Why can't the eye in the sky just be the eighth official on the field?

[Chaos]

its 2025.  If the technology allows better officiating why not use it.  There are seven officials on the field.  Why can't the eye in the sky just be the eighth official and throw flags during the play, and if need be overruing other refs after the play.  Why wait until after the play  only, and for some penalties only? 

[Doc Brown]

Then you'll get complaints about the other 1500 other possible holding calls missed the entire game that aren't as obvious.  They tried to allow coaches to challenge DPI calls and it was a disaster.  It's a slippery slope and/or unintended consequences that will just make things worse.

[BillsfaninChicago]

This is how it all starts….

[Chaos]

3 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Then you'll get complaints about the other 1500 other possible holding calls missed the entire game that aren't as obvious.  They tried to allow coaches to challenge DPI calls and it was a disaster.  It's a slippery slope and/or unintended consequences that will just make things worse.

I would eliminate challenges

[peterpan]

You expect the league to give up their gray area of influence?  

[US Egg]

He’s got more important things to do.

[HardyBoy]

4 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Then you'll get complaints about the other 1500 other possible holding calls missed the entire game that aren't as obvious.  They tried to allow coaches to challenge DPI calls and it was a disaster.  It's a slippery slope and/or unintended consequences that will just make things worse.

 

They intentionally sabatoged that pass interference challenge rule...didn't they over turn like two all season or something insane like that?

[GunnerBill]

6 minutes ago, Chaos said:

I would eliminate challenges

 

The point is not whether it is a challenge or not a challenge. The point is whether it is a foul or not a foul and those subjective calls are never going to be perfect whether you have 10 refs or two.  

 

The best thing they could do IMO is really simplify the rule book.

[Chaos]

6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The point is not whether it is a challenge or not a challenge. The point is whether it is a foul or not a foul and those subjective calls are never going to be perfect whether you have 10 refs or two.  

 

The best thing they could do IMO is really simplify the rule book.

We are in a ridiculous sitution where clearly objective mistakes are made (phantom facemask yesterday) and everyone is expected to ignore those mistakes. 

[GunnerBill]

21 minutes ago, Chaos said:

We are in a ridiculous sitution where clearly objective mistakes are made (phantom facemask yesterday) and everyone is expected to ignore those mistakes. 

 

With respect I think you are conflating two things. We need to separate whether it was clearly objectively not roughing the passer from whether the ref's subsequent explanation of why he threw the flag after the game was predicated on an objective falsehood. 

 

I'm all for replay assist getting involved in facemask calls and I believe I have seen that happen this year where a flag is thrown for a facemask and they have picked it up and said "after involvement of replay assist there is no penalty." 

 

Last night was NOT a facemask call. It was roughing the passer. That is what they called. Now I know the ref said after the game he called it because he "had forcible contact to the facemask." When you see the replay slowed down from a couple of angles it is clear that you don't have such contact and most of the forcible contact is to the shoulder. However, that does not mean that the roughing the passer call was objectively wrong. The actual text of the rule says that:

 

Roughing will be called if, in the Referee’s judgment, a pass rusher clearly should have known that the ball had already left the passer’s hand before contact was made.

 

That is pretty clear that the call is at the discretion of the referee and it give him pretty wide discretion. Further in giving example of things a referee can look for in deciding whether to call roughing the passer it states:

 

(1) forcibly hitting the passer’s head or neck area with the helmet or facemask, even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet or facemask is lower than the passer’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the passer by encircling or grasping him; or

(2) lowering the head and making forcible contact with any part of the helmet against any part of the passer’s body.

 

While in this case we clearly didn't have element #1 there is a slight dipping of the head from Anderson and then there is forcible contact with a part of the helment against Mahomes's shoulder. So even in a world where we had no challenges but replay assist could buzz down and overrule a ref's call on any single play, I'm not sure it would have got involved there. It was a subjective, judgment call on roughing the passer. The reason the ref though it was in the end was flawed, but I'm not sure an official watching replay assist would look at the play and say definitively than an objective mistake had been made to call roughing. 

[MJS]

13 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

With respect I think you are conflating two things. We need to separate whether it was clearly objectively not roughing the passer from whether the ref's subsequent explanation of why he threw the flag after the game was predicated on an objective falsehood. 

 

I'm all for replay assist getting involved in facemask calls and I believe I have seen that happen this year where a flag is thrown for a facemask and they have picked it up and said "after involvement of replay assist there is no penalty." 

 

Last night was NOT a facemask call. It was roughing the passer. That is what they called. Now I know the ref said after the game he called it because he "had forcible contact to the facemask." When you see the replay slowed down from a couple of angles it is clear that you don't have such contact and most of the forcible contact is to the shoulder. However, that does not mean that the roughing the passer call was objectively wrong. The actual text of the rule says that:

 

Roughing will be called if, in the Referee’s judgment, a pass rusher clearly should have known that the ball had already left the passer’s hand before contact was made.

 

That is pretty clear that the call is at the discretion of the referee and it give him pretty wide discretion. Further in giving example of things a referee can look for in deciding whether to call roughing the passer it states:

 

(1) forcibly hitting the passer’s head or neck area with the helmet or facemask, even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet or facemask is lower than the passer’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the passer by encircling or grasping him; or

(2) lowering the head and making forcible contact with any part of the helmet against any part of the passer’s body.

 

While in this case we clearly didn't have element #1 there is a slight dipping of the head from Anderson and then there is forcible contact with a part of the helment against Mahomes's shoulder. So even in a world where we had no challenges but replay assist could buzz down and overrule a ref's call on any single play, I'm not sure it would have got involved there. It was a subjective, judgment call on roughing the passer. The reason the ref though it was in the end was flawed, but I'm not sure an official watching replay assist would look at the play and say definitively than an objective mistake had been made to call roughing. 

They need to change the rules so that there is no world where a play like that could be a penalty, though. It is just a joke. Barely any contact to a player, regardless of the position, should not be a penalty.

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, MJS said:

They need to change the rules so that there is no world where a play like that could be a penalty, though. It is just a joke. Barely any contact to a player, regardless of the position, should not be a penalty.

 

I agree to a degree. The rule book should just be simplified. That would fix a lot of the issues.

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I agree to a degree. The rule book should just be simplified. That would fix a lot of the issues.

This!

[JTown]

Because Mahomes then could not benefit from obviously BS calls by the Refs. 

[I'mBuff]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The point is not whether it is a challenge or not a challenge. The point is whether it is a foul or not a foul and those subjective calls are never going to be perfect whether you have 10 refs or two.  

 

The best thing they could do IMO is really simplify the rule book.

Next best thing is to allow 1 super challenge per half. A super challenge would any part of any play could be challenged. Coach is under the hood with the ref, challenge is broadcast. 

23 minutes ago, MJS said:

They need to change the rules so that there is no world where a play like that could be a penalty, though. It is just a joke. Barely any contact to a player, regardless of the position, should not be a penalty.

And the reviewer of the on field call should not be bound to anything the on field ref saw. It should be independently adjudicated.