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

[hbk314]

Packers-Steelers.

Packers field goal blocked. Ryan Clark picks up the ball and laterals it backwards to a teammate who drops it and then bats it out of bounds.

Officials determine Pittsburgh never possessed it and call it first down Green Bay. Pittsburgh attempts to challenge that they had possessed the ball, but loose ball possession isn't reviewable.

There's either evidence or there's not. There's no reason that or really any other non-penalty play should be unreviewable. Why have replay if you can't use it to fix an obvious error?

[APG]

Let's clear something up:

Recovery of a loose ball is reviewable in certain situations. Recovery of a loose ball is reviewable when it involves a boundary or it's in the end zone. Loose ball plays that do not involve either of those are not reviewable.

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.

Now perhaps in competition committee will take a look at the rule after this play and change their minds. Wouldn't be surprising. Sometimes it takes a weird play or situation occurring for the league to add more reviewable plays.

[hbk314]

Blocked Field Goal Leads to Controversial Penalty in Steelers-Packers Game | Bleacher Report

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by APG

Let's clear something up:

Recovery of a loose ball is reviewable in certain situations. Recovery of a loose ball is reviewable when it involves a boundary or it's in the end zone. Loose ball plays that do not involve either of those are not reviewable.

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.

Now perhaps in competition committee will take a look at the rule after this play and change their minds. Wouldn't be surprising. Sometimes it takes a weird play or situation occurring for the league to add more reviewable plays.

That's a stupid reason. If there's not evidence to overturn, you don't win the challenge. Just like any other review.

It defeats the entire purpose of having replay at all.

[APG]

Originally Posted by hbk314

That's a stupid reason. If there's not evidence to overturn, you don't win the challenge. Just like any other review.

It defeats the entire purpose of having replay at all.

Reading your title, and knowing your posting history, I'm not surprised to read this from you.

Since no sport makes every single play reviewable, there will always be a situation that occurs where a play isn't reviewable...then a league will review the rule in the off season and decide to change or keep the rule the same. Maybe this situation will be reviewable next year.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by APG

Reading your title, and knowing your posting history, I'm not surprised to read this from you.

Since no sport makes every single play reviewable, there will always be a situation that occurs where a situation isn't reviewable...then a league will change the rule the following year. Maybe this will happen this next year.

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.

[JRutledge]

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 us review everything. Games will take 2 days, but why not. No one wants to do anything else but watch football games all day.

Peace

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Let us review everything. Games will take 2 days, but why not. No one wants to do anything else but watch football games all day.

Peace

I'm not saying everything should be reviewed, but the option to challenge should be there.

[HLin NC]

Can we just set up a separate forum board entitled "I Hate The #%^*€>+ NFL".

It would make things so much simpler.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

Can we just set up a separate forum board entitled "I Hate The #%^*€>+ NFL".

It would make things so much simpler.

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.

[Matt]

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.

Could have fooled me.

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.

[UMP45]

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.

As a baseball umpire, who knows nothing about officiating football, I have read some of your posts and this is what I take from them.One, you are not an official. Two, this means you have a VERY limited knowledge of what they do. Three, you are a coach.Therefore you by nature biased against officials. And four, you know enough to be dangerous. In baseball we have a saying "know the rule, know how to apply the rule, and know the spirit or intent of the rule". Oh as far as "logic" goes I think you argue just to hear your head rattle!

[JRutledge]

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.

People can come plain and will complain no matter what the topic. We do not need you to tell people what to complain about.

Peace

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by UMP45

As a baseball umpire, who knows nothing about officiating football, I have read some of your posts and this is what I take from them.One, you are not an official. Two, this means you have a VERY limited knowledge of what they do. Three, you are a coach.Therefore you by nature biased against officials. And four, you know enough to be dangerous. In baseball we have a saying "know the rule, know how to apply the rule, and know the spirit or intent of the rule". Oh as far as "logic" goes I think you argue just to hear your head rattle!

I'm also a baseball umpire.

I've stated I don't officiate football, but I think I have a better understanding of the game than a lot of fans, but not to the level of an experienced official.

I'm certainly not a coach.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the spirit of the rule line.

This is a play that clearly could have been fixed with replay. It doesn't make sense that it couldn't be challenged. It's not going to tack a bunch of time on allowing a play such as this to be challenged. If it's a loose ball in a pile of bodies, there's not going to be evidence to overturn, so it likely won't be challenged unless the coach wants to lose a timeout.

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.

Nobody's really given me a good reason as to why it shouldn't be.