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

[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.

[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?

[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 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.

[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.