Turnover Automatic Review

[Denver Scores]

It is impossible to get it right without offical reviews no matter how good the zebras are. They could all be full-time and you still would be mad at them for making a lot of obvious mistakes if there was no replay to overturn rulings. If you really think replay is not helping, you never watched football before the red flag system was created.

[Rancid]

While it is clear your statement is true I do not see where it states that in the rules.



I think it is a rather silly approach to take to simply 'get pissy' because a game or sport has changed . IMO the instant replay is great. What isn't great is how it is currently implemented. If a play can be overturned due to a replay review (which I'm OK with so long as the rules are clear and not written by idiots) then penalties which were directly involved or related to the act being reviewed must also be factored in.

For example in the Pit vs NE game it is reasonable to assume that if that players Jersey is not tugged on that he'd have caught that ball. Therefore if the INT is under review for it a validity then the actions leading to it must also be reviewed to ensure they are 'above board' as well. Now i am not stating that I want the entire field reviewed i am stating that I want direct actions reviewed to ensure that the calls on the field are spot on. This includes OPI and DPI plays alike.

But that is just it; getting pissy is about the emotion, the thrill and the entertainment-- because I am engaged and emotionally invested.

Officiating by instant replay turns it from a game to a science project and watching panel discussions transcends from entertainment to C-Span.

I want it right too, like you, but I think the way to do that is to upgrade the quality of officiating, not via instant replay.

[Denver Scores]

Interesting. Appreciate this. To me this is a substantive oversight particularly considering that the NFL's general stance for the reason WHY a turnover is reviewed at all was to ensure that the call was made correctly. If the play was made either due to or potentially due to a missed call this should be something which the NFL and the review process takes into account. Now I do not believe that ALL players on the field should be reviewed just the specific players involved in the play at hand. So in this case the two defenders defending the receiver and the receiver himself. I also believe that the verbiage surrounding the calling of penalties DURING a review process needs to mirror those of the overturning of a TD. The evidence needs to be clear and irrefutable.

There were three defenders around Eli Rogers. An official review would have been necessary if Rogers had started to catch it and a Patriots player snatched it away from him. With a ump ball catch, there is nothing to review.

[Rich_C]

ARTICLE 4. NON-REVIEWABLE PLAYS.

(a) Fouls, except for Article 5 (g) below.

ARTICLE 5. REVIEWABLE PLAYS. The Replay System will cover the following play situations:

(g) Number of players on the field at the snap, even when a foul is not called.
(1) Penalty enforcement.
(3) Spot of a foul.

There is a difference in these two rules. Article 4(a) makes it clear holding penalties are not reviewable. Article 5 OTOH covers where the ball will be placed after a foul has been called. So if the holding on that play was called before an official review was requested, the referee would have to determine the next line of scrimmage based on where the holding occured Keep in mind on this specific play an official review was not necessary to determine which team caught the pass and the holding penalty had no effect on Ben Roethlisberger's stupid throw, so it wouldx not have mattered anyway.

Interesting. Appreciate this. To me this is a substantive oversight particularly considering that the NFL's general stance for the reason WHY a turnover is reviewed at all was to ensure that the call was made correctly. If the play was made either due to or potentially due to a missed call this should be something which the NFL and the review process takes into account. Now I do not believe that ALL players on the field should be reviewed just the specific players involved in the play at hand. So in this case the two defenders defending the receiver and the receiver himself. I also believe that the verbiage surrounding the calling of penalties DURING a review process needs to mirror those of the overturning of a TD. The evidence needs to be clear and irrefutable.

[Denver Scores]

ARTICLE 4. NON-REVIEWABLE PLAYS.

(a) Fouls, except for Article 5 (g) below.

ARTICLE 5. REVIEWABLE PLAYS. The Replay System will cover the following play situations:

(g) Number of players on the field at the snap, even when a foul is not called.
(1) Penalty enforcement.
(3) Spot of a foul.

There is a difference in these two rules. Article 4(a) makes it clear holding penalties are not reviewable. Article 5 OTOH covers where the ball will be placed after a foul has been called. So if the holding on that play was called before an official review was requested, the referee would have to determine the next line of scrimmage based on where the holding occured Keep in mind on this specific play an official review was not necessary to determine which team caught the pass and the holding penalty had no effect on Ben Roethlisberger's stupid throw, so it wouldx not have mattered anyway.

[Rich_C]

Reviews cannot add penalties that were not already called. If holding was not called before the replay offcial alerted the referee for a review, only the interception is reviewable.

While it is clear your statement is true I do not see where it states that in the rules.

Rich, I like where you are heading, but I think you are giving the NFL too much credit. Officiating in the NFL, as opposed to NCAA, is a joke. NFL officials would be better believed if they took the field in orange afros, big floppy shoes and red ball-noses.

I want less of them, not more. Because the more they corrupt the game with their chronic flawed judgements the less I want to watch and I, like many others, am probably one more stupid thing away from just not caring anymore.

I think it is a rather silly approach to take to simply 'get pissy' because a game or sport has changed . IMO the instant replay is great. What isn't great is how it is currently implemented. If a play can be overturned due to a replay review (which I'm OK with so long as the rules are clear and not written by idiots) then penalties which were directly involved or related to the act being reviewed must also be factored in.

For example in the Pit vs NE game it is reasonable to assume that if that players Jersey is not tugged on that he'd have caught that ball. Therefore if the INT is under review for it a validity then the actions leading to it must also be reviewed to ensure they are 'above board' as well. Now i am not stating that I want the entire field reviewed i am stating that I want direct actions reviewed to ensure that the calls on the field are spot on. This includes OPI and DPI plays alike.

[Rancid]

Rich, I like where you are heading, but I think you are giving the NFL too much credit. Officiating in the NFL, as opposed to NCAA, is a joke. NFL officials would be better believed if they took the field in orange afros, big floppy shoes and red ball-noses.

I want less of them, not more. Because the more they corrupt the game with their chronic flawed judgements the less I want to watch and I, like many others, am probably one more stupid thing away from just not caring anymore.

[Denver Scores]

So I have dug into this even further and where I am really scratching my head is in the lack of clear direction on what elements of the play are being reviewed during what I believe is ARTICLE 2. REPLAY OFFICIAL’S REQUEST FOR REVIEW in the 2017 NFL rule book

https://operations.nfl.com/media/2725/2017-playing-rules.pdf

I am digging deeper into Rule 15 on page 65 above. (unless I am miss-reading)

So if I am reading this correctly the replay system is meant to cover EVERYTHING which is reviewable. I have bolded those items I thought were most relevant.

Reviews cannot add penalties that were not already called. If holding was not called before the replay offcial alerted the referee for a review, only the interception is reviewable.

[Rich_C]

So I have dug into this even further and where I am really scratching my head is in the lack of clear direction on what elements of the play are being reviewed during what I believe is ARTICLE 2. REPLAY OFFICIAL’S REQUEST FOR REVIEW in the 2017 NFL rule book

https://operations.nfl.com/media/2725/2017-playing-rules.pdf

I am digging deeper into Rule 15 on page 65 above. (unless I am miss-reading)

ARTICLE 2. REPLAY OFFICIAL’S REQUEST FOR REVIEW.

A Replay Review will be initiated by a Replay Official from a Replay
Booth comparable to the location of the coaches’ booth or Press Box when the on-field ruling is:
(a) a score for either team;
(b) an interception;
(c) a fumble or backward pass that is recovered by an opponent or goes out of bounds through an opponent’s end zone;
(d) a muffed scrimmage kick recovered by the kicking team;
(e) after the two-minute warning of each half; and
(f) throughout any overtime period.
There is no limit to the number of Replay Reviews that may be initiated by the Replay Official. The Replay Official’s ability to initiate a
review will be unrelated to the number of timeouts that either team has remaining, and no timeout will be charged for any review
initiated by the Replay Official. The Replay Official must initiate a review before the ball is next legally put in play.

ARTICLE 3. REPLAY REVIEWS.

All Replay Reviews will be conducted by a designated member of the Officiating department at the League office. During the review, the designee shall consult with the Referee, who will have access to a hand-held, field-level device. A decision will be reversed only when there is clear and obvious visual evidence available that warrants the change. Prior to consulting with the Officiating department designee, the Referee will discuss the play with the covering official(s) to gather any information that
may be pertinent to the review.

Each review will be a maximum of 60 seconds in length, timed from when the hand-held, field-level device is provided to the Referee.
All reviewable aspects of the play may be examined and are subject to reversal, even if not identified in a coach’s challenge or if not the
specific reason for a Replay Official’s request for review.

ARTICLE 4. NON-REVIEWABLE PLAYS.

The following play situations are not reviewable:

(a) Fouls, except for Article 5 (g) below.
(b) Spot of the ball and runner:
(1) Runner ruled down by defensive contact or out of bounds (not involving fumbles or the line to gain).
(2) The position of the ball not relating to first down or goal line.
(3) Whether a runner’s forward progress was stopped before he went out of bounds or lost possession of the ball.
65
(4) Whether a runner gave himself up.
(c) Miscellaneous:
(1) Field Goal or Try attempts that cross above either upright without touching anything.
(2) Erroneous whistle.
(3) Spot where an airborne ball crossed the sideline.
(4) Whether a player was blocked into a loose ball.
(5) Advance by a player after a valid or invalid fair catch signal.
(6) Whether a player created the impetus that put the ball into an end zone.

ARTICLE 5. REVIEWABLE PLAYS. The Replay System will cover the following play situations:

(a) Plays involving possession.
(b) Plays involving touching of either the ball or the ground.
(c) Plays governed by the goal line.
(d) Plays governed by the boundary lines.
(e) Plays governed by the line of scrimmage.
(f) Plays governed by the line to gain.
(g) Number of players on the field at the snap, even when a foul is not called.
(h) Game administration:
(1) Penalty enforcement.
(2) Proper down.
(3) Spot of a foul.
(4) Status of the game clock.

In situations in which time is deemed to have expired during or after the last play of the first or second half, or of an overtime period in
the preseason or regular season, or of an overtime half in the postseason, a timing error is defined as having occurred only when the
visual evidence demonstrates that more than one second should be put on the clock.
In the first half, time shall be restored only if the additional play will be a snap from scrimmage. In the second half, time shall be restored
only if it is a one-score game (eight points or fewer), and the additional play will be a snap from scrimmage by the team that is behind in
the score, or by either team if the score is tied. A correction of a timing error for a team timeout may be made only if there is visual
evidence of an official’s signal.
If an on-field ruling of a dead ball (down by contact, out of bounds, or incomplete forward pass) is changed, the ball belongs to the
recovering player at the spot of the recovery, and any advance is nullified. The recovery must occur in the continuing action following
the loss of possession. If the ball goes out of bounds in an end zone, the result of the play will be either a touchback or a safety. If the
Referee does not have clear and obvious visual evidence as to which player recovered the loose ball, or that the ball went out of
bounds, the ruling on the field will stand.

These reviewable play situations are explained in further detail in the Instant Replay Casebook.

So if I am reading this correctly the replay system is meant to cover EVERYTHING which is reviewable. I have bolded those items I thought were most relevant.

[Rich_C]

They took "football move" out of the rulebook to end the confusion. Everyone knows what "clearly a runner" means, right? That phrase makes a lot more sense than "a football move" as written previously.

The penalty reviews are just to determine where to spot the ball on a play that is reviewed for something else.

You're correct but they do re-reference "Control of the Ball" A LOT MORE:

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/completing-a-catch/

A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:

secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2).
Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

Item 1. Player Going to the Ground. A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

Again I digress though. This thread was and is about the review of the INT play by Big Ben. That is where the Screencap was taken from. That play was reviewed separately (from the TD/non-TD play) and the penalty above was not factored into the INT. I want to know if it should have and if it is not in the rules then it should be.

Rich this is great topic and it seems logical that the officiating should 'get it right' by whatever means they have to do that.

Best I can tell is that the 'review' is just that. It is a review of the call made by the official. It is not a supplemental officiating tool.

https://operations.nfl.com/the-offic...eplay-process/

To me, once the receiver broke the goal line the play was over-- TD! It seems every time I see a RB scampering down the sidelines to dive and reach the ball just in side the pylon-- without ever touching anything in bounds it is ruled a TD, but when a receiver breaks the plane the play evaluation continues to consider whether or not it was a catch with no consideration of calling the play dead the instant it is a Touchdown.

Therefore, it is impossible to get excited about any kind of a big play in the NFL anymore because the majority of them are called back for some penalty or scrutinized under a microscope for any possibility of something being not absolute. It is dumb and for me, ruined the game. I do not see that stuff when watching college ball.

To be clear this is NOT a play from the Jesse James TD that wasn't. This was a play from the INT which Big Ben threw two plays later. Every INT is reviewed just as every TD is reviewed so I am scratching my head as to why once a catch and TD is called how it can be so "easily" overturned but once a ball is intercepted and such a blatant holding call was missed how it cannot be taken into account and negate an INT.

[Rich_C]

I agree with your premise. Where I question this - including myself - is the fact that we know a penalty can be called on nearly every play. I think that statement is more than cliche and if taken to be true, if a penalty not seen until a replay was called for something else, then a penalty can theoretically be called during every review. Right?

And we complain for how many penalties are called and the length of game already. Could you imagine?

I believe that a penalty should only be called in a replay IF it impacted or likely could have impacted the outcome of the play. In this case this is about as blatant as it gets. The dudes jersey is being pulled on and to such a degree that it is obvious.

[Denver Scores]

By the rule if you tuck the ball after catching a pass you’re now “clearly a runner” so when James brought the ball into his body before reaching out, that would be considered tucking the ball and thus establishing himself as a runner. So then it becomes what rule overrides the other

I would like to see the rule changed to where the ground can’t cause an incompletion if you’ve already established possession ie two feet down clear control of the ball with no juggling/bobbling. If the ground can’t cause a fumble why can it cause an incompletion?

I heard everything Jim Nantz and Tony Romo said about it. They were talking about the ground causing Jesse James to regain control of the ball. I could see why. Eli Manning said the catch rule is clear,.but it never caused him to lose.

[beastlyskronk]

They took "football move" out of the rulebook to end the confusion. Everyone knows what "clearly a runner" means, right? That phrase makes a lot more sense than "a football move" as written previously.

The penalty reviews are just to determine where to spot the ball on a play that is revewed for smoething else.

By the rule if you tuck the ball after catching a pass you’re now “clearly a runner” so when James brought the ball into his body before reaching out, that would be considered tucking the ball and thus establishing himself as a runner. So then it becomes what rule overrides the other

I would like to see the rule changed to where the ground can’t cause an incompletion if you’ve already established possession ie two feet down clear control of the ball with no juggling/bobbling. If the ground can’t cause a fumble why can it cause an incompletion?

[Denver Scores]

So you are opposed to having a replay system? The problem is what we have discused in antoher thread: stupid catch rules. If the definition of a catch was simplifed to include any catch that shows complete control of the football with both feet down in bounds, there wouild not be a problem with official reviews overturning awesome catches and big plays.

[Rancid]

Rich this is great topic and it seems logical that the officiating should 'get it right' by whatever means they have to do that.

Best I can tell is that the 'review' is just that. It is a review of the call made by the official. It is not a supplemental officiating tool.

https://operations.nfl.com/the-offic...eplay-process/

To me, once the receiver broke the goal line the play was over-- TD! It seems every time I see a RB scampering down the sidelines to dive and reach the ball just in side the pylon-- without ever touching anything in bounds it is ruled a TD, but when a receiver breaks the plane the play evaluation continues to consider whether or not it was a catch with no consideration of calling the play dead the instant it is a Touchdown.

Therefore, it is impossible to get excited about any kind of a big play in the NFL anymore because the majority of them are called back for some penalty or scrutinized under a microscope for any possibility of something being not absolute. It is dumb and for me, ruined the game. I do not see that stuff when watching college ball.