Seriuosly, Why Can't Coaches Challenge Penalty Calls?

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Not true. The number of coaching challenges would remain the same; it would just be the scope of the calls subject to review that would expand.

If they make a change like this - and allowed for crappy calls to be challenged then the # would have to go up significantly

Edited October 23, 2014 by BillsFan-4-Ever

[zow2]

A football game is once a week. I for one don't care if it takes 3.5-4 hours to complete a game. I wait all week for the game and don't want it to end so quickly. Why do people get so bent out of shape about "slowing the game down"? Just get the darn calls right! If an extra penalty challenge is a possibility then the NFL should consider using it.

[Rocky Landing]

If they make a change like this - and allowed for crappy calls to be challenged then the # would have to go up significantly

If they didn't raise the number, we could safely assume that there would be three challenges per team, per game, every game.

 

A football game is once a week. I for one don't care if it takes 3.5-4 hours to complete a game. I wait all week for the game and don't want it to end so quickly. Why do people get so bent out of shape about "slowing the game down"? Just get the darn calls right! If an extra penalty challenge is a possibility then the NFL should consider using it.

Out of curiosity, if the human element could be removed entirely, and all penalty calls were made by a computer with 100% accuracy, would you consider that an improvement?

[zow2]

If they didn't raise the number, we could safely assume that there would be three challenges per team, per game, every game.

 

Out of curiosity, if the human element could be removed entirely, and all penalty calls were made by a computer with 100% accuracy, would you consider that an improvement?

 

Yes, robots...and while we're at it the players should have built in sensors in their uniforms to accurately indicate the level of force being pushed, pulled, held, tugged, etc.... too many incidental contact penalties imo and of course "selectively" letting stuff go. The referreeing stinks

[mannc]

I think such a change would only increase the amount of controversy surrounding such calls. As it is, we can look at the replay and say, "bad call." But, put it up to a review, and the slightest bit of inconsistency from one officiating staff to another, or one call to another opens up a whole can of ugliness, and would turn into a huge distraction. Especially with PI.

 

I think we do the game a disservice the more we remove the human element-- even from officiating. At some point, we may as well have computers call the penalties. And, the technology certainly exists.

This is the same argument that was made against instant replay when it was first being implemented. Despite its flaws, I, for one, am glad we have instant replay now. The question here is, given that we already have instant replay for certain calls, why not extend replay to a type of call (pass interference) that often has a huge impact on the result of game and yet is regularly botched by the officials? Just saying it would take too long is not, IMO, a credible response.

[May Day 10]

The NFL has already been way too soiled by this automation and the game of millimeters where it doesnt matter to me anymore (while baseball I want as much human element as possible)...

 

 

These long pass interference calls are the biggest plays of the game. The burdon of proof is still very much on the reversal... but if the ref can take another look at it... maybe contact really wasnt made, it was perfectly timed... ball was un-catchable, ball was tipped at the line, etc.

[Meark]

here's the deal in my humble opinion: stuff happens. it always will. and no matter how many cameras they post at games from every angle, including crotch shots, there is never, ever going to be an ideal solution to determine what, when and why. it's impossible. the pendulum, at this point in my opinion, has swung to such a degree where everything has become open to interpretation in a game where stuff happens at such a fast pace where it's difficulty to determine intention versus occasion.

 

how far do we need to go to suck all the life out of imperfection. have we become such a digitized, paranoid, the sky-is-falling, conspiracy theory nation in which we pick nit-pick millimeters. should we do so, then, yes, let's prolong games to never-ending commercial breaks and video reviews. why not parse every play to ensure nothing went wrong. good luck with that.

i happen to believe that everyone gets screwed sometimes, and there's nothing wrong with that, because i live a life of pure imperfection. so why should sports be any different.

 

sure, there will be many -- mostly and probably rush fans -- who disagree with me, in believing it's only the bills that get burned. puh-leeze.

must we cater to x-box society to such a degree in which we become trapped in some neo-driven matrix of purity.

 

i'll risk a mistake rather than another series of verizon-sponsored commercial breaks.

 

jw

 

 

 

really. the games are shorter now, and less insipid with networks hiring actual and former referees to provide an interpretation of a call that they get wrong half the time because they're no longer under the hood, and merely guessing, like the rest of us, sitting in our underwear on a couch, hoping the call goes against or for you, because you just may have the player in your fantasy league, and hope the call doesn't cost you a point for, say, a turnover.

 

c'mon, the fantasy leagues -- and i'll admit i'm hooked, too -- have contributed to the demise of sports as we once knew it. and i'm old enough to back that up.

 

jw

 

Fantasy has made sports more popular. Now sure how that is a bad thing. I am actually much more interested in watching other teams play since playing fantasy. I watched the Rams game totally turn around on a bogus PI call on Cook. I don't even like the Rams and live in the Bay Area. I guess I disagree with everything you've said. I'm also no fan of anything called rush unless it's my fantasy running back with the ball.

[Mr. WEO]

The simple answer is that it would be ridiculous to believe a ref or another ref is ever going to reverse a judgement call upon further review. Never would happen, so why bother?

[billsfan89]

Its inherently subjective is the reason they give for it not being able to use a challenge on a penalty.

[Livinginthepast]

I submit to you that a bad penalty call (as we have unfortunately been witness to way too often) can be just as injurious and in some cases even more so as a bad call on a fumble recovery, or catch ruled incomplete, etc. In light of the very poor quality of officiating league wide, a coach should two challenges for challenges to penalty calls in addition to the two existing challenges. That would be up to the coach to decide how to use them. I could live with that since ti does not appear that officiating is going to be consistent or fair from game to game.

 

Actually they can .....in the CFL. The league allows coaches to challenge penalties. The catch is that only PASS INTERFERENCE is challengeable. No other penalties can be challenged. In addition you can challenge for pass interference even when the ref doesnt throw a flag. The coaches can challenge that the ref should have made the call. The challenges use instant replay to review the call and the refs go under the hood just like in the NFL. I watch both leagues quite a bit and I think this would work in the NFL. It doesnt really slow down the games that much and it has reversed a lot of bad calls this season. Its not made the refs any better at calling PI and refs will stay make phantom calls on plays. Scary thing that I have noticed particularly in this Bills season is that the CFL refs are actually much better quality than their NFL counterparts!