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

[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?

[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.

[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 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.

[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.