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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hbk314

And it's true. It's not the first time I've seen that replay rule come into play in an equally obvious situation. There's no reason for anything to be unreviewable, other than penalties, of course. There's either evidence to overturn or not.

Let me ask this, why should penalties be exempt if everything else is fair game?

[asdf]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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?

Google is a wonderful tool...

FB

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by asdf

Google is a wonderful tool...

FB

Yes. I'm a Steelers fan. That's completely irrelevant.

Everybody watching the game could see the issue with the process that needs to be fixed. As I'm sure you know, I live in Wisconsin. I have yet to talk to a single person who doesn't feel the Steelers got screwed over.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Adam

Let me ask this, why should penalties be exempt if everything else is fair game?

That would be a substantial change to the current replay system, which isn't what this thread is about. I'm just in favor of having the ability to review this play like any other non-penalty play.

I'm not calling for the significant change that reviewing penalties would be.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by hbk314

That would be a substantial change to the current replay system, which isn't what this thread is about. I'm just in favor of having the ability to review this play like any other non-penalty play.

I'm not calling for the significant change that reviewing penalties would be.

Why do you arbitrarily draw a line between the two?

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Matt

Why do you arbitrarily draw a line between the two?

This post is about fixing the current system, not blowing it up.

I wouldn't mind seeing pass interference and defenseless player flags be reviewable if they ever take the step to include penalties.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by hbk314

This post is about fixing the current system, not blowing it up.

I wouldn't mind seeing pass interference and defenseless player flags be reviewable if they ever take the step to include penalties.

The question remains.

[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.

And this post?

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Matt

The question remains.

I answered you. Again.

If the league starts to review penalties, I'd be supportive. It has nothing to do with this thread.

Wanting to review a play that's been arbitrarily excluded isn't comparable to changing the entire replay system to include reviewing fouls.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by hbk314

I answered you. Again.

If the league starts to review penalties, I'd be supportive. It has nothing to do with this thread.

Wanting to review a play that's been arbitrarily excluded isn't comparable to changing the entire replay system to include reviewing fouls.

English isn't even my first language and I can tell you that what's in your head is not the same as what you are saying. You are the one arbitrarily limiting replay in your proposal. Your criteria for reviewability are not defined with articulable purposes. The way it is now, the limits are defined in terms of specific purposes and reasons. So, want to grasp what is arbitrary and what isn't, and try answering the question I asked instead of whatever you think the question is?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hbk314

I answered you. Again.

If the league starts to review penalties, I'd be supportive. It has nothing to do with this thread.

Wanting to review a play that's been arbitrarily excluded isn't comparable to changing the entire replay system to include reviewing fouls.

I honestly think it has everything to do with this thread. Some may consider the penalty exception arbitrary; just as arbitrary as any other distinction. The fact is there are logical reasons for all the distinctions they made. Is it the best way to do it? Probably not; the entire concept is still relatively new. They're still figuring it out.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Matt

English isn't even my first language and I can tell you that what's in your head is not the same as what you are saying. You are the one arbitrarily limiting replay in your proposal. Your criteria for reviewability are not defined with articulable purposes. The way it is now, the limits are defined in terms of specific purposes and reasons. So, want to grasp what is arbitrary and what isn't, and try answering the question I asked instead of whatever you think the question is?

This play is the same as a lot of plays that are reviewable. It's a play that was clearly called incorrectly on the field and would be easily fixed by replay if it weren't excluded for no real reason.

Adding fouls to the list of reviewable plays is way beyond what I'm suggesting. I'm not sure how you think the current system is fine, but my proposal arbitrarily limits replay when my proposal is merely fixing the current system without fundamentally changing it.

As I said, I'd be okay with reviewing fouls so long as they don't pointlessly exclude certain fouls from review.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Adam

I honestly think it has everything to do with this thread. Some may consider the penalty exception arbitrary; just as arbitrary as any other distinction. The fact is there are logical reasons for all the distinctions they made. Is it the best way to do it? Probably not; the entire concept is still relatively new. They're still figuring it out.

It's not that new. It's but the first time I've seen that replay rule come into play. There's either evidence to overturn or not. There's no reason to preserve an incorrect cask on the field because it happens to be a play deemed unreviewable without reason.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by hbk314

It's not that new. It's but the first time I've seen that replay rule come into play. There's either evidence to overturn or not. There's no reason to preserve an incorrect cask on the field because it happens to be a play deemed unreviewable without reason.

When you go to the doctor and they suspect you may have some ailment, but they need further tests, but there is some drug you saw advertised that based on your understand would make your potential ailment go away. The doctor tells you while it may seem like that would help you, there is still more information that needs to be collected. He specializes in this same element and knows as much as anyone in the country. Do you question him and say that it's obvious the advertised drug will help you? Or do you acquiesce to the guy who knows a lot more about your ailment and treatments and take his word for it?

You have a group of experienced officials who are trying to explain why this is not reviewable and that could possibly change in the future. A more logical response would be, "OK. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand it. I do hope they change it in the future."

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

When you go to the doctor and they suspect you may have some ailment, but they need further tests, but there is some drug you saw advertised that based on your understand would make your potential ailment go away. The doctor tells you while it may seem like that would help you, there is still more information that needs to be collected. He specializes in this same element and knows as much as anyone in the country. Do you question him and say that it's obvious the advertised drug will help you? Or do you acquiesce to the guy who knows a lot more about your ailment and treatments and take his word for it?

You have a group of experienced officials who are trying to explain why this is not reviewable and that could possibly change in the future. A more logical response would be, "OK. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand it. I do hope they change it in the future."

The problem is that the reason that has been given makes absolutely zero sense.