Expanding Instant Replay?

[Felonious Monk]

I tuned in to NFL Radio Thursday afternoon and someone from New England's organization was talking about the Patriots. I couldn't pin down the voice, but it soon became obvious it was Belichick. I was a little shocked because it's been ages since I've heard him give an interview, aside from post-game press conferences, where he has a substantially different tone.

 

He spent half of the segment talking about his push to expand instant replay to make every play challengeable. Off the top of my head, I can think of two non-challangeable calls that cost NE games in the past 10 years, and they were both last year, against the Jets and Panthers. But then they won a game on non-challengeable last-minute call against the Browns.

 

I found it ironic that the coach who arguably is the recipient of the most favorable non-challengeable calls in NFL history is campaigning for such a rule change. I hate myself for writing this, but I agree with him -- I don't see a down side to his take, which is this:

 

“Whatever it happens to be, it wouldn't give the coach any more challenges. It would just give him a chance to challenge a play he thought was ruled incorrectly. In the grand scheme of things, I think what we all want is to get the play right and for the best team to win and for the game not to be decided by a missed call. To not have the opportunity to correct that type of play, it just doesn't seem like it’s the right way to do it." {Linky}

 

I'm interested in opposing views on this. Why would it be a bad idea? Does a "Just-give-it-to-them" scenario happen if this rule is in place?

[Buftex]

No dissent from me. I think it makes sense. If replay is there to make sure they "get things right" they should expand the number of things it can be used for.

 

 

I think the reason they will never do this, you could have, say, an questionable pass interference call somewhere during the course of a game..we all know there are a few every game. Inevitably, one of these will cost a team a possession, or a first down...or whatever. So, say the coach of the penalized team wants to challange...they look at the replay over and over, we see it at home...looks like the refs got it wrong...but low and behold, they don't reverse the call, because it is, essentailly, taking the refs out of the game, and making them look bad. The NFL doesn't want that...

 

Now, I still think they could expand its' use to a degree...but I just know they will never expand it to every play. The things that normally get fans, and coaches pissed off are the "judgement calls", or the missed calls. I just don't see them allowing those challenges.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Buftex

[The Wiz]

I want every play involving the ball challenge-able. Meaning when the refs blow the play dead. If the team on defense ends up with the ball before the whistle goes, let it play out. I don't think challenges like Buftex mentioned of PI or something like that should be included.

Edited May 23, 2014 by The Wiz

[Felonious Monk]

Now, I still think they could expand its' use to a degree...but I just know they will never expand it to every play. The things that normally get fans, and coaches pissed off are the "judgement calls", or the missed calls. I just don't see them allowing those challenges.

 

I see your point. Sort of like balls and strikes in baseball -- They'll never be challengeable, and those types of blown calls are what drive most fans, players and managers nuts.

[thebandit27]

Good thread and good take...I think it would actually speed the game up given that the expansion of challenge-able plays would likely prompt more discretion in terms of when and what to challenge given that you only get 2 (or 3) per game.

[Max997]

Baseball is making me hate replay all together

[bowery4]

I never like replay, but it isn't going away. Yes every play should be challenge-able not only that but refs ruling on plays should be as well, the NFL might never do that but it would make the product better.

[mannc]

PI needs to be subject to replay challenge. It is very often a pivotal call in the game, and I would say it is called correctly about 40% of the time.

[sodbuster]

I don't think penalties should be reviewable, except for things like illegal touching or offsides types of things that are black and white.

 

While on the topic of replays, they really need to make two major changes in my opinion. They need to conduct replays more like the NHL, and take the judgment away from the on field refs, because that process takes way too long. Also, I hate how a coach can't challenge inside two minutes. I understand that a major reason for that rule is so that they don't turn into extended timeouts, but an NHL style replay system could fix that issue. There could be other conditions on it, too. Like if a team has both of their challenges remaining or had won both of them in the game, they can use one inside the tmw.

Edited May 24, 2014 by sodbuster

[uncle flap]

Conflicted on this. On one hand, I don't think there should be replay at all. To me it is agonizing to see a play overturned when it requires a frame by frame breakdown to determine when a player's knee is down, for example. I think if it looks like a catch or a fumble or whatever in real-time, the official needs to make a call on what HE saw, not what a camera captured.

 

On the other hand, since the cat's already out of the bag, they should make every play reviewable. I agree with many of the salient points already made in this thread. I think after a rocky season of having everything reviewable, there would be more standardization of how rules are interpreted. I would expect the wording of PI, Illegal Contact, and Holding penalties to be emended, since there would seem to be a conflict with using replay to review what amounts to a judgement call.

[mannc]

I would expect the wording of PI, Illegal Contact, and Holding penalties to be emended, since there would seem to be a conflict with using replay to review what amounts to a judgement call.

I don't think there is a dichotomy between judgment and non-judgment calls. After watching replay officials struggle to get even "non-judgment" calls right, it is clear to me that everything is a judgment call.

 

Edited May 26, 2014 by mannc

[boyst]

They also benefited from a no call with the Saints game Wait, that was Carolina.

Edited May 26, 2014 by jboyst62

[Rocky Landing]

This is going to sound like a weird take to a lot of people, but I am against such an enormous expansion of the replay rules. I do think there are some plays that should be challengeable, that currently aren't. I recall one game (and my memory is vague on this), when Jon Gruden's Bucs lost (I think a playoff?) game on a field goal because of a completely flawed call, that even the refs agreed was wrong, but wasn't reviewable. (Gruden's response to the refs, as I recall, showed him to be a class act.)

 

BUT...

 

I think that there is an inherent unfairness to football. And, I think it needs to stay that way. A football game is not just about who is a better team. If it were, there would be a Super Bowl Series, and playoff games wouldn't be sudden-death. With football, there is an element of luck, and of human error. Maybe, even, luck and human error are the same thing. Often, when we watch a game, we walk away enraged. "WE WERE ROBBED!!!" Or, just the opposite: we walk away mopping the sweat off our brow, "how the hell did we pull that off???" When we watch a football game, we are watching a microcosm of the human experience. Football is the greatest spectator sport in the history of sports, because football has everything.

 

Does anyone feel that watching a football game is too emotional? I certainly DO believe that we should hold the refs to the highest standard possible, they should be well compensated, and we should protect against graft, and corruption. But, do we need to protect against outrage? The way I see it, the refs are almost as much a part of the game experience as the players. Yes, they're fallible. But, this isn't a video game. I guess I just prefer the human element to technology.

 

And, if we continue to use technology to "level the playing field," what does that make us? At what point do we replace the refs with computers? And, make no mistake, the refs COULD be replaced with computers this coming season. The technology exists.

 

And finally, there is something about mandating the instant replay for every play that feels to me like mandatory sentencing across our judicial system, that takes the human experience, and judgment out of the equation (and in my opinion, has made us a less equitable society). We want to hold the refs to a higher standard, not remove them from the standard.

[Manther]

PI needs to be subject to replay challenge. It is very often a pivotal call in the game, and I would say it is called correctly about 40% of the time.

That is true and if they could make it work would be outstanding. Not sure how they would do it though.