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

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

Well that is subjective right? It does not mean you have accepted the reasons, which in fact are true.

Peace

Doesn't make them good reasons.

Are you honestly telling me you don't think that play should be reviewable?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Some will criticize, some will ignore. Both are perfectly acceptable and viable options.

I hope you reread what you stated and see that you just did what you are arguing against.

a swing and a miss....

APG gave you the explanation of why this type of play is not reviewable. he gave you the logic behind the reason. (which is spot on) Then he gave an out where it may some day become reviewable.

You in turn stomped your feet, held your breath and said it should be reviewed.

Not logical

I think what his point was, was to criticize the opinion if you feel like it, but not the topic selection. If you don't like the topic selection, ignore the thread -- its pretty simple. The mods will (hopefully) take care of topics outside the realms of the forum.

This thread has more posts on off topic issues than it does on what the OP said. If you truly want to eliminate what YOU think are irrelevant or uninformative topics, DON'T RESPOND. No one is going to stay on here long if they start threads no one else responds to, even if the mods let the threads stay up. For the life of me, I can't understand why people don't see that.

Apparently you didn't read the whole thread.

I've stated that just because a lot of loose ball plays aren't going to have evidence to change the call, such as a pile of players jumping on a fumble, for example, doesn't mean you should automatically make every such play not reviewable.

Each play should be reviewable and evaluated based on the available information. In the case of this play from today, replay clearly would have been able to fix it, if it were reviewable. Just because the bulk of loose ball recoveries probably aren't going to be successfully challenged doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to choose to risk a challenge and timeout for a review of a play like the one today.

So everyone seems to have had his say on whether everyone else should be able to have his say.

Every play? So, should they be able to review a DPI play if it's clear there was no contact whatsoever? Should they be able to review a false start, or an illegal formation?

To streamline the process, some types of plays have to be reveiwable. Most review systems have started by saying only specific types of plays are reviewable while the rest are not. As situations happen, the reviewable plays naturally get expanded.

Your initial premise, that there's no logic behind the current system, is flawed. You may not agree, or like, or buy, the logic: but there is logic to the system.

I wasn't talking about penalties. It's clearly a flaw in the rules that didn't allow today's play to be reviewed, and the reasons people have stated in this thread don't really justify it not being reviewable.

My point was simply that there are logical reasons for limiting the number of plays that are reviewable. Your disagreement doesn't negate that point.

No one here works for the NFL, so your complaints will never be satisfied here. Try Tweeting Blandino.

Tomlin should have challenged that Clark was down by contact, that is reviewable.

Why aren't balls and strikes reviewable?

No. That wouldn't have been reviewable since the officials ruled he didn't have possession.

Such as?

It doesn't make sense to arbitrarily limit the usage of replay. It defeats the purpose of having it if it can't be used to right a wrong.

It's not delimited arbitrarily.

Do you see being unable to fix this play by rule as a problem with the replay rules?

No. It's not a big deal to me. I don't bet on the games or play fantassy football.

If the NFL sees enough of this play (I have now seen 1) that significantly alter the game, they will change it. The old "down by contact" ruling when the ball came loose prior to being down is a perfect example. They realized the number of plays were becoming significant, and the scope of the play was equally significant.

So they fixed it.

Until they satisfy you on this, just deal with it.

Four sentences. One is simply false. Two I strongly don't believe. The other is generic, but if applied to this forum, is also false.

Here we are again. Seems to me all of your posts, your supposed logic that we cannot disagree with (yet do), hinge on things that YOU think SHOULD be. You don't seem to understand that the people who have made and will continue to make decisions on regarding what SHOULD BE are far more invested in this game - in the success of the league, in the safety of the players, in the entertainment value of the product on the screen. ALL of these factors come into play regarding replay ... not just one. I'm continually flabbergasted how you seem to think your opinion about what SHOULD BE is the only possible opinion, even in the face of numerous posters telling you they believe differently, and in the face of the fact that those in charge of this league believe differently. The enormity of that arrogance stuns me.

Again, you were told their reasons for not allowing it. You just do not agree. That doesn't make the decision arbitrary.

Again, you are arguing with officials who did not make the rule and who have no say in the matter. Send an e-mail to Roger Goodell.

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.

No, we're just not so stupid to :

a) argue over issues none of us have ANY control or input over.
b) Give two $#!tZ about it.
c) Keep chasing our tail.

We are all pretty much happy discussing HS and NCAA rules, which is what we do dabble in. The occasional NFL discussion pops up, gets discussed, and shuts down pretty quickly because none (I guess) of us are involved enough with the NFL to know much about it. Sure, we officiate at the level we have reached. That may give us a leg up on the Joe ESPNMessageBoard Guy but doesn't equate us to Ed Hochuli or Mike Pereira either.

Might I suggest the following might be more to your liking:

INSIDE THE STRIPES

Football Zebras | Analysis and commentary of the NFL's officials and the calls they make

Home | Behind the Football Stripes (Be careful here, BECKY10 has a thing for #85)

Take this post as some friendly advice:

Your presentation and the tone in the overwhelming majority of your posts here quite frankly sucks. I don't know if anyone here cares either way or would be up in arms if this type of play was reviewable in the future.

You would get more people to be amicable to your posts and wanting to discuss the actual merits of your ideas if every other post you had wasn't something derogatory or somehow implying we're stupid for not agreeing with your "logic" or "reasoning" (and you may not even intend to come across this way). Half of your post/threads seem disingenuous . You ask a question wanting to know why something is...but in your later posts, it's apparent you've already made up your mind ahead of time and that your reasoning is solid, the rest is stupid...no matter how many people agree or disagree.

There's no problem with you asking NFL related questions. You'll get an answer in some form. But you would help yourself if you'd adjust the tone of your posts.

Are you applying for a moderator position? If so, please PM me and I will consider your application.

Thank you for being a fan of the Official Forum.

I really should have put a trademark on that.

He's too busy posting on the Steeler Forums.

.... and now it all makes sense......

Fanboy

Is this one of those posts where you are trying to learn about football officiating? As I far as I can tell, no one here is an NFL official. So how is it a problem for the members of this forum?

What if every football official agreed with your "logic", then what? How is this helping any of them become better officials? How is it helping improve your understanding of football officiating? You already have an opinion, and you've stated pretty clearly it is not going to change.

I know you've said fouls shouldn't be reviewable (clarification - foul is the act, penalty is the enforcement), but this could contradict your point about "there's either evidence to overturn or there's not." What is DPI is thrown but replays show there was no contact at all? There is definitely evidence the official got it wrong. It's not a judgement situation. The covering official obviously saw contact that wasn't there. Why shouldn't replay be able to fix that? I agree fouls shouldn't be reviewable but it's also why I avoid using the phrase "review everything that is obviously wrong". Sometimes things are wrong even after replay (see Colts-Bengals game from a couple weeks ago).

This is probably the best explanation I've seen so far. I do remember one other incident a couple years ago on a recovery after a QB sack. IIRC they ruled recovery by B on the field and it was then recovered by A. Replay clearly showed the B player never had possession so A was incorrectly awarded a new series. It can happen but I agree it's rare.

Another example happened in San Diego where Ed Hochuli ruled that the QB threw a forward incomplete pass and blew it dead when replays clearly showed it was a fumble.

Next year, they make this a reviewable play.

That play made it possible for the Broncos to win that game, too.

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?

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

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.

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?

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.

And this post?

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?

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.

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.

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."

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

All of this applies to penalties, too.

It makes sense to <s>most of us</s> 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Thanks for actually participating in the discussion.

I'm sick of all these strawman arguments.

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

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.