NFL officiating is broken. How do we fix it?

[Mr. WEO]

8 hours ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

I'm in the group that doesn't believe making officials full-time will improve officiating. I actually don't think the zebras are the problem with NFL officiating.

 

 

 

I agree that there are some rules that should be simplified but I strongly disagree with the bolded. 

 

 

 

 

Why, if a ball carrier crosses the plane then fumbles in the EZ, is it ruled a TD?  If both the receiver and  the runner have possession when they cross the plane (the definition of a TD), why not the same call?  Crossing the EZ plane should end every play.

[Sierra Foothills]

9 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Why, if a ball carrier crosses the plane then fumbles in the EZ, is it ruled a TD?  If both the receiver and  the runner have possession when they cross the plane (the definition of a TD), why not the same call?  Crossing the EZ plane should end every play.

 

I specifically bolded your stated opinion that offensive holding not be called unless the holder takes the holdee to the ground.

 

That's what I disagree with you on.

 

I don't disagree with you on the above opinion.

 

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

I specifically bolded your stated opinion that offensive holding not be called unless the holder takes the holdee to the ground.

 

That's what I disagree with you on.

 

I don't disagree with you on the above opinion.

 

 

It never made sense to me that there are different criteria for TD. 

[That's No Moon]

@Sierra FoothillsUnderstand. I think the officiating is incredibly broken. They have written so many rules that can be called so subjectively that it introduces an unacceptable number of opportunities for the officials to directly impact the outcome of the game.

 

I dont think the league thinks it's broken because they aren't doing anything about it.

Edited Sunday at 09:32 PM by That's No Moon

[Dr.Sack]

Who would have ever thought gambling would decrease the on-field product? But hey at least private equity is now allowed to purchase minority stakes? 

[White Linen]

4 minutes ago, That's No Moon said:

@Sierra FoothillsUnderstand. I think the officiating is incredibly broken. They have written so many rules that can be called so subjectively that it introduces an unacceptable number of opportunities for the officials to directly impact the outcome of the game.

 

I dont think the league thinks it's broken because they aren't doing anything about it.

 

I think the league wants and created the ambiguity.  It's better for them if they can side step most situations.

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Why, if a ball carrier crosses the plane then fumbles in the EZ, is it ruled a TD?  If both the receiver and  the runner have possession when they cross the plane (the definition of a TD), why not the same call?  Crossing the EZ plane should end every play.

 

Because one situation is dealing with a runner the other is dealing with a loose ball and player trying to gain possession of the ball. If I follow your questioning right, it really has nothing to do with whether or not the ball crosses the end zone in the case of the receiver. It's about whether the possession of the ball was gained (feet in bounds with ball secured and not bobbled/moving) by the receiver. 

 

If the receiver has possession of the ball and then crosses the plane of the endzone it would be a TD. But I think you are questioning plays where it is determined the receiver has not been ruled to have possession. It's still a loose ball. 

[Vod Kanockers]

Last year, by week 16 I believe that something like only 6 of 32 teams had been officially eliminated from the playoffs. The refs are doing the job that the league wants done. 

[BBills83]

I think full time officials would help with consistency on calls. I agree the rules are too complicated but the inconsistent enforcement in the same game is ruining fan faith. They can't even get ball spots right using replay - i.e. today's Pitt-Wash game. 

[Mr. WEO]

59 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

 

Because one situation is dealing with a runner the other is dealing with a loose ball and player trying to gain possession of the ball. If I follow your questioning right, it really has nothing to do with whether or not the ball crosses the end zone in the case of the receiver. It's about whether the possession of the ball was gained (feet in bounds with ball secured and not bobbled/moving) by the receiver. 

 

If the receiver has possession of the ball and then crosses the plane of the endzone it would be a TD. But I think you are questioning plays where it is determined the receiver has not been ruled to have possession. It's still a loose ball. 

 

No I'm talking about a receiver who has possession when the ball crosses the goal line...but it comes out as he hits the ground.   Should be a TD, like a run for a score.

 

Unlike in the filed of play, a catch in the EZ (not bobbled) should not have to survive the ground, as it does in the field of play. TD plays end at the crossing of the goal line.  

[That's No Moon]

Anybody watching the Jets game who can explain why that last play wasn't a fumble, wasn't a penalty, and ended up just being a do over?

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

No I'm talking about a receiver who has possession when the ball crosses the goal line...but it comes out as he hits the ground.   Should be a TD, like a run for a score.

 

Unlike in the filed of play, a catch in the EZ (not bobbled) should not have to survive the ground, as it does in the field of play. TD plays end at the crossing of the goal line.  

 

Can you link an example?

 

I'm still thinking what you are describing is a receiver who is deemed to never have possession. Once the receiver has possession they technically become a runner and any crossing of the goal line should be deemed a TD. 

 

Not having possession could be for several reasons, lack of two feet in bounds, no time aspect, ball bobbling or ball coming out when the receiver goes to the ground. 

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

 

Can you link an example?

 

I'm still thinking what you are describing is a receiver who is deemed to never have possession. Once the receiver has possession they technically become a runner and any crossing of the goal line should be deemed a TD. 

 

Not having possession could be for several reasons, lack of two feet in bounds, no time aspect, ball bobbling or ball coming out when the receiver goes to the ground. 

 

 

 

Again, I'm saying that possession for a pass in the EZ should not include surviving the ground.  If you catch it just over the goal line in a diving catch--you have possession.  if, as you hit the ground, it comes out---TD.  Same as for a runner who dives across the goal line and then it pops out as he lands hands first in the EZ  (or a Defender chops it out)---TD.

[stevewin]

On 11/8/2024 at 12:32 PM, strive_for_five_guy said:

Just seems to me if something is blatantly a foul on video, a flag should be able to come after the play.  They’re already using the “eye in the sky” system which I think is great, it’s generally quick and teams don’t have to waste a review.  Why can we all sit on our couches and see things on TV or video, yet a flag can’t be thrown after the fact in blatant cases?  Just dumb.

The eye in the sky is the answer - the issue is they need to use it consistently when warranted.  I've said the same thing as above, it should be very simple to decide when to engage - if millions of people see immediately on 1st replay from their couch there was a gross error then step in and correct it.  The problem right now is how random the eye comes into play - it's ridiculous that is exists but is not used in so may obvious situations (using the couch metric).  Get rid of the stupid challenges and stopping the game with refs staring at tablets - if done correctly the eye doesn't slow the game down and most blatent missed/wrong calls are corrected seamlessly not interrupting the game.

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

15 minutes ago, That's No Moon said:

Anybody watching the Jets game who can explain why that last play wasn't a fumble, wasn't a penalty, and ended up just being a do over?

 

I just went back and watched it. Refs messed that one up. Really should have been an encroachment penalty on the Jets. It looked like that was why they were originally blowing the play dead but no flag was ever thrown. Should have been 1st and 5 Cardinals after that play. 

5 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Again, I'm saying that possession for a pass in the EZ should not include surviving the ground.  If you catch it just over the goal line in a diving catch--you have possession.  if, as you hit the ground, it comes out---TD.  Same as for a runner who dives across the goal line and then it pops out as he lands hands first in the EZ  (or a Defender chops it out)---TD.

 

A runner is a runner. Completely different scenario.

 

You absolutely have to complete the process of the catch; one of which is surviving the ground. That holds true whether the process is completed on the sideline, middle of the field or in the endzone. 

[ChrisWatson#21]

It’s never been good.  Name an era when it wasn’t broken?  You would have to go back over thirty years at least.

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

 

I just went back and watched it. Refs messed that one up. Really should have been an encroachment penalty on the Jets. It looked like that was why they were originally blowing the play dead but no flag was ever thrown. Should have been 1st and 5 Cardinals after that play. 

 

A runner is a runner. Completely different scenario.

 

You absolutely have to complete the process of the catch; one of which is surviving the ground. That holds true whether the process is completed on the sideline, middle of the field or in the endzone. 

 

the plane of the end zone is the plane of the end zone 

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

the plane of the end zone is the plane of the end zone 

 

What does that have to do with anything? 

 

We obviously are not seeing eye to eye here. If a receiver completes a catch and crosses the plane of the goal line it will rightly be ruled a TD regardless if they fumble afterwards. 

 

The play below if probably the most famous example of the process of the catch not being completed at the goal line. What is important to note here is that the goal line is irrelevant. This would have been an incomplete pass even if it was caught at midfield or on the sideline. If Jesse James were to have been ruled as completing the catch before extending for the goal line then it would have been a TD once the nose of the ball touches the plane of the goal line. 

 

 

[LabattBlue]

One thing driving me crazy about the officials the last couple of years?  Seems whenever the ball is close to the first down marker, it always seems to be “just give it to them”.  Forget bringing out the chains, they don’t even eyeball it.  Just run up and swing the arm to move the chains.  

[Straight Hucklebuck]

Please don’t change anything.

 

No more eyes in the sky, no more reviews, no more added rules, no more challenges, flags just ruin these games.