Bad weekend for NFL referees (1 Viewer)

[Ghost Rider]

There were numerous missed and critical calls in three of the four games this weekend and it is pretty aggravating to watch. I understand about human error and all, but I saw at least three plays (one in the Washington/TB game and two in the Carolina/NYG) where a player clearly fumbled the ball, but a quick whistle made the play unreviewable (because of being declared down by contact). Between the disaster in both LCS' in baseball this past October, it appears as if officiating in the major sports is getting worse. Or it is just with the internet and more camera angles, their mistakes are easier to see and talk about?

 

[Godsbrother]

The "down by contact" rule is one that I think needs to be reviewed. I understand that once a player is ruled down the plays stops but if the player clearly fumbles the ball then the defense should be given the ball at that spot.It wouldn't solve the case when the defense picks up a fumble and runs it back for a TD but at least they would get the ball. Nothing is more frustrating than seeing your team recover a fumble on Instant Replay and not being able to challenge it.

 

[jeff_eaglz]

The "down by contact" rule is one that I think needs to be reviewed. I understand that once a player is ruled down the plays stops but if the player clearly fumbles the ball then the defense should be given the ball at that spot.

It wouldn't solve the case when the defense picks up a fumble and runs it back for a TD but at least they would get the ball. Nothing is more frustrating than seeing your team recover a fumble on Instant Replay and not being able to challenge it.

This came up a few times in the game threads.I agree with your thought (and completely agree with the need for a change), but to play devil's advocate the referees have been given instructions to let the plays run in some instances that may result in a review (i.e. a ball batted from a QB - is it a forward pass or a fumble?) Sometime the refs let the play run and if it is wrong, there can be a challenge.

What if you need to save your challenges and timeouts? What if you are out of timeouts? What if there have been so many near-fumbles, you've challenged two things already?

The league should consider either giving more challenges for "down by contact" / possession change rulings and/or allowing the play to continue and blowing it dead once the ball is in one team's possession.

Whatever they decide, the rules committee needs to push for getting these right and not protecting the umpires from making a decision. Hiding behind the "down by contact" rule is a CYA move since it cannot be challenged.

 

[Quez]

Premature whistles

 

[Godsbrother]

One thing they should do is review every touchdown in the booth. That way teams wouldn't have to burn challenges for TDs and if was done correctly, would not take any more time. After the TD they should immediately go to a commercial break while the play is being reviewed. When you come back from the break, if the TD stands you kick the extra point and go to another commercial break. Then come back, kickoff, and don't do the commercial break after the kickoff.It would take no more time and you are assured that all TDs have been reviewed.

 

[dgreen]

For "down by contact," I think the NFL just needs to go to a system that doesn't force the refs to make a call on the field. If it is anywhere near being a fumble, let the play continue. If no ref is supremely confident in his call either way, go review the play without there being a challenge.

 

[Quez]

One thing they should do is review every touchdown in the booth. That way teams wouldn't have to burn challenges for TDs and if was done correctly, would not take any more time.

After the TD they should immediately go to a commercial break while the play is being reviewed. When you come back from the break, if the TD stands you kick the extra point and go to another commercial break. Then come back, kickoff, and don't do the commercial break after the kickoff.

It would take no more time and you are assured that all TDs have been reviewed.

 

[Quez]

For "down by contact," I think the NFL just needs to go to a system that doesn't force the refs to make a call on the field. If it is anywhere near being a fumble, let the play continue. If no ref is supremely confident in his call either way, go review the play without there being a challenge.

 

[mad sweeney]

One thing they should do is review every touchdown in the booth. That way teams wouldn't have to burn challenges for TDs and if was done correctly, would not take any more time.

After the TD they should immediately go to a commercial break while the play is being reviewed. When you come back from the break, if the TD stands you kick the extra point and go to another commercial break. Then come back, kickoff, and don't do the commercial break after the kickoff.

It would take no more time and you are assured that all TDs have been reviewed.

If you go to commercial after a TD, then that means there;s 2 minutes after every TD for players to stand around waiting. And a large majority of calls that are bad aren't TDs. I'm not into automatically reviewing every TD, but something needs to be done. TB flat out lost 2 TDs due to reffing errors (Washington was down by contact and Arrington fumbled the ball on his INT). Both Carolina and NYG had fumbles not called correctly (they evened out but that's not the poiont nor does it always happen that way).I don't understand how you can add commercial break/automatic reviews without taking more time.

 

[Godsbrother]

One thing they should do is review every touchdown in the booth.  That way teams wouldn't have to burn challenges for TDs and if was done correctly, would not take any more time.

After the TD they should immediately go to a commercial break while the play is being reviewed.  When you come back from the break, if the TD stands you kick the extra point and go to another commercial break.  Then come back, kickoff, and don't do the commercial break after the kickoff.

It would take no more time and you are assured that all TDs have been reviewed.

If you go to commercial after a TD, then that means there;s 2 minutes after every TD for players to stand around waiting. And a large majority of calls that are bad aren't TDs. I'm not into automatically reviewing every TD, but something needs to be done. TB flat out lost 2 TDs due to reffing errors (Washington was down by contact and Arrington fumbled the ball on his INT). Both Carolina and NYG had fumbles not called correctly (they evened out but that's not the poiont nor does it always happen that way).I don't understand how you can add commercial break/automatic reviews without taking more time.

Right now after a TD there is a PAT, then a commercial break, the kickoff, then another commercial break and then the next series begins.I am suggesting TD, then a commercial break (while the TD is being reviewed), PAT and another commercial break, then kickoff and then begin the 1st series.

In both cases there are 2 commercial breaks.

 

[Joe Bryant]

One thing they should do is review every touchdown in the booth. That way teams wouldn't have to burn challenges for TDs and if was done correctly, would not take any more time.

After the TD they should immediately go to a commercial break while the play is being reviewed. When you come back from the break, if the TD stands you kick the extra point and go to another commercial break. Then come back, kickoff, and don't do the commercial break after the kickoff.

It would take no more time and you are assured that all TDs have been reviewed.

That's an interesting idea.As for the original question - in my opinion, no it's not getting worse. It's the ability to talk about it non stop that makes it seem like that.

Overall, I think the NFL does the best job of any sport officiating their games.

J

 

[The Ref]

One thing they should do is review every touchdown in the booth.  That way teams wouldn't have to burn challenges for TDs and if was done correctly, would not take any more time.

After the TD they should immediately go to a commercial break while the play is being reviewed.  When you come back from the break, if the TD stands you kick the extra point and go to another commercial break.  Then come back, kickoff, and don't do the commercial break after the kickoff.

It would take no more time and you are assured that all TDs have been reviewed.

That's an interesting idea.As for the original question - in my opinion, no it's not getting worse. It's the ability to talk about it non stop that makes it seem like that.

Overall, I think the NFL does the best job of any sport officiating their games.

J

You have no idea how good these guys really are.

 

[jeff_eaglz]

One thing they should do is review every touchdown in the booth. That way teams wouldn't have to burn challenges for TDs and if was done correctly, would not take any more time.

After the TD they should immediately go to a commercial break while the play is being reviewed. When you come back from the break, if the TD stands you kick the extra point and go to another commercial break. Then come back, kickoff, and don't do the commercial break after the kickoff.

It would take no more time and you are assured that all TDs have been reviewed.

That's an interesting idea.As for the original question - in my opinion, no it's not getting worse. It's the ability to talk about it non stop that makes it seem like that.

Overall, I think the NFL does the best job of any sport officiating their games.

J

You have no idea how good these guys really are.

And this isn't even their "day job".....There's way too much going on during every play for them to see everything. The game is very fast, there are 22 large men on the field, and even with 7 refs you can't get it all right. Consider the "holding on every play can be called" argument.

But.... POTENTIAL change of possessions are one of the biggest plays in the NFL, especially with 80+% of teams winning if they win the turnover margin by 2 or more. That's big.

How is this suggestion:

Discretionary official challenges.

Let the play run all the time, on batted QB pass/fumbles and "is he down or not" / "down by contact" / fumble plays. After each of those - automatic review by the booth. These plays are at the most 5 times a game, often less.

Should the play be reviewed and a turnover awarded, the play stands since it ran and there was no whistle. If there is no turnover - then it is "down by contact" from the booth and they can spot the ball.

Length of game arguments pale in comparison to getting turnovers (or non-turnovers) corrected.

 

[Tau837]

I agree with your thought (and completely agree with the need for a change), but to play devil's advocate the referees have been given instructions to let the plays run in some instances that may result in a review (i.e. a ball batted from a QB - is it a forward pass or a fumble?) Sometime the refs let the play run and if it is wrong, there can be a challenge.

I think this is sometimes a problem. There have been instances where it seems to me that due to replay the refs let things run, assuming if that is wrong the other team will challenge and obtain a reversal. But the other team may not have a timeout/challenge left, may need that challenge later, etc. I think this sometimes encourages the refs not to just step up and make the call on the field.

 

[Tau837]

But.... POTENTIAL change of possessions are one of the biggest plays in the NFL, especially with 80+% of teams winning if they win the turnover margin by 2 or more. That's big. How is this suggestioniscretionary official challenges. Let the play run all the time, on batted QB pass/fumbles and "is he down or not" / "down by contact" / fumble plays. After each of those - automatic review by the booth. These plays are at the most 5 times a game, often less. Should the play be reviewed and a turnover awarded, the play stands since it ran and there was no whistle. If there is no turnover - then it is "down by contact" from the booth and they can spot the ball.Length of game arguments pale in comparison to getting turnovers (or non-turnovers) corrected.

I like this idea. I wouldn't call it "discretionary", since that implies that the referee decides whether a "challenge" is needed/appropriate. It should be automatic, which is what you described.

 

[joffer]

The "down by contact" rule is one that I think needs to be reviewed. I understand that once a player is ruled down the plays stops but if the player clearly fumbles the ball then the defense should be given the ball at that spot.

Not perfect, but better. However, if the recovery doesn't happen right away, and there's a whistle, an argument could be made that the whistle affected the recovery.

 

[John 14:6]

But.... POTENTIAL change of possessions are one of the biggest plays in the NFL, especially with 80+% of teams winning if they win the turnover margin by 2 or more. That's big.

How is this suggestion:

Discretionary official challenges.

Let the play run all the time, on batted QB pass/fumbles and "is he down or not" / "down by contact" / fumble plays. After each of those - automatic review by the booth. These plays are at the most 5 times a game, often less.

Should the play be reviewed and a turnover awarded, the play stands since it ran and there was no whistle. If there is no turnover - then it is "down by contact" from the booth and they can spot the ball.

Length of game arguments pale in comparison to getting turnovers (or non-turnovers) corrected.

I like this idea. I wouldn't call it "discretionary", since that implies that the referee decides whether a "challenge" is needed/appropriate. It should be automatic, which is what you described.

I like it, too. , jeff!

 

[Ghost Rider]

How is this suggestion:

Discretionary official challenges.

Let the play run all the time, on batted QB pass/fumbles and "is he down or not" / "down by contact" / fumble plays. After each of those - automatic review by the booth. These plays are at the most 5 times a game, often less.

Should the play be reviewed and a turnover awarded, the play stands since it ran and there was no whistle. If there is no turnover - then it is "down by contact" from the booth and they can spot the ball.

Length of game arguments pale in comparison to getting turnovers (or non-turnovers) corrected.

That is exactly what I was thinking, but you put it far better than I would have.

 

[jurb26]

How is this suggestion:

Discretionary official challenges.

Let the play run all the time, on batted QB pass/fumbles and "is he down or not" / "down by contact" / fumble plays. After each of those - automatic review by the booth. These plays are at the most 5 times a game, often less.

Should the play be reviewed and a turnover awarded, the play stands since it ran and there was no whistle. If there is no turnover - then it is "down by contact" from the booth and they can spot the ball.

Length of game arguments pale in comparison to getting turnovers (or non-turnovers) corrected.

That is exactly what I was thinking, but you put it far better than I would have.

Let's see, all 4 winning teams this past weekend won the turnover battle.

Plummer vs. Brady..

The players union will have a fit when the 1st guy gets injured on one of these "extended" plays. Injury concerns will never permit this IMO.

 

[dudaman]

Try explaining "down by contact" and what's reviewable to the wife....a harrowing experience !!

 

[Velcro]

Let the play run even though the ref thinks it should be blown dead due to down by contact? Ridiculous. How will everyone react when the star QB goes out due to an injury relating to his attempt to tackle a defensive player on a play that was never a fumble/INT.Everyone is focusing on fumbles/INT because they obviously have a big impact on the game. But the refs aren't/shouldn't treat them any differently than any other play.While the refs don't get every play right (even with replay), I think they do a pretty good job (except for Tripplett, man that guy is bad.)

 

[jeff_eaglz]

I like this idea. I wouldn't call it "discretionary", since that implies that the referee decides whether a "challenge" is needed/appropriate. It should be automatic, which is what you described.

Agreed. "Automatic" sounds better.

That is exactly what I was thinking, but you put it far better than I would have.

Thanks. Hopefully this thought can go somewhere.....

The players union will have a fit when the 1st guy gets injured on one of these "extended" plays. Injury concerns will never permit this IMO.

I disagree.... see next response.

Let the play run even though the ref thinks it should be blown dead due to down by contact? Ridiculous. How will everyone react when the star QB goes out due to an injury relating to his attempt to tackle a defensive player on a play that was never a fumble/INT.

Everyone is focusing on fumbles/INT because they obviously have a big impact on the game. But the refs aren't/shouldn't treat them any differently than any other play.

While the refs don't get every play right (even with replay), I think they do a pretty good job (except for Tripplett, man that guy is bad.)

Regarding injury and the players union - the players that are near a loose ball are going to go for it, whistle or not. That's football instinct. My suggestion is to play the loose ball then blow the whistle once it is recovered. Then the refs should blow it dead if they think that the ball may have not been a fumble ("down by contact" originally).

 

[smcindoe]

Down by contact is a real problem.However, to those who say "Just let them keep playing, and review it later"... well, that solves one problem. But don't complain when your team's franchise player gets hurt trying to recover a fumble by a guy who was obviously down. Or even worse, lets up because the runner had both knees and an elbow down before the fumble, but gets blindsided Sapp/Clifton style when the whistle doesn't blow.

 

[Godsbrother]

Down by contact is a real problem.

However, to those who say "Just let them keep playing, and review it later"... well, that solves one problem. But don't complain when your team's franchise player gets hurt trying to recover a fumble by a guy who was obviously down. Or even worse, lets up because the runner had both knees and an elbow down before the fumble, but gets blindsided Sapp/Clifton style when the whistle doesn't blow.

Agree completely. The only thing I would change is that if the play is reviewed and it does show a fumble, then give the defense the ball at that spot. It is a lot better than giving the OFFENSE the ball at that spot.