Fake-Fat Sunny Posted February 7, 2006 Posted February 7, 2006 Perhaps the rule for a refs decision should be to reverse if there is clear evidence OR when there is a preponderence of the evidence for a call though it may not be clear, the ref may reverse the call if the result allows for the decision to be decided on the field. Basically, I felt pretty clear from where Ben brought the ball out from that he was carrying it low on his body (likely to prevent a fumble or getting it stripped) rather than trying to put it over the goal line as we often see players do. Though I am pretty certain it was not a touchdown I can see that a lame but true case can be made that the evidence was not conclusive. I think its very good to get the call right, but the primary reason I watch is for entertainment. The refs make judgment calls all the time, and I have no problem with the ref choosing to reverse a call which probably should be reversed but the tape is inconclusive IF the result is that the players on both teams will get another shot at doing battle on the field of play. For me it would have been incredibly entertaining to watch the Steelers make a choice whether to go for it on 4th and inches from the goal line or improbably weenie out by kicking an FG. If it was a 4th down play where the ref has the replay call then I would require the ruling on the field to stand unless there is conclusive evidence. If it were a fumble challenge and the result will be a turnover or not I would require the ruling on the field to stand unless there is conclusive evidence. However, in a case like this where the result of calling no TD because it PROBABLY was not a TD, I think it would have been great to see both teams line up for a 4th and inches and likely the Bus would have thundered through the line. If the Seahawks instead stopped him, it would have been one of the great stands in NFL history. The refs should not decide the game, the players should.
eball Posted February 7, 2006 Posted February 7, 2006 Was this intended to be sarcastic? I certainly hope so. Otherwise, it seems to me that you are suggesting that a referee should make a call, review inconclusive video evidence, and then reverse himself anyway -- just because it "feels right" to let the teams have another play? Maybe I need another cup o' joe, because that makes absolutely no sense to me right now.
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted February 7, 2006 Posted February 7, 2006 I think that the best way would be to have an independent video judge in the booth who reviews the plays rather than a member of the referee team. This would speed up reviews and also take a way any bias from a ref not wanting to overturn a call of his referee team. Also, the video judges can be trained specifically in reviewing video rather than as a small part of their job.
Simon Posted February 7, 2006 Posted February 7, 2006 I think that the best way would be to have an independent video judge in the booth who reviews the plays rather than a member of the referee team. This would speed up reviews and also take a way any bias from a ref not wanting to overturn a call of his referee team. This is right on the money. I don't have a big problem with review itself, but the way they have chosen to implement it is just the height of stupidity. I can't count how many times I've been watching a game, then changed the channel when they started the lengthy and ridiculous review process and then never went back to that game.
UConn James Posted February 7, 2006 Posted February 7, 2006 Was this intended to be sarcastic? I certainly hope so. Otherwise, it seems to me that you are suggesting that a referee should make a call, review inconclusive video evidence, and then reverse himself anyway -- just because it "feels right" to let the teams have another play? Maybe I need another cup o' joe, because that makes absolutely no sense to me right now. 597209[/snapback] It's not just you. How fair is it to the team that made a play, even if it was only by a fraction of an inch, to have to put themselves in jeopardy again, simply b/c it makes the game entertaining? Give the other team a chance, despite the fact that they just had their chance? The refs are there to make calls. That's what they do, that's what was done. People complain about the ref not putting his hands up sooner... What is that? He was running toward the play to get a better view and perhaps to confirm what he saw b/c it was so close; bear in mind that he's trained to use that visual snapshot from the time the whistle sounds, and to discount any movement after the player is down. A lot of this crap smacks exactly of an asshat homeowner who stands behind me and asks "Why are you putting that stone there?" "Why are you mixing the cement like that?" "Why are you chipping that stone with the hammer?"... BECAUSE THAT'S HOW YOU DO THIS %$%^ING JOB!!!!
Acantha Posted February 7, 2006 Posted February 7, 2006 People complain about the ref not putting his hands up sooner... What is that? 597275[/snapback] Actually he put his hand up right away. Signaling the ball placement short of the endzone.
obie_wan Posted February 7, 2006 Posted February 7, 2006 Perhaps the rule for a refs decision should be to reverse if there is clear evidence OR when there is a preponderence of the evidence for a call though it may not be clear, the ref may reverse the call if the result allows for the decision to be decided on the field. Basically, I felt pretty clear from where Ben brought the ball out from that he was carrying it low on his body (likely to prevent a fumble or getting it stripped) rather than trying to put it over the goal line as we often see players do. Though I am pretty certain it was not a touchdown I can see that a lame but true case can be made that the evidence was not conclusive. I think its very good to get the call right, but the primary reason I watch is for entertainment. The refs make judgment calls all the time, and I have no problem with the ref choosing to reverse a call which probably should be reversed but the tape is inconclusive IF the result is that the players on both teams will get another shot at doing battle on the field of play. For me it would have been incredibly entertaining to watch the Steelers make a choice whether to go for it on 4th and inches from the goal line or improbably weenie out by kicking an FG. If it was a 4th down play where the ref has the replay call then I would require the ruling on the field to stand unless there is conclusive evidence. If it were a fumble challenge and the result will be a turnover or not I would require the ruling on the field to stand unless there is conclusive evidence. However, in a case like this where the result of calling no TD because it PROBABLY was not a TD, I think it would have been great to see both teams line up for a 4th and inches and likely the Bus would have thundered through the line. If the Seahawks instead stopped him, it would have been one of the great stands in NFL history. The refs should not decide the game, the players should. 597143[/snapback] since entertainment is your objective, the fans should be able to vote and have their voices heard, just like American Idol. The ref would get 1 vote, the fans 1 vote, and a rotating celebrity judge would get 1 vote.
Acantha Posted February 7, 2006 Posted February 7, 2006 since entertainment is your objective, the fans should be able to vote and have their voices heard, just like American Idol. The ref would get 1 vote, the fans 1 vote, and a rotating celebrity judge would get 1 vote. 597305[/snapback] How long do you think it would take before Brady was a celebrity judge?
Wacka Posted February 7, 2006 Posted February 7, 2006 I didn't watch much of the Super bowl and saw the TD replay Monday. He scored. About an inch ofthe ball made it ober the front of the white lin before he hit the ground.
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted February 7, 2006 Author Posted February 7, 2006 It's not just you. How fair is it to the team that made a play, even if it was only by a fraction of an inch, to have to put themselves in jeopardy again, simply b/c it makes the game entertaining? Give the other team a chance, despite the fact that they just had their chance? The refs are there to make calls. That's what they do, that's what was done. People complain about the ref not putting his hands up sooner... What is that? He was running toward the play to get a better view and perhaps to confirm what he saw b/c it was so close; bear in mind that he's trained to use that visual snapshot from the time the whistle sounds, and to discount any movement after the player is down. A lot of this crap smacks exactly of an asshat homeowner who stands behind me and asks "Why are you putting that stone there?" "Why are you mixing the cement like that?" "Why are you chipping that stone with the hammer?"... BECAUSE THAT'S HOW YOU DO THIS %$%^ING JOB!!!! 597275[/snapback] Are you crying? I mean are those tears and are you crying?? There's no crying in football. I mean really. You ask "How fair is it to the team that made a play" If you hadn't noticed life actually isn't fair. I'm not sure why you expect football to be fair. Perhaps what you get out of it is that it is one place where you can pretend there is some illusion of fairness. Believe me, football ain;t fair, its merely human. You also note: put themselves in jeopardy again Look folks who live in Iraq or are in the military are in jeopardy. Folks who play football get 100s of thousands of dollars at a minimum to play a boys game. This is why we all wish we were them. There is nothing about this game beyond the occaisional crticial injury that has anything remotely to do with jeopardy. I don't know maybe you are referring to the game show rather than real life. You also mention: "simply b/c it makes the game entertaining?" Yep. Entertainment is what it is all about Charlie Brown. The NFL used to be a sport that happened to be a business. Now it is a business which happens to be a sport. Its lamentable IMHO, but that is the way it is as best as I can tell. While fortunately it is not the XFL (yet) we're only a Terrell Owens/Nicole Kidman commercial and a clothing malfunction away from being there.
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted February 7, 2006 Author Posted February 7, 2006 How long do you think it would take before Brady was a celebrity judge? 597308[/snapback] Isn't that how the choose Hall of Fame members?
apuszczalowski Posted February 7, 2006 Posted February 7, 2006 They should give the officials a phone a friend option for reviewing. if they can't decide what call to make they get to phone a friend at home to help them make the decission. They would only get 1 a game so they would have to use it wisely. Or they could do an audience poll where everyone in the stands has to punch in if the call was right or run. Who better to make the calls then the people watching the game? They always know the right answers and when the refs screwed up. The refs are human and will make mistakes, lets just be glad that for once it wasn't a mistake that costs the bills.
Guest BackInDaDay Posted February 7, 2006 Posted February 7, 2006 A lot of this crap smacks exactly of an asshat homeowner who stands behind me and asks "Why are you putting that stone there?" "Why are you mixing the cement like that?" "Why are you chipping that stone with the hammer?"... BECAUSE THAT'S HOW YOU DO THIS %$%^ING JOB!!!! 597275[/snapback] Is that slate? I thought slate was always gray? Luckily that was only my wife, and I've learned how to tune her out when I'm working.
Recommended Posts