Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Makes perfect sense. If they get the rule changed, it's not cheating.

 

Next, they'll probably propose eliminating illegal substitution and illegal formation rules.

Posted

Makes perfect sense. If they get the rule changed, it's not cheating.

 

Next, they'll probably propose eliminating illegal substitution and illegal formation rules.

They wouldn't be taping the sidelines...
Posted

They should put cameras on their lower-level employees, equipment managers, and in the facilities bathrooms. Those seem to be "problem areas," historically, for the Pats*

 

:D

Posted

 

If the NFL can mandate that all balls in all games be inflated to a consistent PSI to keep the playing field level and make sure their is no competitive advantage one-team has over another, then it should apply to the same standard of consistency to the camera shots available in all games at all sites if they are going to be used to assist in officiating the games. It shouldn't matter the so-called importance or market appeal of the game.

 

For example, if in Week 17 Pats playing Broncos for home field advantage 1-2, Colts playing Bucs and a Colts win gets them 2 if Broncos lose and fall to 3 if Broncos lose. Pat-Broncos have 20 cameras, Colts-Bucs have 8 cameras. Broncos lose, but unfortunately for the Colts, the Buccaneers upset them on a last second controversial call that would have been overruled if their was 20 cameras.

 

This rule is a no-brainer and has been for a long time(even if the Cheatriots proposed it).

 

How do you know this?

 

 

Anyway, the networks supply the cameras, not the NFL. Not sure how the league could mandate a minimum amount of them at this point. Maybe the league will use their own fixed cameras for these replays.

Posted

All Pats jokes aside this is a great idea. I never understood why this didn't happen. Why are there not cameras on the 1st down line, sideline or goal line? There is no reason that a play on the boundary should ever be ruled inconclusive because they didn't have a good angle.

you need a lot of cameras and cameras cost a lot of money. These billionaires don't have a lot of money, obviously.

Posted

 

/Sarcasm (with a hint of skepticism)

 

It really is a good idea and necessary...

Just give it to them...

lol.

 

I love that line. There will be a time when we will be able to afford to "just give it to them" on a td or first down. But wont matter since the score will be like 56-2 in favor of bills. So yeah if Im an announcer. Im like, "just give it to them, it's 56-9, pats sucks, and eff them"

Makes perfect sense. If they get the rule changed, it's not cheating.

 

Next, they'll probably propose eliminating illegal substitution and illegal formation rules.

You didnt read/hear of the new rule which states:

 

Refs can only call penalties on Patriots* when the games outcome is still undefined. However, if the game is on the line, the call has to favor the Patriots*.

 

Ps. The asterisk was included.

Posted

Forget a few extra cameras, I want the NFL to use "Hawk-Eye" - the technology that tennis uses to rule if the ball was in or out. Ruby has been testing it for a while now and I read an article a month or so ago saying that this year's Rugby world cup is using the technology.

 

Why can't the NFL try to implement it? At the very least they should be looking into it for goal line use.

Posted

Forget a few extra cameras, I want the NFL to use "Hawk-Eye" - the technology that tennis uses to rule if the ball was in or out. Ruby has been testing it for a while now and I read an article a month or so ago saying that this year's Rugby world cup is using the technology.

 

Why can't the NFL try to implement it? At the very least they should be looking into it for goal line use.

No I prefer the eyes of the 65 year old refs.

×
×
  • Create New...