Refereeing in Playoff Games

[Wi. Mike now in Florida]

I realize that spelling is not supposed to be an issue in this forum... but there has to be limits. Can we get the title of this thread to actually say what I’m assuming it is supposed to be..”Refereeing” ?


The current title
“Referring” means something completely different... and yes.. I was a bit confused when I first woke up this morning and read it.

Sorry, I seen the spelling error and went back to correct it but it wouldn't let me.

 

[brandon2348]

.they will be fine with status quo as long as eyes keep tuning in.

That's right and its beginning to look even more acutely like that takes precedent over the best team winning with more importance of "story lines" and "market sizes" added to the equation.

 

[sschind]

I would disagree that games are being "fixed" if that is what you are implying. However, I agree that the NFL has been in tough spot in justifying what the refs are doing on the field and in their defense, I would argue that technology and the internet has probably magnified the problems 100 fold.

Sure we could go back to the way games were once played, no reviews, just play ball and the calls all stand as called. The problem with that is technology. Fans would view it as you are now, cheating, collusion, etc. The talk of blown calls for each game would increase dramatically. Anyone with a recording device would have a field day pointing them out and coming up with theories of why the refs blew the call and how it changed the outcome of the game.

Technology and the internet has made "getting it right" paramount to fans. How do you get it right when some of the calls are subjective, plays happen in the blink of an eye, refs vision is blocked, etc? Right now, instant replay is about the best avenue to do that. It isn't perfect and it isn't going to correct every missed call, but if coaches are allowed to challenge calls (any call or non-call) on a limited basis, then at least it comes down to trying to coach out the calls you think are the most critical.

I would never want to see a game where after every play, a call comes from upstairs "#92 was offside, replay the down". However, if a coach wants to use one of his limited challenges on the play, because he feels it was a critical missed call, let him.

We will never see a perfectly refereed game, but at least continue to give referees and coaches the ability to correct the ones that could really matter.

Gentlemen we can rebuild it. We have the technology.

That is the key. We have the technology to get the calls right. Even so they don't always, at least not in everyone's opinion, but they can and do make up for many errors as called (The Edleman muffed punt for example) New England benefited (rightly so) on a judgement call. It was ruled a fumble so it was automatically reviewed (all turnovers are) and it was rightly reversed. The Saints are stuck because PI calls or non calls as the case may be, are non-reviewable. Why is this so. I know people are worried that if we make any call reviewable it will slow down the game but I don't get it why a coach has to decide if they want to use a challenge on a close call or why, should a call not go their way, they can't contest an obvious wrong call later on.

My idea would be to make any challenge subject to a 10 yard delay of game penalty and loss of down in addition to the loss of a timeout. Actually I'd give them 1 free wrong challenge before assessing the penalty. IMO the potential loss of a timeout is not that important if the coach really thinks its a close call. If he knows he will lose 10 yards and a down he is going to be pretty sure about it. On defense if its wrong its a 10 yard penalty and an automatic first down.

Make every play reviewable that way when Sean Payton sees that obvious PI he can throw the flag and ask the officials to take a look. If they don't agree 10 yard penalty and loss of down. I also think there should be a replay official in the booth who has the power to call down, upon seeing a replay, if he thinks something was missed and have it reviewed.

I know it sucks for the Saints but someone somewhere posted four stills, 1 a delay of game, 1 a facemask, and two other calls that the Saints got away with so I'm not going to say the Saints were robbed but that was a bad call and there should be some way of rectifying it.

Take this scenario.

The Chiefs are punting the ball. The ball grazes Julian Edleman's thumb and the Chiefs fall on the ball at the 30. The refs say no it didn't touch him and give the Patriots the ball where it was downed. Andy Reid has used his 3 challenges (if you get 2 right you get a 3rd if I am not mistaken) the Chiefs are screwed. It is really a fumble and there is no way they can get the mistake corrected because since it was not ruled a fumble on the field it isn't automatically reviewed. IMO this is not right. Lets say he gets to challenge. The replay shows it did touch Edleman and its Chiefs ball. All is right with the world (for one play at least) Now lets say he was wrong and it didn't touch Edleman he loses a timeout and the Patriots get another 10 yards added to the spot where it was downed so its 1st and 10 from the 40.

They have the technology to get calls right its a shame its not available on every play. I get that there is the potential to slow the game down but put in other ways to curb abuse. maybe after the 2nd or third call you get wrong its a 15 yard penalty. Maybe if you use 10 challenges in a game they take you out to the woodshed and spank your *** with a stick or maybe the opposing coach gets to kick you in the balls at midfield. I don't know. Make penalties for abusing it severe enough and coaches will think twice but in obvious situations they shouldn't be penalized for wanting to get the call right and deserving to get the call right.

 

[weeds]

To quote my Mother...."You can't have your cake and eat it too."

Your Mom said that? I used that over the years...I think then that I owe her royalties that she will NEVER see.

 

[sschind]

Both games last night had glaring, poorly reviewed mistakes by the refs that had a game altering impact.

The obvious one in the saints game, which to me was the worst one since our replacement ref fail Mary play.

The pats had 2, although much more subtle: the phantom roughing the passer that extended the pats scoring drive late in 4th, and the edleman whiffed punt overturned on replay.

It just seems like most times they bring in the NFL officiating analysy, they come out hat in hand like "yup, they got that wrong". A LOT.

I don't think the NFL is explicitly asking refs to alter games, but they are becoming far too invloved in the end result. They are meant to be invisible on field and have now regularly become a factor within the game.

I don't know what a solution is. They have created many rules out of player safety concern, which isn't going away. In the process, they have whittled such a narrow definition on every minutia of the game while allowing broad in game personal interpretation by the ref on the call, these outcomes almost can't be avoided. It's also why it seems to get worse every year: as they add/alter rules to "fine tweak" them, they more narrowly define and hence more broadly create room for missed/blown calls.

Either way, the NFL is walking a fine fine line here...

They see a bump in viewership by having these games stay closer and more of a "toss-up" late into the game, but eventually, they are going to have their fanbase turn on them if it begins to feel forcibly altered.

Yesterday *FELT* forcibly altered.

That's just my take.

Two points. #1 I think they got the Edleman call right. It appears you disagree. Don't bother trying to convince me otherwise. I watched the play 25 times from 5 different angles and I didn't see the ball touch him anywhere. believe me I wanted the Patriots to lose as much as anyone so i was looking for anything to convince me he touched it..

#2 On the fail Mary that play was going to be reviewed either way. It was a score or a turnover and both are reviewable (at least now they are) You may think they got it wrong on review, and every Packer fan in the world might think they got it wrong but there are plenty of people who think they got it right. Lets change the situation a little bit. Lets give them a few more seconds and move it from the endzone to the 1 yard line and the Seahawks call a timeout with 1 second left. The refs rule complete McCarthy thinks its an interception but has used his challenges or has no timeouts left (McCarthy used all his timeouts...I know sounds incredible doesn't it). Anyway, the Seahakws run another play and score and win. Its the same play but because it is not reviewable teh Packers lose out. If he is deemed wrong, in this case additional yards may not be a big enough deterrent so you add 10 seconds onto the clock. Enough for the Seahawks to get an extra play if the first one doesn't work.

Like my previous post I am simply saying that we have the technology to get he call right. On subjective calls (Like one of Clay's roughing the passer calls from earlier in the year) I don't really care if the call is upheld I just think coaches should have the ability to challenge if they think it is worth the risk.

 

[sschind]

To quote my Mother...."You can't have your cake and eat it too."

Commercials slow the game down, fans running out on the field, getting the clock right, etc. I am fine slowing the game down a limited number of times (# of challenges) to not have these kinds of mistakes, potentially effect the outcome of the game.

I think of the Clay Matthews penalty on Cousins earlier in the year. Had that been reviewable, game is probably over. I would have been fine waiting 2 minutes to get that right.

Regarding that play, I would have even been OK (sort of) had it not been overturned I just think it should have been reviewable.

 

[sjb12681]

Two points. #1 I think they got the Edleman call right. It appears you disagree. Don't bother trying to convince me otherwise. I watched the play 25 times from 5 different angles and I didn't see the ball touch him anywhere. believe me I wanted the Patriots to lose as much as anyone so i was looking for anything to convince me he touched it..

#2 On the fail Mary that play was going to be reviewed either way. It was a score or a turnover and both are reviewable (at least now they are) You may think they got it wrong on review, and every Packer fan in the world might think they got it wrong but there are plenty of people who think they got it right. Lets change the situation a little bit. Lets give them a few more seconds and move it from the endzone to the 1 yard line and the Seahawks call a timeout with 1 second left. The refs rule complete McCarthy thinks its an interception but has used his challenges or has no timeouts left (McCarthy used all his timeouts...I know sounds incredible doesn't it). Anyway, the Seahakws run another play and score and win. Its the same play but because it is not reviewable teh Packers lose out. If he is deemed wrong, in this case additional yards may not be a big enough deterrent so you add 10 seconds onto the clock. Enough for the Seahawks to get an extra play if the first one doesn't work.

Like my previous post I am simply saying that we have the technology to get he call right. On subjective calls (Like one of Clay's roughing the passer calls from earlier in the year) I don't really care if the call is upheld I just think coaches should have the ability to challenge if they think it is worth the risk.

Point 1: edleman play was ruled turnover on field. By rule, to overturn call on the field, it has to be 100% indisputable evidence. Not maybe, not "boy that looks close". 100% indisputable. Everyone including NFL rules analyst said that could have gone either way. But if that's the case, by rule, the play must stand. If it was called the other way on the field, it also should have stood, due to the letter of the rule.

Point #2 is nonsensical. 1st, it fell within 2 min warning, and while no one could predict what didn't happen, chances are if 2 refs walk up with 2 different calls, the plays getting reviewed. While I'm sure many people think it was a TD, I'm not so sure many outside of Seattle's fanbase and staff would be counted among them. Maybe I'm wrong. I do know that on most all "all time worst" lists of bad calls in NFL (even on many all pro sports lists) it ranks as a top 3 of worst and most egrigious calls in modern sports history. It ain't just Packers fans.

For what it's worth. At the end of the day, I agree that the NFL should split the difference, admit mistakes are going to happen, and allow 3 challenges, period, to ANY live play in the game, state what they are challenging, and then ask the refs to review against league rules. There is ZERO reason to put limitations on the challenge system. I would be fine with doing away with the 2 minute booth review to offset any continuity issues or time / pace concerns the NFL has to the change.

 

[sschind]

Point 1: edleman play was ruled turnover on field. By rule, to overturn call on the field, it has to be 100% indisputable evidence. Not maybe, not "boy that looks close". 100% indisputable. Everyone including NFL rules analyst said that could have gone either way. But if that's the case, by rule, the play must stand. If it was called the other way on the field, it also should have stood, due to the letter of the rule.

Point #2 is nonsensical. 1st, it fell within 2 min warning, and while no one could predict what didn't happen, chances are if 2 refs walk up with 2 different calls, the plays getting reviewed. While I'm sure many people think it was a TD, I'm not so sure many outside of Seattle's fanbase and staff would be counted among them. Maybe I'm wrong. I do know that on most all "all time worst" lists of bad calls in NFL (even on many all pro sports lists) it ranks as a top 3 of worst and most egrigious calls in modern sports history. It ain't just Packers fans.

For what it's worth. At the end of the day, I agree that the NFL should split the difference, admit mistakes are going to happen, and allow 3 challenges, period, to ANY live play in the game, state what they are challenging, and then ask the refs to review against league rules. There is ZERO reason to put limitations on the challenge system. I would be fine with doing away with the 2 minute booth review to offset any continuity issues or time / pace concerns the NFL has to the change.

It either hit him or it didn't. After reviewing it they decided that it didn't hit him so they changed the call. If it didn't him that's indisputable evidence right there.

I've seen many people outside the Seattle fan base who think it was right and I don't think I ever said it was just Packer fans. There are lots of non Packer fans who thought they got it wrong and there are lots of non Seahwks fans who think they got it right.

We do agree on the last part though. Coaches need to be able to challenge more things.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Point 1: edleman play was ruled turnover on field. By rule, to overturn call on the field, it has to be 100% indisputable evidence. Not maybe, not "boy that looks close". 100% indisputable. Everyone including NFL rules analyst said that could have gone either way. But if that's the case, by rule, the play must stand. If it was called the other way on the field, it also should have stood, due to the letter of the rule.

Source?

When you piece every camera angle together, that is about as clear of evidence needed to be 100% sure it didn't touch Edelman. I have not seen one clip that actually shows the ball touch any part of him.

I got a kick out of this comment that I read in a write up:

"It seemed like to me on the replay that he did touch the ball, or at least came close enough to doing so to not merit the call getting overturned, but officials saw enough to rule that it was actually Patriots ball."

Sorry buddy, you saw wrong and "close enough" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

 

[Packer Fan in SD]

When I saw the play I knew it had been touched. As I watched the different replay views I kept waiting for the one that showed the touch. I am still waiting. Not one angle shows a touch.

 

[swhitset]

It either hit him or it didn't. After reviewing it they decided that it didn't hit him so they changed the call. If it didn't him that's indisputable evidence right there.

I've seen many people outside the Seattle fan base who think it was right and I don't think I ever said it was just Packer fans. There are lots of non Packer fans who thought they got it wrong and there are lots of non Seahwks fans who think they got it right.

We do agree on the last part though. Coaches need to be able to challenge more things.

Your logic escapes me to say the least on the first point. The rule clearly states that the call on the field should not be overturned unless there is clear evidence that the call was wrong. You admitted that you watched the play 25 times and could not see it hit him. That is not saying that it didn’t... just that you couldn’t see it. That is a textbook case for letting the play stand as called.

 

[G0P4ckG0]

My take is that refs will never be perfect and we should accept that FACT. Teams who complain about a blown call that "cost them the game" should have never put themselves in a position to lose by a blown call. If you play the game well, you will never have a reason to complain about losing due to a blown call because you will blow-out the other team.

I motivate my team at work to have a similar philosophy. Be proactive in what you do and perform your best at all times so that excuses will never arise. Unforseen circumstances will never go away (such as a blown call in sports), but if you are well-prepared and execute your plan well, you will be able to successfully overcome any adversity.

 

[Mondio]

Your logic escapes me to say the least on the first point. The rule clearly states that the call on the field should not be overturned unless there is clear evidence that the call was wrong. You admitted that you watched the play 25 times and could not see it hit him. That is not saying that it didn’t... just that you couldn’t see it. That is a textbook case for letting the play stand as called.

For me the replay confirmed that it did not touch him. I thought it did, I thought it hit one of his thumbs or his forearm. Then they showed the replays and you could clearly see it hit none of those places and in the "real" time view it didn't look like it hit anything else. At least not to me. I think they got that play right in replay.

 

[swhitset]

For me the replay confirmed that it did not touch him. I thought it did, I thought it hit one of his thumbs or his forearm. Then they showed the replays and you could clearly see it hit none of those places and in the "real" time view it didn't look like it hit anything else. At least not to me. I think they got that play right in replay.

actually so do I... i however do not believe it was conclusive. Everytime I watched it... I wondered if it might have grazed his bicep if not the very top of his thumb.

 

[Mondio]

actually so do I... i however do not believe it was conclusive. Everytime I watched it... I wondered if it might have grazed his bicep if not the very top of his thumb.

and this is why I'd rather they just do away with it. It's like Philly play from earlier this year. I don't remember all the specifics, but a fumble I believe and there were 3 or 4 philly guys right there, an arm came out and pulled the ball in, which you could see and then an ensuing pile of bodies. as they undid the pile, from the bottom was all Philly players and they guy that pulled it in to begin with came out with it. Besides that, there was literally zero dallas players in position to have recovered the ball. But since there was a pile of Philly players there was no "clear" recovery and thus it stayed with Dallas.

and that's one where everybody on earth could see it was Philly ball, but it didn't fit the rule to overturn. and then you have a play like this, where some think maybe, some think clearly, some think stands, overturn. Ask any mouth attached to 2 eyes and you're going to get quite a mix of what they "think". Then toss in ever changing language and more rules and this is becoming an impossibly tough game to officiate. There were so many plays this year where I felt what good is replay for anyway after they upheld or overturned some things. and here we have another play, so many people see something different how can it ever be "right"?

I know people think we have the technology to make it right and I disagree completely. Sure a better view on some might help, but then I don't want this game officiated at slow motion. Analyze after the fact, fine. I think the game will obviously survive bad call, as it has since its inception. I don't know if it will survive microanalyzing every play every game. Train your officials, simplify some rules and get it going. Officiating the game should never be taken from the officials on the field. There are feels, and flows to game and the officials are there to call it that way. Let them, and if they're not doing a good enough job, replace them. But let them be officials and let the games go on.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I understand some wanting to do away with replay altogether and their reasons why, but whether you like it or not, I doubt it is ever going away. I look at the tremendous uproar over the no call on the PI in the Saints game, a call that isn't reviewable and then try to imagine how fans would react if replay was abolished. Every missed call, every game changing call would have fans screaming bloody murder, simply because they and everyone else will have every camera angle they need to prove their point.

The problem isn't with replay itself, but just like the catch rule, they have to work all the kinks out of defining rules, what is reviewable and how its reviewed.

Again, replay isn't going away, so its just a matter of continuing to tweak a process that IMO, has actually gotten better over time.

 

[Mondio]

i don't think it's better at all, just more confusing. Look at the muffed punt in the patriots game vs Packers Lions earlier this year with King? I thought very similar and I thought what looked like "touching" in one angle was proven not to be in another. To me, that should be a reason to make a call. and in one game it was, the next it wasn't. That will never go away. It will never go away even if they get rid of replay. People see things differently and everyone sees stuff incorrectly sometimes.

That roughing call against KC, I was walking into the kitchen to get my late napping 2 year old something to eat. Eyes glued to the TV though while walking in there and though for sure Brady got knocked right on the top of the helmet and said, "thats going to be a flag". Came back to the living and sure enough, there was the flag and then they showed the replay, boy was I wrong. It happens. This game will survive bad calls, it always has. more replay equals more expectations and they're expectations that are completely unrealistic IMO. and if you're not going to replay everything, why replay somethings? because if it's only somethings, something else will be missed in a big moment. more eyes, more interpretations, more errors IMO. Get officials in the game and let them call it.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

NFL must put accuracy over pace of play

Just listened to this. Really like both King and Florio's takes.

https://www.nbcsports.com/video/nfl-must-put-officiating-accuracy-over-pace-play?ls=pftvod

 

[Mondio]

NFL must put accuracy over pace of play

Just listened to this. Really like both King and Florio's takes.

https://www.nbcsports.com/video/nfl-must-put-officiating-accuracy-over-pace-play?ls=pftvod

and how do you get accuracy when 2 sets of eyes often see something differently. and then you have to add every increasing language of the rules and people interpret things differently as well. It's all a nice theory, to be accurate and all. Football isn't great because of its complexity. maybe people like to make it that way because it makes them seem smarter than they are? But it is a simple sport, it should have simple rules.

I'd love to have 10 games posted, edit out the officials and let fans call the games as they see it. Just the plays, scrub any flags or anything. Run 'em thru the same filters so they can't be definitively dated and have them make penalties and calls. From the past 3 decades. Then compare it to how they actually were called and replay vs non replay games. Then we'll see how much more "clean" or not games are called now vs no replay.

Cripes, in the same game people want replay because Brady got another play on a roughing call and in the same game they're complaining about replay overturning a called fumble on a punt because of replay. Is it really better?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

and how do you get accuracy when 2 sets of eyes often see something differently. and then you have to add every increasing language of the rules and people interpret things differently as well.

We aren't talking about just 2 sets of eyes, we are talking about multiple camera angles and the ability to look at something frame by frame by multiple people that are well versed in the rules. Versus one set of eyes, one angle, often spit seconds to see whatever they may or may not be able to see and then a few seconds more to process all of that information in their head and than determine what they thought they saw. Humans aren't robots and for people to expect or accept that one person is going to be more accurate/fair in that situation, is unrealistic in my opinion.

If you were running a race, that if you won, you and your teammates collectively would win millions of dollars, would you be fine with one person standing at the finish line, possibly with an obstructed view or a bad angle, determining who crossed the line first?

It's really pointless for you and I to even debate this. Your opinion is that there should be no replay at all, let em play. While I respect your opinion, I 100% disagree with it.

 

[Mondio]

it's not a race, it's football. It's not who crosses a line first. Get all the camera angles you want. People can't even tell if the Edleman call, reversal was correct. i would bet you could barely get a 60/40 consensus either way. or the Dez catch non catch and throw in some rule changes constantly. It's an imperfect game played and officiated by imperfect people. Did replay make the games this weekend better? did they make them worse? I think they did nothing really. take or leave it, people will still enjoy football. Or keep on a quest for perfecting officiating, which will never happen. If you allow 1 more challenge, people will find 100 reasons they need 4.

 

[swhitset]

it's not a race, it's football. It's not who crosses a line first. Get all the camera angles you want. People can't even tell if the Edleman call, reversal was correct. i would bet you could barely get a 60/40 consensus either way. or the Dez catch non catch and throw in some rule changes constantly. It's an imperfect game played and officiated by imperfect people. Did replay make the games this weekend better? did they make them worse? I think they did nothing really. take or leave it, people will still enjoy football. Or keep on a quest for perfecting officiating, which will never happen. If you allow 1 more challenge, people will find 100 reasons they need 4.

The fact that we disagree about the Edelman call is why I believe the call was incorrect. The officials are not supposed to let replay change the call unless there can be no dispute about what the video evidence shows. I happen to think your are correct that he didn’t touch it... but I’m not sure. In that case, replay should not reverse the call. That is what i’m upset about. It seems that the officials were using a different standard of proof, and frankly it seems that officials do this all the time. Each one uses his own standard in every call .... replay or not.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

it's not a race, it's football. It's not who crosses a line first.

I would beg to differ, How often have we seen the need to see if a ball crossed the goal line, line to gain, a foot was out of bounds? In your opinion, I assume those things don't matter, since its an imperfect game that should tolerate imperfect calls by the referees.

To ignore that instant replay hasn't corrected a lot of mistakes, and say it shouldn't be used simply because you think it failed on a small percentage, to me isn't a reason not to have it, its a reason to keep trying to improve it.

 

[sschind]

Your logic escapes me to say the least on the first point. The rule clearly states that the call on the field should not be overturned unless there is clear evidence that the call was wrong. You admitted that you watched the play 25 times and could not see it hit him. That is not saying that it didn’t... just that you couldn’t see it. That is a textbook case for letting the play stand as called.

I watched it 25 times and in not one single viewing did I see it hit him. I'm not sure how many times the ref watched it but he didn't see it hit him either. The call said it hit him the ref said it didn't. IMO its a textbook case of overturning the call.

 

[swhitset]

I watched it 25 times and in not one single viewing did I see it hit him. I'm not sure how many times the ref watched it but he didn't see it hit him either. The call said it hit him the ref said it didn't. IMO its a textbook case of overturning the call.

I probably should have driven this point harder.... but why did you need to watch it 25 times?