What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Auto booth review on scoring plays... (1 Viewer)

tim_whatley

Footballguy
If they are going to auto review scoring plays, shouldn't they auto review close plays that might be scores that the officals called as non-scoring plays? I am talking specifically about the Brady QB sneak that looked like he scored but Hoddie didn't challenege and then BGE scored on the next play. The previous Brady sneak TD was reviewed b/c the refs called it a TD, but the second one, which was equally as close (and looked more obviously like a score) was not reviewed I am assuming only b/c the refs didn't call it a TD.

That doesn't seem right, seems like the booth should review all close plays at the goalline, regardless of whether the play is called a TD on the field.

I am of course a disgruntled Brady owner who may not advance to the championship game based on this situation. So my statement is biased but I still think relevent.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is obviously a subjective measure. How do they decide what is close enough to review on ANY play when it is in the last 2:00 minutes? That same measure should be applied, IMHO. If the replay judge thinks that it is close and the officials might have missed it, it should be reviewed if it involves a score. Otherwise the auto review can only ELIMINATE incorrectly called scoring plays but cannot CORRECT incorrectly called non-scoring plays. It should provide the same benefit.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If they are going to auto review scoring plays, shouldn't they auto review close plays that might be scores that the officals called as non-scoring plays? I am talking specifically about the Brady QB sneak that looked like he scored but Hoddie didn't challenege and then BGE scored on the next play. The previous Brady sneak TD was reviewed b/c the refs called it a TD, but the second one, which was equally as close (and looked more obviously like a score) was not reviewed I am assuming only b/c the refs didn't call it a TD.

That doesn't seem right, seems like the booth should review all close plays at the goalline, regardless of whether the play is called a TD on the field.

I am of course a disgruntled Brady owner who may not advance to the championship game based on this situation. So my statement is biased but I still think relevent.
fantasy owners are the only ones who would care. Pats didn't want to challenge, so why should the league care?
 
Let's be real, most often fantasy owners are the only ones that care both ways. And the concerns of fantasy owners are of a HUGE interests to NFL officials and league owners.

 
How do they decide what is close enough to review on ANY play when it is in the last 2:00 minutes? That same measure should be applied, IMHO.
I forgot they do this. That's a good answer to my question.
If the replay judge thinks that it is close and the officials might have missed it, it should be reviewed if it involves a score. Otherwise the auto review can only ELIMINATE incorrectly called scoring plays but cannot CORRECT incorrectly called non-scoring plays. It should provide the same benefit.
I see what you mean, but they're not exactly the same. If the refs incoorectly call something a scoring play, the defense has no on-field recourse if it's not reviewed. If the refs incorrectly call something a non-scoring play, the offense can always try to punch it in again (assuming it wasn't fourth down). I'm actually with you, and would take it further. I think all sports should utilize replay review, and to a greater extent than they currently do. I hate the stupid "human element" argument for when refs make an incorrect call; their mistakes should not impact the game. Ideally, every call would be correct, either because the refs got it right or because the replay booth corrected the refs' mistakes. But the reality is that, for some reason I'll never quite understand, people don't want that. The NFL has made a lot of progress in this area but I don't expect them to expand the auto-review process any time soon.The fact of the matter is that coaches have been given multiple challenges to use during the game. If Belichick had a challenge available and decided not to use it, the league's not going to step in. Additionally, as you've pointed out, all scoring plays and all plays in the final two minutes of either half are automatically reviewed. I don't think the NFL wants to go further than that - for the most part it's still up to the refs on the field to make the correct call in the first place.
 
And the concerns of fantasy owners are of a HUGE interests to NFL officials and league owners.
:no:The NFL doesn't care about your fantasy team. HTH.
Agree. The NFL cares about FFL only as a promotional tool for their product. They aren't going to start officiating games to help your FFL team. The Pats don't care who scores their TDs. If they felt they needed to challenge there, they would have. They scored on the next play. Congrats to the BJGE owners.
 
I wish the NFL would go with college football's system. If the booth thinks they see a bad call, the play is reviewed. And teams then have some limited number of challenges. And further, the review is done in the booth rather than by the head official. I don't know actual stats on how long replays take per review in college vs NFL, but my perception is that they seem to take significantly less time in college. I bet the booth could finish a lot of reviews in the time it currently takes the head ref to get over to the monitor and his headset on to be able to start reviewing.

I bounced the latter part off of Pereira on Twitter and he said they want the guy who knows the rules best (the head ref) to conduct the reviews. While I understand the reasoning, I think the NFL can train up 16 more guys to know the rules well enough to do the reviews each week, and the lessened disruption to the flow of the game would be well worth it.

Or heck, even go to an NHL style system where the review is done remotely in the league's head office by the people that head up the officials.

 
I wish the NFL would go with college football's system. If the booth thinks they see a bad call, the play is reviewed. And teams then have some limited number of challenges. And further, the review is done in the booth rather than by the head official. I don't know actual stats on how long replays take per review in college vs NFL, but my perception is that they seem to take significantly less time in college. I bet the booth could finish a lot of reviews in the time it currently takes the head ref to get over to the monitor and his headset on to be able to start reviewing.I bounced the latter part off of Pereira on Twitter and he said they want the guy who knows the rules best (the head ref) to conduct the reviews. While I understand the reasoning, I think the NFL can train up 16 more guys to know the rules well enough to do the reviews each week, and the lessened disruption to the flow of the game would be well worth it.Or heck, even go to an NHL style system where the review is done remotely in the league's head office by the people that head up the officials.
:goodposting: There's no reason replays can't be conducted quickly and effectively. It's not like we don't have the technology - I get to see five different replay angles of a play on network TV and can call my friend who's in the stadium on our cell phones and tell him what happened. There's no reason it needs to take five minutes, and there's no reason it needs to be done by an official on the field. I've never understood the resistance to this. Total hijack, but we were talking about this yesterday during one of the games - I also don't understand why there are so many bad challenges in the NFL. Each team should have someone on their payroll whose sole responsibility is to sit in front of a monitor, watch replays and advise the head coach about whether or not to throw the challenge flag. I have a hard time believing that they don't already do this, which makes me wonder why we still see so many challenges wasted on plays that aren't going to be overturned. I think the league average success rate on these things is like 50%, and I know I'm doing better than that just watching from my couch.
 
No thanks. I like being able to actually watch a game and not spend five hours waiting on challenges. If they want to challenge, throw the flag. Otherwise, too bad.

 
was more surprised hoodie didn't challenge the pass that Hernandez caught....looked like a catch to me and was worth 4 more points....if a player is that adament, I'd be taking a look....I know sometimes they may still be wrong, but Hernandez seemed really sure about it

on some of the Brady sneaks almost seemed like they didn't really want to score on them....almost intentionally staying short so as to run clock/make DEN use timeouts....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If they are going to auto review scoring plays, shouldn't they auto review close plays that might be scores that the officals called as non-scoring plays? I am talking specifically about the Brady QB sneak that looked like he scored but Hoddie didn't challenege and then BGE scored on the next play. The previous Brady sneak TD was reviewed b/c the refs called it a TD, but the second one, which was equally as close (and looked more obviously like a score) was not reviewed I am assuming only b/c the refs didn't call it a TD.

That doesn't seem right, seems like the booth should review all close plays at the goalline, regardless of whether the play is called a TD on the field.

I am of course a disgruntled Brady owner who may not advance to the championship game based on this situation. So my statement is biased but I still think relevent.
fantasy owners are the only ones who would care. Pats didn't want to challenge, so why should the league care?
It could be a situation where it does matter if a team is out of timeouts or challenges. It also could start influencing refs to call TDs more often if they think it's close because they'll know it'll be reviewed. Go back to the two challenge system, this scoring-play review is a mess.
 
I think every play should be reviewed, and voted upon by a panel of experts. That way, games which start on Sunday wouldn't be finished until Saturday night, filling up all the empty space between Sundays.

 
It is obviously a subjective measure. How do they decide what is close enough to review on ANY play when it is in the last 2:00 minutes? That same measure should be applied, IMHO. If the replay judge thinks that it is close and the officials might have missed it, it should be reviewed if it involves a score. Otherwise the auto review can only ELIMINATE incorrectly called scoring plays but cannot CORRECT incorrectly called non-scoring plays. It should provide the same benefit.
This is the problem with the rules in the NFL, there is a lot of subjective stuff that the league likes to pretend is objective. It is interesting that a lot of the people writing and enforcing the rules are former lawyers and yet they still leave themselves wiggle room to interpret the rules as they see fit depending on what outcome they want from a certain game.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top