Should reviews/challenges require some SKIN IN THE GAME?

[BuffaloButt]

6 hours ago, D. L. Hot-Flamethrower said:

The NHL has a new approach to challenges this year. You can challenge as much as you want, with the caveat, when you are wrong,  you get a 2min penalty the first time and 4min double minor after that! What this has done is eliminate many frivolous reviews and stoppages. The game as a result is at 2:28, the shortest in years, and some games have no challenges. It has largely reduced the nasty Offside reviews in super slo-mo after a goal and goalie interferences. In short, if its not important and crystal clear enough- it isn't being challenged.

 

How about something similar in the NFL? And, I'm not looking for football is different than hockey. Honestly, Do you think it has potential to solve some issues? I do!

 

Now I'm old enough to remember the Mike Renfro non-catch for the Oilers against the Steelers in the championship game. This would be an example of a scoring play well worth the challenge and end result. Given the score and situation, we can all come up with dozens of plays that were worth a challenge and perhaps the consequences  perhaps a 5 yard pen and loss of TO, 10 yard pen, 15 yards , etc. (this can be worked out easily enough). What I see and hear is "we just want to get it right" . Well excuse me, but does anybody really see that things are better. We have review and challenges that everyone in the world can see and still get it wrong. Furthermore, I'm sick of the first quarter 4 yard out pass for a first down and review (sarcasm). If its crystal clear and worth it, then go for it and suffer the consequences, if not,  let's not interrupt the flow of the game. Could the call in the Saints/Rams game have been corrected? Sure, I don't see why not, and these are the ones that really matter. NFL football was better when you had to overcome some of the minute in game calls, and you just played on.  An example might go something like this.  You are called for lining up Offside on third down, it keeps a drive going in the second quarter, you have a 50/50 chance of being correct from your video guy upstairs. Is it worth it? Or, is it damn, it went against us , the refs aren't always right. Play on.

 

My personal caveat is, I don't want a team to get screwed when it really matters, like Mike Renfro,  and the Saints. And, they wouldn't. Why shouldn't it cost you to challenge the officiating? Let's improve the flow of the game, and reduce the number of frivolous challenges.

 

 

There already is skin in the game with the penalty of losing a timeout if they are wrong.  I get what you're saying but I think losing the timeout is enough at this point.  Maybe revisit this in a few years.

[Real McClappy]

 

We need skin in the game again!

 

Edited November 20, 2019 by Real McCoy

[clayboy54]

The only skin in the game I want is when, after a challenge, they still get it wrong, Al Riveron loses a body part. This can be determined by online poll by fans. It could start with his pinky and work it’s way inward.

 

what do you all think?

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

27 minutes ago, BuffaloButt said:

There already is skin in the game with the penalty of losing a timeout if they are wrong.  I get what you're saying but I think losing the timeout is enough at this point.  Maybe revisit this in a few years.

Personally, I don't think it's enough. I guess a lot of posters are really happy with the way things flow. JEEZ

[jimmy10]

19 hours ago, D. L. Hot-Flamethrower said:

Neither. The NHL has achieved a positive result by letting you challenge as much as you want, but with consequences when it is not crystal clear and worth it to you. The flow of the game is better than trying to achieve the perfection standard of officiating.

You’ve used “crystal clear” at least twice now. If it’s “crystal clear,” why are the refs getting it wrong on the first place?

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

16 minutes ago, jimmy10 said:

You’ve used “crystal clear” at least twice now. If it’s “crystal clear,” why are the refs getting it wrong on the first place?

Likely because the rules are too technical, the refs suck, or the refs have an agenda.

[MAJBobby]

19 hours ago, D. L. Hot-Flamethrower said:

The NHL has a new approach to challenges this year. You can challenge as much as you want, with the caveat, when you are wrong,  you get a 2min penalty the first time and 4min double minor after that! What this has done is eliminate many frivolous reviews and stoppages. The game as a result is at 2:28, the shortest in years, and some games have no challenges. It has largely reduced the nasty Offside reviews in super slo-mo after a goal and goalie interferences. In short, if its not important and crystal clear enough- it isn't being challenged.

 

How about something similar in the NFL? And, I'm not looking for football is different than hockey. Honestly, Do you think it has potential to solve some issues? I do!

 

Now I'm old enough to remember the Mike Renfro non-catch for the Oilers against the Steelers in the championship game. This would be an example of a scoring play well worth the challenge and end result. Given the score and situation, we can all come up with dozens of plays that were worth a challenge and perhaps the consequences  perhaps a 5 yard pen and loss of TO, 10 yard pen, 15 yards , etc. (this can be worked out easily enough). What I see and hear is "we just want to get it right" . Well excuse me, but does anybody really see that things are better. We have review and challenges that everyone in the world can see and still get it wrong. Furthermore, I'm sick of the first quarter 4 yard out pass for a first down and review (sarcasm). If its crystal clear and worth it, then go for it and suffer the consequences, if not,  let's not interrupt the flow of the game. Could the call in the Saints/Rams game have been corrected? Sure, I don't see why not, and these are the ones that really matter. NFL football was better when you had to overcome some of the minute in game calls, and you just played on.  An example might go something like this.  You are called for lining up Offside on third down, it keeps a drive going in the second quarter, you have a 50/50 chance of being correct from your video guy upstairs. Is it worth it? Or, is it damn, it went against us , the refs aren't always right. Play on.

 

My personal caveat is, I don't want a team to get screwed when it really matters, like Mike Renfro,  and the Saints. And, they wouldn't. Why shouldn't it cost you to challenge the officiating? Let's improve the flow of the game, and reduce the number of frivolous challenges.

 

 

they do. They lose a challenge they lose a timeout 

[Lfod]

I think they should fire or fine the referees with the most over turned calls in a year. They could also give a bonus to the referees with the least over turned calls if the firing and fining them is to harsh. 

[Big Turk]

They lose a timeout if they challenge which in the NFL can be very valuable and can be the difference between getting the ball back and a chance to win or not being able to stop the clock and the other team kneeling it down.

 

I'd say they already have skin in the game.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

I dunno - delay of game 5 yarder if you wanted to?  

[1ManRaid]

First step needs to be removing the refs from the review process so they can't keep upholding calls to save their pride (it reminds me of the police getting to investigate themselves and always find themselves innocent) or to have biases play in favor of the usual suspects.  Have all reviews handled by a centralized unbiased remote office like in the NHL.  I am unsure about having them not factor in the original ruling on "too close to call" plays.

 

As for the "skin on the game", I like the idea of a single renewable challenge you keep getting back on successful challenges, but with a lost time out on a failure.  A cost of X yards of field position could be applied for additional challenges after a failure or if you are out of time outs.  Like you can pay 5 yards (not affecting yardage for first down) to buy another single challenge after your first failed one, risking another time out or 5 more yards if you are out of time outs.

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

Frivolous challenge?  Electrocute the coach.  

Upheld challenge?  Electrocute the official.

 *
Now, what’s for lunch?  ?

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

23 hours ago, badassgixxer05 said:

I agree with the review panel part. Needs to be some sort of war room set up somewhere with a group of educated Sr officials reviewing these plays live and phones in a ruling to on field referee after. This would keep rulings equal across the NFL.

 

It’s funny how often the officiating expert that’s affiliated with the broadcast has a different take than New York or on the feild. 

3 hours ago, Ridgewaycynic2013 said:

Frivolous challenge?  Electrocute the coach.  

Upheld challenge?  Electrocute the official.

 *
Now, what’s for lunch?  ?

I’ll play..... how much voltage and current and for how long? 

[badassgixxer05]

2 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

 

It’s funny how often the officiating expert that’s affiliated with the broadcast has a different take than New York or on the feild. 

I know, and im ok with his way or NY's way as long as they called it the same across the board. Thats whats so screwed up with todays officiating. One week the play is ruled one way, then the next its ruled another. Like wtf!

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

2 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

I’ll play..... how much voltage and current and for how long? 

It’s a sliding scale.  Sufficient to say, the more you use it, the higher the consequences.  

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

It appears either that some didn't read the whole post, or some of the post, or none of the post. And, it also appears some seem perfectly happy with the current system of multiple stoppages to the game flow and loss of a timeout. My only thing is, and I may be in the minority, but I believe challenges are for big, epic game changing, season changing calls. I'm not a fan of, as I said in the OP, the first quarter 3 yard out-did he juggle, lining up Offside by a knuckle, toenail touching the OB line in the second qtr for a 2 yard gain for a FD. I know some think the game can be decided then and there, but really was replay ever intended as a super slo mo, microscopic, second chance. I agree with using it, especially on scoring plays that really matter, and I don't want teams to get screwed. But, It seems from some of the posts that people think you couldn't challenge the above. You could still challenge them but it's your decision to risk something. I stridently believe that a timeout is not enough, coaches are making the cheap challenge all the time.

I agree we need to get the central, unbiased panel type thing going. It appears as if there is some other kind of agenda at work there.

[1ManRaid]

1 hour ago, D. L. Hot-Flamethrower said:

It appears either that some didn't read the whole post, or some of the post, or none of the post. And, it also appears some seem perfectly happy with the current system of multiple stoppages to the game flow and loss of a timeout. My only thing is, and I may be in the minority, but I believe challenges are for big, epic game changing, season changing calls. I'm not a fan of, as I said in the OP, the first quarter 3 yard out-did he juggle, lining up Offside by a knuckle, toenail touching the OB line in the second qtr for a 2 yard gain for a FD. I know some think the game can be decided then and there, but really was replay ever intended as a super slo mo, microscopic, second chance. I agree with using it, especially on scoring plays that really matter, and I don't want teams to get screwed. But, It seems from some of the posts that people think you couldn't challenge the above. You could still challenge them but it's your decision to risk something. I stridently believe that a timeout is not enough, coaches are making the cheap challenge all the time.

I agree we need to get the central, unbiased panel type thing going. It appears as if there is some other kind of agenda at work there.

And that generally doesn't happen, unless the mistake on the call was blatant in which case why would you NOT challenge it if it's guaranteed?

[BillsfaninChicago]

If you are proposing that every incorrect challenge results in the head coach losing an article of clothing than I am strongly opposed to this proposal...

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

8 minutes ago, 1ManRaid said:

And that generally doesn't happen, unless the mistake on the call was blatant in which case why would you NOT challenge it if it's guaranteed?

That's the point! You challenge when its blatant if you want because if it's not coaches will be leery of the penalty.

[4merper4mer]

8 minutes ago, Leonhart2017 said:

If you are proposing that every incorrect challenge results in the head coach losing an article of clothing than I am strongly opposed to this proposal...

What if we get Rex back or trade for Kitchens?