A rule tweek? (Regarding challenges)

[PatsFanNH]

An idea seeing as how so many bad calls are unable be challenged if you lose 1 of 2 challenges. My idea is simple, if you win the challenge you still have 2 challenges left if you lose goes to 1 and lose a time out. (Or if you have 1 you still have 1 left if won.).   Seems like a plausible fix that way you always have a challenge left as long as you don’t lose two.

 

thoughts?  I know it isn’t perfect or solve every issue but a small fix at least.

[Dopey]

BB messed up last night by not having a challenge left. It's ok, let it go.

[Jobot]

It was a poor decision to challenge the first down.  There needs to be clear evidence not only that the spot is wrong, but that it would result in a change to the decision of a 1st down or not.  The spot was terrible, but it was still likely a first down.. hence the poor decision by BB. 

 

But to your point, the "2-win challenge rule for a 3rd" was initially put in place when challenges were first brought back to the league due to worries of impact to game flow that could result from so many challenges... now with all scoring plays, all turnovers, and inside 2-minutes requiring an automatic challenge, the game flow has been totally F'd so why not do what you're saying.

Edited December 9, 2019 by Jobot

[Sig1Hunter]

There needs to be an overall fix for the mess that the officials have become. They have *way* too much influence on the game. 

[PatsFanNH]

Just now, Jobot said:

It was a poor decision to challenge the first down.  There needs to be clear evidence not only that the spot is wrong, but that it would result in a change to the decision of a 1st down or not.  The spot was terrible, but it was still likely a first down.. hence the poor decision by BB. 

Oh I agree was a poor decision there! I was trying keep the Pats out of it and talking in general about tweeting the rule is all. Would it be a bad idea to keep a challenge unless you lose your challenge on that play?   I think keep refs a bit more honest if they knew the challenge was still there.  

[Chris66]

Don't put yourself in that position in the first place. Then it won't matter. We all knew going in with Bogers crew it was going to be a chit show.

[BillsFanSD]

2 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

There needs to be an overall fix for the mess that the officials have become. They have *way* too much influence on the game. 

The problem is that any in-game fix will simply be ignored by the officials themselves, like the rule change to allow reviews of PI.  The ultimate solution needs to be full-time, professional officials who are accountable to the league.

[Jobot]

Just now, PatsFanNH said:

Oh I agree was a poor decision there! I was trying keep the Pats out of it and talking in general about tweeting the rule is all. Would it be a bad idea to keep a challenge unless you lose your challenge on that play?   I think keep refs a bit more honest if they knew the challenge was still there.  

 

I edited my earlier response, it probably makes sense to change the rule.. I doubt it will happen because it seems like even changes that are good ideas get squashed into the bargaining chips argument.

[PatsFanNH]

1 minute ago, Sig1Hunter said:

There needs to be an overall fix for the mess that the officials have become. They have *way* too much influence on the game. 

Any ideas? I agree they mess up way to often.. for example the two trips called against Dallas a couple weeks ago in NE.  (I believe those were honest mistakes just like ruling Kelse down yesterday was an honest mistake as well as calling Harry OOB.) 

 

Just now, Chris66 said:

Don't put yourself in that position in the first place. Then it won't matter. We all knew going in with Bogers crew it was going to be a chit show.

Again I wasn’t talking just about the Pats this has happened numerous times threw out the league.  I thought this rule is there already and this is a rather minor tweek that wouldn’t tick off the refs and or team for any reason. 

[Gray Beard]

I have always thought that the rule is weird.  If you challenge and your challenge was correct, why do you lose a challenge?  I guess the idea is to limit the number of challenges so coaches have to decide if it is worth it.  Otherwise they would challenge too often. 

[fergie's ire]

5 minutes ago, Jobot said:

It was a poor decision to challenge the first down.  There needs to be clear evidence not only that the spot is wrong, but that it would result in a change to the decision of a 1st down or not.  The spot was terrible, but it was still likely a first down.. hence the poor decision by BB. 

 

 

 

I thought this was hysterical that Belichick challenged.  I think he panicked.  The Chiefs rushed to the line to get the play off....as if they knew they were going to lose the challenge (even if they knew they would probably win) so Belichick didn't have time to think and just chucked the flag.  That is a TOTAL Patriots move that I have seen Brady pull a bunch of times.  Then, the f'd up the play late from the four yard line because Tom and others were yelling for BB to throw the flag...even though they didn't have one and they rushed a play that lost 2 yards.  The Patriots are always so much smarter then everyone else...but not so much yesterday.

[Chris66]

1 minute ago, PatsFanNH said:

Any ideas? I agree they mess up way to often.. for example the two trips called against Dallas a couple weeks ago in NE.  (I believe those were honest mistakes just like ruling Kelse down yesterday was an honest mistake as well as calling Harry OOB.) 

 

Again I wasn’t talking just about the Pats this has happened numerous times threw out the league.  I thought this rule is there already and this is a rather minor tweek that wouldn’t tick off the refs and or team for any reason. 

I get it, but the refs in all games has been the worst I've ever seen this year. I don't know how they fix it.

[PatsFanNH]

Just now, Gray Beard said:

I have always thought that the rule is weird.  If you challenge and your challenge was correct, why do you lose a challenge?  I guess the idea is to limit the number of challenges so coaches have to decide if it is worth it.  Otherwise they would challenge too often. 

Ahh but if you lose you still lose the challenge and you only have 2 strikes before your out of challenges. So IMO the coaches still have to be smart about when to throw the flag.

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

A Pats fan wanting to increase ref challenges? Oh, the irony! 

[PatsFanNH]

2 minutes ago, fergie's ire said:

 

I thought this was hysterical that Belichick challenged.  I think he panicked.  The Chiefs rushed to the line to get the play off....as if they knew they were going to lose the challenge (even if they knew they would probably win) so Belichick didn't have time to think and just chucked the flag.  That is a TOTAL Patriots move that I have seen Brady pull a bunch of times.  Then, the f'd up the play late from the four yard line because Tom and others were yelling for BB to throw the flag...even though they didn't have one and they rushed a play that lost 2 yards.  The Patriots are always so much smarter then everyone else...but not so much yesterday.

Terrible throw the flag there, but why can’t they fix the obvious spot mistake after review? I mean they gave him an additional yard.. (I’m honestly asking it’s dumb not to fix an obvious error when you see it in review.. ok they lose the challenge since 1st down occurred but the ball be marked at the 39 and not the 40. Patriots charged a time out. Boom easy.. and you fixed a dumb mistake.)

Edited December 9, 2019 by PatsFanNH

[Watkins90]

12 minutes ago, Jobot said:

It was a poor decision to challenge the first down.  There needs to be clear evidence not only that the spot is wrong, but that it would result in a change to the decision of a 1st down or not.  The spot was terrible, but it was still likely a first down.. hence the poor decision by BB. 

 

But to your point, the "2-win challenge rule for a 3rd" was initially put in place when challenges were first brought back to the league due to worries of impact to game flow that could result from so many challenges... now with all scoring plays, all turnovers, and inside 2-minutes requiring an automatic challenge, the game flow has been totally F'd so why not do what you're saying.

Why not just have a booth review for everything. 

[PatsFanNH]

1 minute ago, Watkins90 said:

Why not just have a booth review for everything. 

There would have be a fixed time limit for said review.. say no more than 3 minutes?  I like the idea of the booth being able call for a review at any time during the games if they SEE an obvious error. 

[whatdrought]

Essentially this is a slight amendment from the “if you win two you get a third” and says you get each challenge back that you win. I don’t care for it myself, because it would create a hypothetical scenario where you have a coach challenging 4-5 times a game. I think If they were going to consider this, it should be with a reduction to 1 challenge. You get 1. You win, you get it back. You lose, it’s gone.

[Sig1Hunter]

5 minutes ago, PatsFanNH said:

Any ideas? I agree they mess up way to often.. for example the two trips called against Dallas a couple weeks ago in NE.  (I believe those were honest mistakes just like ruling Kelse down yesterday was an honest mistake as well as calling Harry OOB.) 

 

Again I wasn’t talking just about the Pats this has happened numerous times threw out the league.  I thought this rule is there already and this is a rather minor tweek that wouldn’t tick off the refs and or team for any reason. 

Ideas? Not really. The human element of the officials is a given. There should be a way to correct the errors that get made so the call is right. College football takes this approach, and the pace of the game isn’t usually effected that much where the game becomes unwatchable. I’d like the league to be transparent regarding grading of officials. Those that suck should be given the boot. Those that succeed should be rewarded. Maybe that happens? If it does, it isn’t transparent. So, the perception is that the officials are untouchable. Which leads to growing belief in fixes. 

[Augie]

How do the Pats* fit the refs in under the salary cap? 

 

Sorry, this is the wrong place to come looking for sympathy.  ?

 

You should lose nothing for any challenge you win. It’s not your fault if they blew it and you have to throw the red flag. The refs should be penalized when they suck. I’m sure it’s done quietly by way of assignments, etc. I wish McD had thrown the challenge flag on the (to me obvious) PI call yesterday.