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

[Adam]

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.

All of this applies to penalties, too.

Originally Posted by hbk314

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

It makes sense to most of us everyone else.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Adam

All of this applies to penalties, too.



It makes sense to most of us everyone else.

The reason I've read is that the bulk of loose ball plays end up being piles and there's nothing that a review will change. That's no reason to exclude EVERY loose ball play.

Unless there's a reason I'm missing, that makes sense to noone.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Adam

All of this applies to penalties, too.

Stop bringing up fouls. I've already said is be okay with including fouls. But that would be a significant change to the replay rules, unlike my suggestion, and really is irrelevant to this thread.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hbk314

The reason I've read is that the bulk of loose ball plays end up being piles and there's nothing that a review will change. That's no reason to exclude EVERY loose ball play.

Unless there's a reason I'm missing, that makes sense to noone.

Seriously, just because it doesn't make sense to you does not mean it doesn't make sense to anyone else. Everyone else accepts the reasoning.

Originally Posted by hbk314

Stop bringing up fouls. I've already said is be okay with including fouls. But that would be a significant change to the replay rules, unlike my suggestion, and really is irrelevant to this thread.

Actually, I think it's quite relevant. You haven't explained why you're ok with one exclusion but not the other: but I'm not going to try to convince you of its relevance any more.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Adam

Seriously, just because it doesn't make sense to you does not mean it doesn't make sense to anyone else. Everyone else accepts the reasoning.



Actually, I think it's quite relevant. You haven't explained why you're ok with one exclusion but not the other: but I'm not going to try to convince you of its relevance any more.

Please try reading my posts before replying with nonsense.

[hbk314]

Here's a hypothetical for this play: Say Clark's lateral to Gay had been completed and Gay ran it back for a touchdown. As we know, scoring plays are automatically reviewed by the booth. Would they have gone back and ruled Clark down by contact on a review?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Here's a hypothetical for this play: Say Clark's lateral to Gay had been completed and Gay ran it back for a touchdown. As we know, scoring plays are automatically reviewed by the booth. Would they have gone back and ruled Clark down by contact on a review?

What is there to be learned from this hypothetical?

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

What is there to be learned from this hypothetical?

Can they review that part of the play in the context of reviewing a scoring play, but not when a coach wants to challenge?

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Can they review that part of the play in the context of reviewing a scoring play, but not when a coach wants to challenge?

It depends on whether they ruled the first action as possession in your hypothetical. If they did then they could have determined his knee was down before the ball was pitched. If they didn't rule on the field he had possession (like in the actual play), then that part of it would not be reviewable for the same reasons the actual play was not reviewable.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by APG

The reason these type of plays aren't reviewable is the fact that an overwhelming percentage of those reviews would result in the play standing since it's almost always impossible to get a camera to see who clearly possesses a loose ball...especially when most of these situations involve multiple arms, legs, bodies...all reaching for the ball in a scrum. In the NFL's eyes, it's not worth the extra time to review these plays when the chances of an overturn are pretty low.

If this is the correct reason behind this play, or any other play, not being reviewable, it really makes one question the intelligence of the people making the rules.

Every single person I've discussed this with has either said something to the effect of "that's stupid," or said it doesn't make sense. And they're right.

A coach isn't going to throw a challenge flag on a loose ball in the middle of a pile. A coach is going to want to challenge the play as it happened here, and that's not a waste of time.

I guess we'll see if the competition committee has any sense this offseason.

And it's interesting that nobody here's really come up with any kind of rebuttal to my points, other than to try to dismiss me as a Steelers fanboy for making a completely objective argument about NFL replay rules, or others trying to change the subject.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

It depends on whether they ruled the first action as possession in your hypothetical. If they did then they could have determined his knee was down before the ball was pitched. If they didn't rule on the field he had possession (like in the actual play), then that part of it would not be reviewable for the same reasons the actual play was not reviewable.

Thanks for actually participating in the discussion.

[bwburke94]

I'm sick of all these strawman arguments.

Fouls being reviewable or not reviewable has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS DISCUSSION!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hbk314

If this is the correct reason behind this play, or any other play, not being reviewable, it really makes one question the intelligence of the people making the rules.

Every single person I've discussed this with has either said something to the effect of "that's stupid," or said it doesn't make sense. And they're right.

A coach isn't going to throw a challenge flag on a loose ball in the middle of a pile. A coach is going to want to challenge the play as it happened here, and that's not a waste of time.

I guess we'll see if the competition committee has any sense this offseason.

And it's interesting that nobody here's really come up with any kind of rebuttal to my points, other than to try to dismiss me as a Steelers fanboy for making a completely objective argument about NFL replay rules, or others trying to change the subject.

Don't mistake your inability (or unwillingness) to understand the logic for an absence of such logic.

That doesn't mean I don't think they should change it. I actually think they may look at it, but I haven't thought through the ramifications of making that change. I'm sure "they" will, though.

I just think it's comical that you think if they fail to follow your logic, they aren't showing any sense.

There are lots of rules in various sports that don't make sense to me, but I'm not so arrogant to assume it means those who make those rules are idiots.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Adam

Don't mistake your inability (or unwillingness) to understand the logic for an absence of such logic.

That doesn't mean I don't think they should change it. I actually think they may look at it, but I haven't thought through the ramifications of making that change. I'm sure "they" will, though.

I just think it's comical that you think if they fail to follow your logic, they aren't showing any sense.

There are lots of rules in various sports that don't make sense to me, but I'm not so arrogant to assume it means those who make those rules are idiots.

There wouldn't be any ramifications other than not allowing another team to be screwed over by a stupid rule.

I've refuted the reason given. All I've gotten back is people making it personal or changing the subject.