Instant Replay: Should it Be in Real Time?

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

I refuse to answer any poll with the word "whilst" in it

 

USE BOTH

 

Get back to (if it ever was) a limited time for review.    Maybe even shorten it to a 60 second review time and cut the feed to the tablet.  AND NY must review the play as well while the REF on the field is doing it.  This way if the Ref has a question NY already has their answer / interpretation. 

6 hours ago, Chandler#81 said:

? hmmm. You may be on to something, Gugny. The new PI rule is becoming an abortion with coaches voting overwhelmingly for it and now review committee after review committee is second guessing and trying to fine tune. Coaches have been experimenting with it in preseason and the results are ridiculous. Now they’re going after shield blocks, which is another black hole. 

 

Officiating has gone from ludicrous to sublime.

 

Your idea makes sense, so it’s already better than anything coming out of the League office.

 

Whats do they have to do with football ??? 

   

 

Edited August 21, 2019 by ShadyBillsFan

[nucci]

We watch the replays on TV and can tell right away if the call is correct or not yet we have to wait a full 2 minutes on a simple call. Have 1 or 2 refs in a room with TV and do it just like that. Watch the play and make the call. Current system is ridiculous

[Mr. WEO]

Slow mo is going to give a clearer depiction of the event than just seeing it again at the same speed.  Did the player cross the pane.  Step on the side line with the tip of his shoe. lose possession of the ball as he fell on it and shielded it from the ref.

 

No point in seeing it the same way if there is a question with the original call.

[H2o]

Can you imagine the lawsuits that would arise from all of the incessant whiners these days?

 

The game caused me trauma, this made me emotionally unstable, we were cheated, blah, blah, blah.....

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

5 minutes ago, nucci said:

We watch the replays on TV and can tell right away if the call is correct or not yet we have to wait a full 2 minutes on a simple call. Have 1 or 2 refs in a room with TV and do it just like that. Watch the play and make the call. Current system is ridiculous

for the majority of calls I would agree.   

 

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Slow mo is going to give a clearer depiction of the event than just seeing it again at the same speed.  Did the player cross the pane.  Step on the side line with the tip of his shoe. lose possession of the ball as he fell on it and shielded it from the ref.

 

No point in seeing it the same way if there is a question with the original call.

bingo 

[MILFHUNTER#518]

Then what is the point?

[PetermansRedemption]

I believe expansion of replay is horrible for the purity of the game. It is part of the reason I enjoy High School Football, it is still a pure game and it does not take 4 hours to complete. Replay is completely out of hand. We have a replay for everything and replay reviews feel like they take 5-10 minutes per review. Multiply that by a possibility of 4 challenges per game and we are wasting 40 minutes. That being said, it isn’t going anywhere, so it must be corrected. 

 

Ive been trumpeting a plan that I feel would work pretty well. Replay is for correcting the egregious calls or non-calls. We can all agree that could have a place in the beloved game of football. It must be metered though, it cannot run rampant. First, make everything challengeable. It is practically there already, so just rip off the band aid. If you got called for a hold and felt it wasn’t a hold, challengeable. Incorrect spot? Sure that’s challengeable. Unsportsmanlike conduct that you don’t believe happened? Challengeable if you think there is evidence on tape to overturn it. Late hit out of bounds that was or wasn’t called? Challengeable.

 

 In addition to this, allow for challenges in the final two minutes. There is no more “booth review”. If the coach wants something reviewed, he throws the flag for it. Coaches still have two challenges per game, but that is it. They get two challenges of the game regardless of how those two go. If they win both, great, you still don’t get a third. Replays are also done in real time. The game is viewed and officiated in real time, why let ultra slow motion be used to detect a blade of grass on someone’s knee when he fumbled. Lastly, there is a “shot clock”. Once the referee begins viewing the tablet this clock begins. Something like 2-3 minutes feels right. If the referee doesn’t make a call within that time frame it automatically reverts to “call on the field stands.”  If you can’t overturn a call conclusively in that time frame it isn’t egregious enough to be overturned anyways. 

Edited August 21, 2019 by Bills2ref

[Gugny]

8 hours ago, Warcodered said:

This is kind of the entire point of instant replays if you're not going to slow it down why even have them.

 

For fan viewing, yes.  I don't think officiating reviews should be slowed down.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

3 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

For fan viewing, yes.  I don't think officiating reviews should be slowed down.

they should be limited to the time they specified and if a decision is not made in the allocated time frame move on.  

[Orlando Buffalo]

36 minutes ago, Bills2ref said:

I believe expansion of replay is horrible for the purity of the game. It is part of the reason I enjoy High School Football, it is still a pure game and it does not take 4 hours to complete. Replay is completely out of hand. We have a replay for everything and replay reviews feel like they take 5-10 minutes per review. Multiply that by a possibility of 4 challenges per game and we are wasting 40 minutes. That being said, it isn’t going anywhere, so it must be corrected. 

 

Ive been trumpeting a plan that I feel would work pretty well. Replay is for correcting the egregious calls or non-calls. We can all agree that could have a place in the beloved game of football. It must be metered though, it cannot run rampant. First, make everything challengeable. It is practically there already, so just rip off the band aid. If you got called for a hold and felt it wasn’t a hold, challengeable. Incorrect spot? Sure that’s challengeable. Unsportsmanlike conduct that you don’t believe happened? Challengeable if you think there is evidence on tape to overturn it. Late hit out of bounds that was or wasn’t called? Challengeable.

 

 In addition to this, allow for challenges in the final two minutes. There is no more “booth review”. If the coach wants something reviewed, he throws the flag for it. Coaches still have two challenges per game, but that is it. They get two challenges of the game regardless of how those two go. If they win both, great, you still don’t get a third. Replays are also done in real time. The game is viewed and officiated in real time, why let ultra slow motion be used to detect a blade of grass on someone’s knee when he fumbled. Lastly, there is a “shot clock”. Once the referee begins viewing the tablet this clock begins. Something like 2-3 minutes feels right. If the referee doesn’t make a call within that time frame it automatically reverts to “call on the field stands.”  If you can’t overturn a call conclusively in that time frame it isn’t egregious enough to be overturned anyways. 

I overall agree but it in regards to the limit of challenges- you should keep having a challenge until the coach is wrong. Allowing a coach the ability to fix 8 wrong calls is good if he only uses 8 challenges. Basically one mistake and no more challenges which would make a coach only throw it on big mistakes not small ones that might not go their way.

[CarpetCrawler]

I was confused at first, I guess you mean at real speed? Real time is more like as it is happening, real speed is at the same speed it happened.

[Gugny]

23 minutes ago, CarpetCrawler said:

I was confused at first, I guess you mean at real speed? Real time is more like as it is happening, real speed is at the same speed it happened.

 

I'm sorry that confused you.

[row_33]

there is a conspiracy to destroy just the teams i cheer for

 

robot umps and NFL replay on every play will just make the hate get worse against the teams i cheer for

 

NYC and Toronto and wherever will just make me angrier by their bias against my teams

 

 

 

[clayboy54]

Anything that keeps Al Riveron out of the process is good for the game.

1. Keep it inside the stadium

2. Final decisions from the on-field referee

3. 60 seconds to look at video, however you choose, fast, slo-mo, whatever

4. Any play being reviewed is subject to other infractions that may be uncovered

5. Coaches get 2 challenges per half no matter what

6. No booth review inside 2 minutes. If you have 1 of your 2 left, use it

7. All games MUST have the same number of available camera angles for replay (i.e. Superbowl has like 50 cameras while Bills games typically have about 3)

 

That is my proposal.

[Don Otreply]

Imo the key is putting in  a point system, so when a given ref has X numbers of points for bad calls in a season/career he/she is fired. The refs thing is just a good old boys club and needs to be shaken up.  Also only the head coaches should be able to flag a replay, no more mandatory replays.  

 

With tv time outs, team timeouts, and now replay timeouts, the game is becoming as slow as baseball.

 

Go Bills!!!

[That's No Moon]

Slow motion...

Edited August 21, 2019 by That's No Moon

[Figster]

8 hours ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said:

Then what is the point?

The officiating crew may not have the proper angle /sightline to see an obvious penalty.

 

The point is to help keep with the natural flow of a football game.

 

Not dissecting...

[Gugny]

18 hours ago, Figster said:

The officiating crew may not have the proper angle /sightline to see an obvious penalty.

 

The point is to help keep with the natural flow of a football game.

 

Not dissecting...

 

Yes.  

 

And I'm glad you brought up angles.  I also think, for officiating replay purposes, the replays should be from field-level cameras.  

 

The 150,000,000 angles, vantage points, views, etc., are fine for the TV viewer.  But what sense does it make for an official review to be viewed in angles that the referee couldn't have possibly had when the play happened?

 

I don't think it makes any sense at all.  That's not a replay, as far as officiating is concerned.  It's an extra official/officials via cameras.

[row_33]

1 hour ago, Gugny said:

 

Yes.  

 

And I'm glad you brought up angles.  I also think, for officiating replay purposes, the replays should be from field-level cameras.  

 

The 150,000,000 angles, vantage points, views, etc., are fine for the TV viewer.  But what sense does it make for an official review to be viewed in angles that the referee couldn't have possibly had when the play happened?

 

I don't think it makes any sense at all.  That's not a replay, as far as officiating is concerned.  It's an extra official/officials via cameras.

 

not all games are equally covered by cameras and angles

 

i PVR the games and fast forward through all replays, they just do whatever the heck they want to in the booth no matter how objectively obvious the call should be

 

'oh.... it might have been out of bounds....  fast forward for the next 2-15 minutes on the recording.... oh, it was determined out of bounds, whatever, next play please..."

 

it just pisses people off in 3 different ways

 

who needs this aggravation when i'm just trying to veg away from the rat race

 

 

[Mrbojanglezs]

YESS

 

this would solve all the rules problems. 

 

Been saying this for a while. The refs on the field have to make the call in real time so why does everyone else see it in slo-mo? TV should not be allowed to show slow replay in any challenge on the field would be reviewed in real-time if you can't see it in real time you can't change the ruling