we officiate at the level we have reached. That may give us a leg up on the Joe ESPNMessageBoard Guy but doesn't equate us to Ed Hochuli or Mike Pereira either.

Might I suggest the following might be more to your liking:

INSIDE THE STRIPES

Football Zebras | Analysis and commentary of the NFL's officials and the calls they make

Home | Behind the Football Stripes (Be careful here, BECKY10 has a thing for #85)

[APG]

Originally Posted by hbk314

So you guys are as stupid as the typical NFL fan on an ESPN comment board?

This play not being reviewable is clearly a problem. It honestly seems as though some of you are disagreeing just to disagree.

There's no reason to not allow a review to take place on a play such as this where the evidence to overturn is so clear. Nobody who's objective would disagree. And I've backed up my opinions with solid reasoning.

Take this post as some friendly advice:

Your presentation and the tone in the overwhelming majority of your posts here quite frankly sucks. I don't know if anyone here cares either way or would be up in arms if this type of play was reviewable in the future.

You would get more people to be amicable to your posts and wanting to discuss the actual merits of your ideas if every other post you had wasn't something derogatory or somehow implying we're stupid for not agreeing with your "logic" or "reasoning" (and you may not even intend to come across this way). Half of your post/threads seem disingenuous . You ask a question wanting to know why something is...but in your later posts, it's apparent you've already made up your mind ahead of time and that your reasoning is solid, the rest is stupid...no matter how many people agree or disagree.

There's no problem with you asking NFL related questions. You'll get an answer in some form. But you would help yourself if you'd adjust the tone of your posts.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Guys, hbk314 can say whatever he wants within the rules of this Forum. Please do not criticize what he posts about, he has free will. If you dislike what he chooses to write about, ignore it and don't reply. Thank you.

Are you applying for a moderator position? If so, please PM me and I will consider your application.

Thank you for being a fan of the Official Forum.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich

Are you applying for a moderator position?

Thank you for being a fan of the Official Forum.

I really should have put a trademark on that.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

No, we're just not so stupid to :

a) argue over issues none of us have ANY control or input over.
b) Give two $#!tZ about it.
c) Keep chasing our tail.

We are all pretty much happy discussing HS and NCAA rules, which is what we do dabble in. The occasional NFL discussion pops up, gets discussed, and shuts down pretty quickly because none (I guess) of us are involved enough with the NFL to know much about it. Sure, we officiate at the level we have reached. That may give us a leg up on the Joe ESPNMessageBoard Guy but doesn't equate us to Ed Hochuli or Mike Pereira either.

Might I suggest the following might be more to your liking:

INSIDE THE STRIPES

Football Zebras | Analysis and commentary of the NFL's officials and the calls they make

Home | Behind the Football Stripes (Be careful here, BECKY10 has a thing for #85)

He's too busy posting on the Steeler Forums.

.... and now it all makes sense......

Fanboy

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by hbk314

So you guys are as stupid as the typical NFL fan on an ESPN comment board?

This play not being reviewable is clearly a problem. It honestly seems as though some of you are disagreeing just to disagree.

There's no reason to not allow a review to take place on a play such as this where the evidence to overturn is so clear. Nobody who's objective would disagree. And I've backed up my opinions with solid reasoning.

Is this one of those posts where you are trying to learn about football officiating? As I far as I can tell, no one here is an NFL official. So how is it a problem for the members of this forum?

What if every football official agreed with your "logic", then what? How is this helping any of them become better officials? How is it helping improve your understanding of football officiating? You already have an opinion, and you've stated pretty clearly it is not going to change.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by hbk314

I've given a well-thought-out argument for why this play and other currently not reviewable plays should be reviewable. To put it simply: There's either evidence to overturn or there's not.

I know you've said fouls shouldn't be reviewable (clarification - foul is the act, penalty is the enforcement), but this could contradict your point about "there's either evidence to overturn or there's not." What is DPI is thrown but replays show there was no contact at all? There is definitely evidence the official got it wrong. It's not a judgement situation. The covering official obviously saw contact that wasn't there. Why shouldn't replay be able to fix that? I agree fouls shouldn't be reviewable but it's also why I avoid using the phrase "review everything that is obviously wrong". Sometimes things are wrong even after replay (see Colts-Bengals game from a couple weeks ago).

Originally Posted by asdf

No. It's not a big deal to me. I don't bet on the games or play fantasy football.

If the NFL sees enough of this play (I have now seen 1) that significantly alter the game, they will change it. The old "down by contact" ruling when the ball came loose prior to being down is a perfect example. They realized the number of plays were becoming significant, and the scope of the play was equally significant.

So they fixed it.

Until they satisfy you on this, just deal with it.

This is probably the best explanation I've seen so far. I do remember one other incident a couple years ago on a recovery after a QB sack. IIRC they ruled recovery by B on the field and it was then recovered by A. Replay clearly showed the B player never had possession so A was incorrectly awarded a new series. It can happen but I agree it's rare.

[APG]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

This is probably the best explanation I've seen so far. I do remember one other incident a couple years ago on a recovery after a QB sack. IIRC they ruled recovery by B on the field and it was then recovered by A. Replay clearly showed the B player never had possession so A was incorrectly awarded a new series. It can happen but I agree it's rare.

Another example happened in San Diego where Ed Hochuli ruled that the QB threw a forward incomplete pass and blew it dead when replays clearly showed it was a fumble.

Next year, they make this a reviewable play.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by APG

Another example happened in San Diego where Ed Hochuli ruled that the QB threw a forward incomplete pass and blew it dead when replays clearly showed it was a fumble.

Next year, they make this a reviewable play.

That play made it possible for the Broncos to win that game, too.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by asdf

He's too busy posting on the Steeler Forums.

.... and now it all makes sense......

Fanboy

I only made this post because I was watching live when I've happened. I've displayed no bias whatsoever. I've simply said what most everyone else is saying: This play should be reviewable.

If I were coming on here to post like some idiot "fanboy" as you suggest, wouldn't I have tried to make it about the officials on the field, and not a flaw in the NFL's replay system that prevented the officials from getting it right in the end?