Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can we all agree that the replay system in the NFL needs revamping?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Ravage!!! View Post
    The replay is RARELY used to dispute OBVIOUS calls. The replay system came into effect because of the "close calls" that need to be slowed down to get right. If its obvious, then most of the time those aren't even replayed. If the replay system is simply to "fix" the obvious wrong calls, instead of the close wrong calls... then there would be no need.

    That being said, I don't see how you take that 'human' factor out of instant replay .
    Where did you get that idea from Ravage? The only reason instant replay was approved in 1998 was to fix the obvious errors. They were close sometimes, blatant other times, but they were all obvious. We are talking about a play that lacks "indisputable video evidence," here, but when insant replay was born, all people talked about was the need to fix errors any idot can recognize. Errors like Vinny Testaverde being short of the goal line, a fumble being ruled an incomplete pass, a catch out of bounds counting as a first down, etc.

    Anyone who thinks the college system is better does not know what the college system is. The coach must call timeout to challenge - they don't carry buzzers or red flags in their pockets. Even worse, the NCAA did not follow suit after the NFL changed the "down by contact" rule to allow reviews of that call. I always hated the ban on challenging "down by contact" rulings when it was clearly a fumble and was happy to learn the NFL changed that.

    There is one thing I like better about college replay: officials can review any play, not just inside the last two minutes of the half and in overtime. The Saints will be the first to tell you how horrible it is to lose a game because a bad call was made after all timeouts have been used in the fourth quarter. It happened to them against the Rams on a bad DBC/fumble decision.

    I have one more thing to say about the replay system nobody has mentioned: The NFL needs to do more than just train its 17 referees to use it properly. It also needs to talk about adding face mask penalties to the list of challengable calls. After a Vikings player grabbed a Saint's face mask and it was not called, Sean Payton threw his red flag, hoping he could get a review. Ed Hochuli knew he was not allowed to review that and watched something else, then charged New Orleans with a timeout. I was really mad that the face mask could not be reviewed because not only would that give New Orleans 15 yards and an automatic first down, but it would have negated a fumble recovery by the Vikings because the face mask grabber also forced a fumble. A face mask penalty is indisputable. It is impossible to ever not see that one. So why can't a coach challenge when a face mask penalty is not called?

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by mojo0730 View Post
      Well, think about this - the NFL has to have two officials present for the coin toss now because one ref wound up not being able to handle that properly. Yet, we're trusting the same individuals to go to a little TV screen with millions watching and make a indisputable decision in 90 seconds?

      Something is a little off there, IMO.
      The referee is not alone when he reviews plays, Mojo. Another official is next to him taking notes of the down, distance, LOS, quarter, game time, yard line the play ended on, etc. Mike Periera said he will make require that information from now on after explaining how Troy Polamalu did not get credit for carrying the ball into the end zone. (He said Scott Green never got the replay of the pass in question on his little TV screen.)

      BTW that idiot who mishandled a coin toss has not been a referee for years now. I will never forget the replay of Falcons linebacker Jesse Tuggle holding up a big sign wit h the word HEADS! on it the Sunday after that incident.

      Comment


      • #48
        NFL Today just proved that the catch in the Steelers-Ravens game was a touchdown. However, the technology they used was not available to the refs and there is no way in hell that call should have been overturned.
        My Opinion isn’t determined by what the Popular Opinion is. Sometimes I agree with the Majority, Sometimes I Don’t. If My Opinion is Different than Yours, I have to Ask One Question:
        You Mad Bro?
        Don’t Be A Mean Girl

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by DarrentCB27 View Post
          When did you see the ball in the end zone? It does not matter if Holmes was in the end zone or not if the ball is somewhere else.
          Sorry Darrent but the ball DOES NOT have to be in the endzone. All it has to do is break the plane of the goaline. In other words, be on it. After reviewing the replay during pregame on CBS, the ball was on the goalline and in full position of the player. As such, TOUCHDOWN!!!

          End of controversy.
          :logo:
          :logo: :logo:

          Air Force Falcons (0-0)(0-0)
          Moon Twp Tigers (0-0)(0-0)
          Denver Broncos (0-0-0)
          Hershey Bears (0-0-0-0)

          Hersheypark's new ride:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufRbn...layer_embedded

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by broncolee View Post
            NFL Today just proved that the catch in the Steelers-Ravens game was a touchdown. However, the technology they used was not available to the refs and there is no way in hell that call should have been overturned.
            Well it was and the official was right! Imagine that. The official gets the call right and yet the people are up in arms that he should not have overturned the play to begin with. The official saw that the ball was on the line (goalline that is) and as such, by the RULES OF THE GAME, makes it a TD!
            :logo:
            :logo: :logo:

            Air Force Falcons (0-0)(0-0)
            Moon Twp Tigers (0-0)(0-0)
            Denver Broncos (0-0-0)
            Hershey Bears (0-0-0-0)

            Hersheypark's new ride:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufRbn...layer_embedded

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by BroncoKing View Post
              Well it was and the official was right! Imagine that. The official gets the call right and yet the people are up in arms that he should not have overturned the play to begin with. The official saw that the ball was on the line (goalline that is) and as such, by the RULES OF THE GAME, makes it a TD!
              The ref got lucky. There is no way he saw conclusive evidence that the ball broke the plane of the goal line. It's good that it turned out to be the right call in regards to calling it a touchdown. However, it was actually the wrong call in regards to the rules of overturning a call on the field. As far as that particular game goes, it likely wouldn't have mattered one way or the other because the Steelers would have likely scored a touchdown anyway on one of the following four plays. But the refs are not supposed to reverse a call on supposition. There is supposed to be conclusive evidence to overturn a call.

              When Champ Bailey ran the interception back against the Patsies in the playoffs and got ran down by Ben Watson and had the ball knocked out, there were people complaining about that because they claimed the laws of physics dictated that the ball went into and out of the end zone, which would have meant a touchback for the Patsies. There was no conclusive evidence to overturn the ruling on the field, but what if the refs had used their understanding of physics to overturn the call on the field? Would that have been justification for overturning the call? I don't think so. The rules say there must be conclusive indisputable video evidence to overturn a call. There is no way such evidence was available to the refs on that play in the Steelers-Ravens game.
              My Opinion isn’t determined by what the Popular Opinion is. Sometimes I agree with the Majority, Sometimes I Don’t. If My Opinion is Different than Yours, I have to Ask One Question:
              You Mad Bro?
              Don’t Be A Mean Girl

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by broncolee View Post
                The ref got lucky. There is no way he saw conclusive evidence that the ball broke the plane of the goal line. It's good that it turned out to be the right call in regards to calling it a touchdown. However, it was actually the wrong call in regards to the rules of overturning a call on the field. As far as that particular game goes, it likely wouldn't have mattered one way or the other because the Steelers would have likely scored a touchdown anyway on one of the following four plays. But the refs are not supposed to reverse a call on supposition. There is supposed to be conclusive evidence to overturn a call.
                I saw every replay of this catch even before CBS's enhanced look at it. Even from all the angles that I saw, the ball was on the goalline when it was caught by the Steeler receiver. Even with freeze frame I could tell he caught it on the goalline. The evidence was there to overturn it otherwise, he would not have overturned it.

                When Champ Bailey ran the interception back against the Patsies in the playoffs and got ran down by Ben Watson and had the ball knocked out, there were people complaining about that because they claimed the laws of physics dictated that the ball went into and out of the end zone, which would have meant a touchback for the Patsies. There was no conclusive evidence to overturn the ruling on the field, but what if the refs had used their understanding of physics to overturn the call on the field? Would that have been justification for overturning the call? I don't think so. The rules say there must be conclusive indisputable video evidence to overturn a call. There is no way such evidence was available to the refs on that play in the Steelers-Ravens game.
                Except for the fact that every replay had it not going into the endzone...
                :logo:
                :logo: :logo:

                Air Force Falcons (0-0)(0-0)
                Moon Twp Tigers (0-0)(0-0)
                Denver Broncos (0-0-0)
                Hershey Bears (0-0-0-0)

                Hersheypark's new ride:
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufRbn...layer_embedded

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by BroncoKing View Post
                  Except for the fact that every replay had it not going into the endzone...
                  Don't tell that to the people that were saying the laws of physics dictated that the ball went into and out of the end zone. To me it looked like the ball was already out of bounds when Watson knocked it out of Champ's grasp because he had pushed Champ and Champ's upper body was leaning over the sideline.
                  My Opinion isn’t determined by what the Popular Opinion is. Sometimes I agree with the Majority, Sometimes I Don’t. If My Opinion is Different than Yours, I have to Ask One Question:
                  You Mad Bro?
                  Don’t Be A Mean Girl

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by broncolee View Post
                    Don't tell that to the people that were saying the laws of physics dictated that the ball went into and out of the end zone. To me it looked like the ball was already out of bounds when Watson knocked it out of Champ's grasp because he had pushed Champ and Champ's upper body was leaning over the sideline.
                    Replays do not lie! The ball never crossed the plane for it to be a safety so yea, I will tell them that. Dumb patsy fans.
                    :logo:
                    :logo: :logo:

                    Air Force Falcons (0-0)(0-0)
                    Moon Twp Tigers (0-0)(0-0)
                    Denver Broncos (0-0-0)
                    Hershey Bears (0-0-0-0)

                    Hersheypark's new ride:
                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufRbn...layer_embedded

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Better technology confirmed touchdown

                      Originally posted by broncolee View Post
                      The ref got lucky. There is no way he saw conclusive evidence that the ball broke the plane of the goal line. It's good that it turned out to be the right call in regards to calling it a touchdown. However, it was actually the wrong call in regards to the rules of overturning a call on the field. As far as that particular game goes, it likely wouldn't have mattered one way or the other because the Steelers would have likely scored a touchdown anyway on one of the following four plays. But the refs are not supposed to reverse a call on supposition. There is supposed to be conclusive evidence to overturn a call.

                      When Champ Bailey ran the interception back against the Patsies in the playoffs and got ran down by Ben Watson and had the ball knocked out, there were people complaining about that because they claimed the laws of physics dictated that the ball went into and out of the end zone, which would have meant a touchback for the Patsies. There was no conclusive evidence to overturn the ruling on the field, but what if the refs had used their understanding of physics to overturn the call on the field? Would that have been justification for overturning the call? I don't think so. The rules say there must be conclusive indisputable video evidence to overturn a call. There is no way such evidence was available to the refs on that play in the Steelers-Ravens game.
                      Wrong Broncolee. There is no guarantee the Steelers would have scored on the next play. Many times teams get to the 1-yard line and don't get in on 8 tries. There are too many possibilities to count, which is why I love football: a penalty, a sack, an incomplete pass, a fumble, an interception . . . you get the picture. Because Pittsburgh was trailing by 3 with 43 seconds left, it was crucial that they score on that drive. Nobody wanted a field goal to force overtime.

                      I watched Official Review on NFL.com to get the answer. Mike Periera showed proof it was a touchdown by using technology Walt Coleman did not have, saying Coleman did not have that technology to look at, that spotlighted Holmes and the football. That picture clearly showed the ball was over the goal line and therefore it was a touchdown. In other words, the only reason many fans have been insisting it was not a touchdown is CBS did not have the ability to show the conclusive evidence Coleman needed to prove Holmes caught the ball over the goal line.

                      Who said the laws of physics made Bailey's touchdown a touchback? The Patriots and their fans were complaining about the lack of "indisputable visual evidence" Bailey put the ball in the end zone, not that the laws of physics made doing so impossible. That game was several years ago, so many fans already have forgotten about it. I only read the Patriots fans are complaining about it, not Broncos fans admitting they were lucky the call went their way. It is impossible to prove that touchdown alone was why we beat the Patriots anyway because pass interference in the end zone was called wrong or not called at all at the other end of the field.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X