Review Everything or Review Nothing?

[Cheese Headed Monster]

With how fast the college offenses move, I think the college OT rules fit that, younger guys. With the ground and pound beatings that the OLine/DLine take through the course of a game, many of those guys in their 30s. I don't think you can expect them to keep up the level of play to keep up with that. It would be a waterdown product and the NFL doesn't want that. I am not here to provide the miracle you are looking for. I don't know what the answer is for NFL OT rules, but much like the miracle you need to convince you, that same (but opposite) miracle would be needed to convince a 300lb 30 year old to do again for an undetermined amount of time and risk injury the longer it goes on.

Thats a fair way to think about it. Seems like we agree though that there has to be something better though

 

[Cheese Headed Monster]

Review nothing

OT is fine. There is no perfect scenario, and football is just as much about defense as offense. Stop them.

While I understand that a perfect solution may very well not exist, the "just stop them" argument is outdated with how the game is geared towards offense more than defense. Much like how the Chiefs did not stop the Patriots on the OT drive, you can guarantee the Patriots would not have stopped the Chiefs. So if both defenses blow, you decide a SB participant with a coin flip? Because that is what is happening with OT and todays NFL.

However if this were 10-15 years ago, I would agree with you 100%

 

[Mondio]

I’m fine with it. It’s football. Win your battles, you’ll win the game. Offense or defense, line em up and win.

 

[Stanger37]

Thats a fair way to think about it. Seems like we agree though that there has to be something better though

How about this? Let me set the table.

No downs, no play clock. Clock will count up from 0:00.

Instead of college starting at 25yd, each team starts at the opposing 35yd line.

EACH TEAM has their offense and defense on the field at the same time on their respected side of the field......

First team to score wins. Just chaos.

(note...I haven't thought about if a team throws an INT or fumbles yet but it's a start)

 

[Cheese Headed Monster]

How about this? Let me set the table.

No downs, no play clock. Clock will count up from 0:00.

Instead of college starting at 25yd, each team starts at the opposing 35yd line.

EACH TEAM has their offense and defense on the field at the same time on their respected side of the field......

First team to score wins. Just chaos.

(note...I haven't thought about if a team throws an INT or fumbles yet but it's a start)

Thats better than my idea of having each time drive to the nearest putt-putt golf course and duel it out. First team to hole-in-one the castle where the dragon tail blocks half the green on hole 18 advances

 

[gbgary]

everything's fine as is. i might add one more challenge for PI (since it's the biggest game changing penalty) but that's it. OT is fine too. the biggest problem is consistency. one game is reffed differently than the other. oh...end "letting them play" is really bad. it got you the saints games that's the cause of all the current turmoil.

 

[Cheese Headed Monster]

I heard something on the radio that made me laugh, they said they wonder which game would have higher ratings, Rams-Pats or Chiefs-Saints if you had both games happen on SB Sunday at the exact same time just different channels

 

[Packer96]

If the Saints did a better job of play calling that series the play doesn't happen. If they don't throw a pic in OT, who knows what would have happened. They thought nothing of the cheap shots they laid on Bret 10 years a go, with no calls, karma's a *****. I vote for leave as is.

 

[AmishMafia]

How about this? Let me set the table.

No downs, no play clock. Clock will count up from 0:00.

Instead of college starting at 25yd, each team starts at the opposing 35yd line.

EACH TEAM has their offense and defense on the field at the same time on their respected side of the field......

First team to score wins. Just chaos.

(note...I haven't thought about if a team throws an INT or fumbles yet but it's a start)

That would be awesome! Your WRs run their routes but it's a run play. So after going 20 yds, they become DBs for you defense coming the other way. What a mess. A fun mess though.

 

[gbgary]

If the Saints did a better job of play calling that series the play doesn't happen.

yup. throwing two incomplete passes instead of running the clock down was stupid.

 

[sschind]

If the Saints did a better job of play calling that series the play doesn't happen. If they don't throw a pic in OT, who knows what would have happened. They thought nothing of the cheap shots they laid on Bret 10 years a go, with no calls, karma's a *****. I vote for leave as is.

I agree with your point that this one call didn't cost the Saints the game. I will never believe that one play is the reason a team loses a game. There will always be things that you can point to that could have mattered that would have made the situation irrelevant so to speak. However, if the ability exists to prevent such an egregious call to affect the outcome it should be explored.

 

[BrokenArrow]

I am not a Saints fan by any means obviously, but that was just messed up... I don't care for the "They could have won it in OT" argument because of two things: 1. it never should have gotten to OT, 2. People underestimate how deflating a call (or lack there of) like that is to a a team and how almost impossible it is to bounce back.

Not to mention it ignores the ebb and flow of managing a game and making timely adjustments. The entire goal is to position yourself to win the game in the end and that's what the Saints accomplished but the officials simply didn't allow it.

And BTW, there needs to be an investigation independent of the NFL of what happen on that thing. I keep seeing people chalking it up to "human error." But I have a problem with that. First, it was about the most obvious PI that I think I have ever, ever seen in 35 years of watching football. I could maybe accept if one official could not see it clearly due to his angle from the play. But there were THREE official who had a good look at it from various angles and I cannot fathom that all three would simply not see it. The odds that even one of those guys didn't see it seems pretty small. Multiply that by 3 and we're talking about lightning strike odds. That's not even taking into consideration the obvious helmet-to-helmet! I've never been a conspiracy theorist, but the basic math would indicate that something more appears to have been going on there and it reeks of the NFL desperately wanting that LA market to succeed by trying to generate a fan base for the Rams that simply doesn't exist in LA.

 

[BrokenArrow]

I’m fine with it. It’s football. Win your battles, you’ll win the game. Offense or defense, line em up and win.

You're completely ignoring the fact that the NFL has skewed the rules to heavily favor offenses over the past few years. It's not a level playing field between offense and defense anymore.

 

[Mondio]

You're completely ignoring the fact that the NFL has skewed the rules to heavily favor offenses over the past few years. It's not a level playing field between offense and defense anymore.

I don’t know the actual numbers or how they compare, but good offenses score on 30% of their possessions after a kickoff? I know rules favor the offense, but holding to a FG shouldn’t be an insurmountable task. And if both teams kick a FG, fine both teams had a chance. But why does one team get a 2nd?

Football doesn’t lend itself to a completely fair OT. I hate college OT myself and never want to see something like that. And if it’s a guaranteed possession, then the team going second has an advantage in knowing what it needs. And 4 downs become any easy call.

 

[pacmaniac]

Don't know what the technology is in tennis, but they've got that line call cartoon graphic that actually seems to satisfy everyone. Maybe on things like stepping out of bounds, something like that could be used?

I don't think there's ever been a controversy about whether a guy had stepped out or not.

 

[pacmaniac]

I think there are more calls missed every game than we realize.

And don't people say there's holding on every play? If we start allowing challenges on penalties or non-penalties, then any team that gives up a late TD will just throw the challenge flag and claim there was a holding that wasn't called.

 

[Poppa San]

How about this? Let me set the table.

No downs, no play clock. Clock will count up from 0:00.

Instead of college starting at 25yd, each team starts at the opposing 35yd line.

EACH TEAM has their offense and defense on the field at the same time on their respected side of the field......

First team to score wins. Just chaos.

(note...I haven't thought about if a team throws an INT or fumbles yet but it's a start)

Actually the more I think on this, the more I like it. On turnovers, the defense returns it no further than the other 40. After the turnover, everyone from that end clears the field to watch the other end of the field. Until there is a score or turnover. That turnover can be returned for a score. Timeouts stop the action at both ends of the field. Flags also stop action at both ends. No substitutions unless play is suspended.Would need 3 more officials to split them up. Puts 5 on each end. Maybe the guys holding the chains can become line judges.

 

[BrokenArrow]

Football doesn’t lend itself to a completely fair OT. I hate college OT myself and never want to see something like that. And if it’s a guaranteed possession, then the team going second has an advantage in knowing what it needs. And 4 downs become any easy call.

That's easy to address. Take the FG off the table. No FG in overtime. Also no punts, so the entire overtime is 4 down territory. No kickoffs either. The first possession and any possession after a score starts at your own 35 yard line. Now there's no advantage to going second. In fact, you might occasionally see the team that wins the toss choose to kick if their defense is well-rested.

OR...

Keep it as it currently is except take luck out of the equation by having both coaches bid as to which one is willing to start with the ball deeper in their own territory. Home team gets to make the first bid. Then proceed with current rules.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

I'd be happier if they just got the reviews done a little faster. The current system seems slow and clunky......Fans watching on TV will see the same play reviewed half-a-dozen times while the officiating crew is still trying to figure it out. Unsat.

 

[Half Empty]

I don't think there's ever been a controversy about whether a guy had stepped out or not.

No smilie with this. Are you serious?

 

[El Guapo]

I'm generally in favor of perfecting what we've got. Penalties are not reviewable in any case. Turnovers, whether the ball breached the line to gain, and receptions should be reviewable. We can get some of the game right. With television showing replays, you have to allow the greatest scenarios to be reviewed. I don't believe that penalties fall into that category, even when they appear to change a game. I don't lament about the facemask against Rodgers in the 2009 playoffs against AZ.

I agree with others that the criteria for overturning calls makes zero sense. The NFL rule states “A decision will be reversed only when there is clear and obvious visual evidence available that warrants the change.” This rarely happens. The officiating executives at brain-trust central seem to try to make the right call even when the evidence available is not clear and obvious. To me "clear and obvious" means that you could go into a sports bar and 95% (exempting the few crazies) of the patrons would agree. If you can't pass the pub test, then it's not clear and obvious.

I have no outrage over the Saints. They made enough mistakes on that final set of downs that the refs shouldn't be held to a higher standard.

My final point is about full time refs. I don't have an issue with paying them to be full time, but I question whether that is the issue. If the NFL determines that the refs were thinking about that TPS Report that they need to read while back at Initech on Monday....I guess full time is the solution. I doubt that though. There will always be obvious calls that are missed and while it sucks, it is the reality of human-officiated games.

 

[Mondio]

I'm generally in favor of perfecting what we've got. Penalties are not reviewable in any case. Turnovers, whether the ball breached the line to gain, and receptions should be reviewable. We can get some of the game right. With television showing replays, you have to allow the greatest scenarios to be reviewed. I don't believe that penalties fall into that category, even when they appear to change a game. I don't lament about the facemask against Rodgers in the 2009 playoffs against AZ.

I agree with others that the criteria for overturning calls makes zero sense. The NFL rule states “A decision will be reversed only when there is clear and obvious visual evidence available that warrants the change.” This rarely happens. The officiating executives at brain-trust central seem to try to make the right call even when the evidence available is not clear and obvious. To me "clear and obvious" means that you could go into a sports bar and 95% (exempting the few crazies) of the patrons would agree. If you can't pass the pub test, then it's not clear and obvious.

I have no outrage over the Saints. They made enough mistakes on that final set of downs that the refs shouldn't be held to a higher standard.

My final point is about full time refs. I don't have an issue with paying them to be full time, but I question whether that is the issue. If the NFL determines that the refs were thinking about that TPS Report that they need to read while back at Initech on Monday....I guess full time is the solution. I doubt that though. There will always be obvious calls that are missed and while it sucks, it is the reality of human-officiated games.

I can get behind that. Most of my “ get rid of replay” comes from a feeling that I’d rather they did that, then keep adding more replay. Since the push seems to be for adding more every year.

I’m fine with scores and turnovers being automatic. I’d be just fine if they didn’t. I don’t want game action penalties reviewable. Talk about a Pandora’s box.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It seems like there is a misconception that if you make any play reviewable, it is going to completely slow the game down and worsen it. That would definitely be the case if the # of challenges were unlimited, but if you limited the # of challenges, I doubt coaches waste them needlessly, but will want to hang on to them when they could have the greatest impact. Isn't it worth a few extra minutes to get a very critical call correct? Or are people in a hurry to get online to discuss for days, how badly that call was blown, but no way to reverse it?

Pass Interference in many cases is a very judgmental call and to reverse it, would take clear evidence it didn't happen. If the coach gets a call from his replay coach saying "not enough to overturn", he isn't going to challenge it. While I disagree with the way PI calls are made and enforced, most of the time you see enough evidence to say "sure, I guess so". Or in the case of the Saints game, enough evidence to say "yup, totally missed that one."

I just don't understand why people are fine with a team potentially winning/losing mainly due to a blown call by a ref. Give the coaches the opportunity to correct a mistake, but still have to strategize as to what limited # of missed calls they want to challenge, because I have never once seen a perfectly officiated game. reversing a bad call gets us closer to that.

 

[Mondio]

It seems like there is a misconception that if you make any play reviewable, it is going to completely slow the game down and worsen it. That would definitely be the case if the # of challenges were unlimited, but if you limited the # of challenges, I doubt coaches waste them needlessly, but will want to hang on to them when they could have the greatest impact. Isn't it worth a few extra minutes to get a very critical call correct? Or are people in a hurry to get online to discuss for days, how badly that call was blown, but no way to reverse it?

Pass Interference in many cases is a very judgmental call and to reverse it, would take clear evidence it didn't happen. If the coach gets a call from his replay coach saying "not enough to overturn", he isn't going to challenge it. While I disagree with the way PI calls are made and enforced, most of the time you see enough evidence to say "sure, I guess so". Or in the case of the Saints game, enough evidence to say "yup, totally missed that one."

I just don't understand why people are fine with a team potentially winning/losing mainly due to a blown call by a ref. Give the coaches the opportunity to correct a mistake, but still have to strategize as to what limited # of missed calls they want to challenge, because I have never once seen a perfectly officiated game. reversing a bad call gets us closer to that.

I don't understand how people think that just 2 more is going to make all right. because then there will need to be 3.

Repeat after me, the Saints didn't lose because of that play. and why is that 4th period missed PI any more important than the ticky tack holding they called period 1 that resulted in a punt and not a 1st down, or the holding they didn't call that gave the QB a quarter second more to step into a throw for a 40 yard pass play? and i am a firm believer in spirit of the law over language of the law. There is zero doubt in my mind the Saints did not deserve to benefit in anyway from that play. They certainly benefited from numerous non calls earlier in the game and they got the ball first in overtime. there were 50 scenarios where the Saints should have won regardless of that 1 play call from that point forward and the failed on every one of them. I can live with it. Just like I lived with the Rice non fumble and people live with the Immaculate reception. Put that to replay today, you STILL won't get a conclusive answer. All you'll get is an interpretation you'll have to accept or complain about it for 40 years.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Repeat after me, the Saints didn't lose because of that play.

LOL....I for one never said they did, however I did say:

"I just don't understand why people are fine with a team potentially winning/losing mainly due to a blown call by a ref. Give the coaches the opportunity to correct a mistake, but still have to strategize as to what limited # of missed calls they want to challenge, because I have never once seen a perfectly officiated game. reversing a bad call gets us closer to that."

If you 100% believe that one missed call is no more important than another, nothing I say matters.

round and round we go.