Instant Replay (1 Viewer)

[Liquid Tension]

The silly example of Sabans less than stellar attempt to challenge made me right this in another post.

Isn't it baloney that we are spending so much time on INSTANT REPLAY! I am someone who pushed hard for it. As an ex baseball player, I have the competitive spirit (I would imagine like most of us fantasy nuts) that I want the play decided by the players not the refs. I was psyched when they instituted the instant replay.

If you ask me now, it has been an unquestionable disaster for the game of football. Yes, certain calls are overturned and that is a good thing. But what about all the terrible things that come with instant replay?

Our games are shorter because of instant replay. The games were taking too long so the NFL decided that the clock should keep running after the ball goes out of bounds. It also starts sometimes after some penalties. i don't remember the analysis done, but we get 2 - 3 less drives a game because of instant replay. (maybe those extra drives would give us a better idea of who the better team is?)
You can't over turn all plays. The main issues with calls tend to come on pass interference and holding calls. These have a much greater impact on the game and you can't overturn those. You can't even overturn plays when the whistle blows.
MOMENTUM. Football is a game of great momentum. You have a defense on their heels and you are trying to do anything to slow them down and figure out what is going wrong so all you have to do is throw a challenge flag at a time you can't. the ref comes over and tells you that you can't replay that "interference call." momentum slowed. The game itself comes to a crawl with all the delays and then the ref going back and forth between the coaches to let them know what is going on.
They don't always get it right, many times they don't. If the Pitt Colt game last year didn't show us this we just aren't paying attention. Imagine if the Bettis fumble was returned for a TD...what a crime that would have been for Pittsburgh.
I think the refs have done a worse job since instant replay. Not sure why, but maybe it is because they feel that if they do get it wrong it will be overturned. It just seems that there is so much more confusion and nobody even knows what constitutes a catch anymore. I mean it used to be very clear, but now you need to make a "football related move." I mean what a bunch of garbage when a guy takes 3 steps and then gets hit and fumbles it is incomplete. Ask yourself this question do you think you understand what truly constitutes a catch anymore? I have 4 TV's in one room, to watch football, read all the rules and I am not 100% anymore.Bottom line to me is that I don't think instant replay helps the better team win, I think that letting the players and refs decide the game with 2-3 more drives would be a much better way and far more fun too watch. Instant replay has hurt the game and again this is coming from someone who would have told you that it was stupid NOT to have instant replay. Get rid of it and let them play the game and let us watch MORE plays. More plays or instant replay; what do you think?

 

[CalBear]

Our games are shorter because of instant replay. The games were taking too long so the NFL decided that the clock should keep running after the ball goes out of bounds. It also starts sometimes after some penalties. i don't remember the analysis done, but we get 2 - 3 less drives a game because of instant replay. (maybe those extra drives would give us a better idea of who the better team is?)

Our games are shorter because of more commercials, not because of instant replay. (Especially when you consider that instant replay often costs a timeout). With today's NFL, you can see this sequence:1) Commercials

2) Beginning of quarter

3) Field Goal

4) Commercials

5) Kickoff

6) Commercials

The #6 commercial didn't used to be in there; there are other places where more commercials are stuck in, too. Don't let them fool you; the lengthening of the game is all about advertising.

 

[J R]

Agreed, LT, instant replay is a debacle for sure. It seems to me like watching a play over and over in slo-mo can change the play into a totally different thing. Like when they're looking for forward motion on a QB fumble/incomplete pass.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Our games are shorter because of instant replay. The games were taking too long so the NFL decided that the clock should keep running after the ball goes out of bounds. It also starts sometimes after some penalties. i don't remember the analysis done, but we get 2 - 3 less drives a game because of instant replay. (maybe those extra drives would give us a better idea of who the better team is?)

Our games are shorter because of more commercials, not because of instant replay. (Especially when you consider that instant replay often costs a timeout). With today's NFL, you can see this sequence:1) Commercials

2) Beginning of quarter

3) Field Goal

4) Commercials

5) Kickoff

6) Commercials

The #6 commercial didn't used to be in there; there are other places where more commercials are stuck in, too. Don't let them fool you; the lengthening of the game is all about advertising.

While I agree getting more advertising dollars is what they are trying to do, the change in the clock happened in response to instant replay getting implemented. They then saw that because instant replay took the time of a time out that they could get more revenue, however, the games were going too long so then they changed the rule that the clock would start again after the play went out of bounds. Thus we get less actual football plays

 

[Liquid Tension]

Agreed, LT, instant replay is a debacle for sure. It seems to me like watching a play over and over in slo-mo can change the play into a totally different thing. Like when they're looking for forward motion on a QB fumble/incomplete pass.

The idea makes a lot of sense but it takes way too long and the game is compromised. If you could review interference calls I would be OK with it as those calls are game changers. Holds are tough as well, but I think that some holds are cumulative based on guys crossing the line too much and finally getting called.

 

[Defenze]

Right off I need to clarify that I was never for having instant replay.



When you break it all down, did he make a "football related move", did he have possession, was he in bounds or out of bounds, etc. it still comes down to a falible human being making a decision based on what HE saw.

That ref makes the final decision. Based on what HE saw on the screen. And he can still be wrong. Last years Super Bowl proved that. I'm glad the Steelers won. But Big Ben didn't score that TD. But according to the instant replay, he did.

I understand the motive for wanting to have IR. We all want to get it right and have the right call made. But that is being a little naive. If humans are involved there are going to be mistakes made. IR or no IR.

I for one would like to see it totally removed from the game. But thats not going to happen.

 

[Ozymandias]

Sure, you are entitled to your opinion. But removing instant replay would lose, in a poll, and by a 4-1 margin.

Instant replay has been now instituted in college football, it has been instituted in tennis. Maybe there are better ways to do it, but do it they will.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Right off I need to clarify that I was never for having instant replay.



When you break it all down, did he make a "football related move", did he have possession, was he in bounds or out of bounds, etc. it still comes down to a falible human being making a decision based on what HE saw.

That ref makes the final decision. Based on what HE saw on the screen. And he can still be wrong. Last years Super Bowl proved that. I'm glad the Steelers won. But Big Ben didn't score that TD. But according to the instant replay, he did.

I understand the motive for wanting to have IR. We all want to get it right and have the right call made. But that is being a little naive. If humans are involved there are going to be mistakes made. IR or no IR.

I for one would like to see it totally removed from the game. But thats not going to happen.

I agree 100%. The next poster stated that "we" would lose 4-1 in a poll if asked about instant replay. Unfortunately, I agree we would, but that doesn't make it right. People probably can't always see the big picture. I mean just look at the lack of responses to this thread. I am somebody who was hugely in favor of IR, but anyway you look at it the game is worse now. Now flow to anything and constant confusion. I am disappointed we didn;t have a good discussion on this

 

[Defenze]

Sure, you are entitled to your opinion. But removing instant replay would lose, in a poll, and by a 4-1 margin.Instant replay has been now instituted in college football, it has been instituted in tennis. Maybe there are better ways to do it, but do it they will.

I do agree Ozy that IR is an institution now. But as the famous Grocho Marks once said, " Marrige is a wonderful institution........but who wants to live in an institution?"I too wished that things could go back to the way they were but I'm not naive enough to believe they will. Thanks for the good feedback on this subject. I wish more would have spoke up. But I'm sure many thought it was a moot subject and decided against furthering the thread.

 

[GregR_2]

I think there are better ways to handle instant replay. Though your last point doesn't seem to have anything to do with replay, as well as being subjective. In the past "what is a catch" was very subjective. Now it is defined in a much more consistent manner... though that definition isn't what we were used to it being.

I digress though. I really think they should just have a booth of officials who do reviews. If they see something they think is wrong, they initiate a review. The ref on the field doesn't go look at it, the guys up in the booth do.

Even better, do it like the NHL. They have a booth review, but the review is done at the league central office in Toronto. So the guys doing the review are the heads of officiating and should therefore be less likely to make a mistake since they are the ones that tell the refs how the league wants the rules interpreted.

If it was really set up right, a normal review might only take 20 or 30 seconds since a lot of times they'll quickly find a view that definitively shows something one way or another.

 

[CalBear]

I digress though. I really think they should just have a booth of officials who do reviews. If they see something they think is wrong, they initiate a review. The ref on the field doesn't go look at it, the guys up in the booth do.

That's how it's done in college. It is quicker.

 

[a_f13nd]

I think there are better ways to handle instant replay. Though your last point doesn't seem to have anything to do with replay, as well as being subjective. In the past "what is a catch" was very subjective. Now it is defined in a much more consistent manner... though that definition isn't what we were used to it being.I digress though. I really think they should just have a booth of officials who do reviews. If they see something they think is wrong, they initiate a review. The ref on the field doesn't go look at it, the guys up in the booth do.Even better, do it like the NHL. They have a booth review, but the review is done at the league central office in Toronto. So the guys doing the review are the heads of officiating and should therefore be less likely to make a mistake since they are the ones that tell the refs how the league wants the rules interpreted.If it was really set up right, a normal review might only take 20 or 30 seconds since a lot of times they'll quickly find a view that definitively shows something one way or another.

I agree with this post, and I think it has to do with respecting the game and seeking to improve the small flaws. I think IR is good for the game because it makes it more likely that the right call will end up happening, but because one human being is fallible a booth of refs should look at questionable plays. There aren't sooo many questionable plays that it would seriously affect time, but the impact on who wins or loses could be big. And I think the goal is to have the fairest game, so the right team wins...I think the challenge system is one of the most flawed in sports. Risking a timeout makes sense because it can slow momentum and it wouldn't be good for the game if it happened all the time. But there can be many more than a couple crappy calls against your team and you have to decide if it's worth a challenge... that doesn't really make sense. The officials should always look to make the game as fair as possible.

 

[Mario Kart]

How about getting rid of the clock in general and just give teams a certain number of possessions similar to baseball. Give each team, say, 10 possessions, not including turnovers if points are scored, similar to college OT's. Doing the game this way would be easier to schedule commercials and make the games more uniform. Win-win here.

 

[cantrell]

How about getting rid of the clock in general and just give teams a certain number of possessions similar to baseball. Give each team, say, 10 possessions, not including turnovers if points are scored, similar to college OT's. Doing the game this way would be easier to schedule commercials and make the games more uniform. Win-win here.

That would be horrible for football. I just picture 20 punts and a final score of 3-0 in overtime.

 

[a_f13nd]

How about getting rid of the clock in general and just give teams a certain number of possessions similar to baseball. Give each team, say, 10 possessions, not including turnovers if points are scored, similar to college OT's. Doing the game this way would be easier to schedule commercials and make the games more uniform. Win-win here.

That would be horrible for football. I just picture 20 punts and a final score of 3-0 in overtime.

Yeah, that does seem like a bad idea. I don't want to reinvent football. I want to make minor improvements to make the best game on earth even better.I hate baseball, so that's about the last game I'd want football to become like.

 

[secretid]

Are they really going to run the clock after the ball goes out of bounds?

 

[Delusions Of Adequacy]

I like instant replay, but like communism it's better in theory than in practice.

 

[Delusions Of Adequacy]

I like instant replay, but like communism it's better in theory than in practice.

 

[Delusions Of Adequacy]

I like instant replay, but like communism it's better in theory than in practice.

 

[Ozymandias]

I like instant replay, but like communism it's better in theory than in practice.

Yes, I see what you mean. In Communism, they produce a whole lot of stuff they don't need.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I think there are better ways to handle instant replay. Though your last point doesn't seem to have anything to do with replay, as well as being subjective. In the past "what is a catch" was very subjective. Now it is defined in a much more consistent manner... though that definition isn't what we were used to it being.I digress though. I really think they should just have a booth of officials who do reviews. If they see something they think is wrong, they initiate a review. The ref on the field doesn't go look at it, the guys up in the booth do.Even better, do it like the NHL. They have a booth review, but the review is done at the league central office in Toronto. So the guys doing the review are the heads of officiating and should therefore be less likely to make a mistake since they are the ones that tell the refs how the league wants the rules interpreted.If it was really set up right, a normal review might only take 20 or 30 seconds since a lot of times they'll quickly find a view that definitively shows something one way or another.

Greg, actually the subjective part about a catch used to be less subjective. It used to be that if any part of the ball touched the ground it was incomplete so the refs didn't have to make a judgment whether the guy had control when it touched. then the Bert Emanual play changed it. So it used to be easier. They have done the same with the tuck rule where now the ref has to decide whether he was in the act of throwing instead of just making a simple rule. Now you have subjective rules such as making a "football related move." Isn';t everything they do a football related move? Maybe it was a ballerina move Anyway, I think it has gotten very subjective. Again my main issue is that KEY penalties can't be overturned such as holding and defensive pass interference etc... These plays are usually more crucial than most challenges that can be overturned so either you should be able to review everything or nothing and my vote would be for nothing based on how I see IR not helping the game.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Are they really going to run the clock after the ball goes out of bounds?

They have already been doing this since IR started

 

[Liquid Tension]

I think there are better ways to handle instant replay. Though your last point doesn't seem to have anything to do with replay, as well as being subjective. In the past "what is a catch" was very subjective. Now it is defined in a much more consistent manner... though that definition isn't what we were used to it being.I digress though. I really think they should just have a booth of officials who do reviews. If they see something they think is wrong, they initiate a review. The ref on the field doesn't go look at it, the guys up in the booth do.Even better, do it like the NHL. They have a booth review, but the review is done at the league central office in Toronto. So the guys doing the review are the heads of officiating and should therefore be less likely to make a mistake since they are the ones that tell the refs how the league wants the rules interpreted.If it was really set up right, a normal review might only take 20 or 30 seconds since a lot of times they'll quickly find a view that definitively shows something one way or another.

GregR I see that you might have meant that my opinion that officiating has been worse since IR is just that, my opinion. Maybe that is correct, but I think it impacts the way the officiate and they even said the same at first. Who knows, but I think the officiating has become too much of the outcome, especially on 35 yard interference calls on on 3rd and longs. Those are killing the game in my opinion.

 

[QUEZILLA]

Agreed, LT, instant replay is a debacle for sure. It seems to me like watching a play over and over in slo-mo can change the play into a totally different thing. Like when they're looking for forward motion on a QB fumble/incomplete pass.

I heard on the radio the other day that the refs only watch 1 camera angle at game speed. NO SLOW MOTION!!! It's a huge misconseption, and most people think the refs watch exactly what we see on tv. Basically, they are concerned that the ref made the correct call based on what he saw at game speed. So they are not really oncerned so much with the correct call.

 

[Ozymandias]

Are they really going to run the clock after the ball goes out of bounds?

They have already been doing this since IR started

However, I believe that:1. They don't start it until the ball is spotted.2. They don't start it until the next play in the last five minutes of each half.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I think there are better ways to handle instant replay. Though your last point doesn't seem to have anything to do with replay, as well as being subjective. In the past "what is a catch" was very subjective. Now it is defined in a much more consistent manner... though that definition isn't what we were used to it being.I digress though. I really think they should just have a booth of officials who do reviews. If they see something they think is wrong, they initiate a review. The ref on the field doesn't go look at it, the guys up in the booth do.Even better, do it like the NHL. They have a booth review, but the review is done at the league central office in Toronto. So the guys doing the review are the heads of officiating and should therefore be less likely to make a mistake since they are the ones that tell the refs how the league wants the rules interpreted.If it was really set up right, a normal review might only take 20 or 30 seconds since a lot of times they'll quickly find a view that definitively shows something one way or another.

GregR I see that you might have meant that my opinion that officiating has been worse since IR is just that, my opinion. Maybe that is correct, but I think it impacts the way the officiate and they even said the same at first. Who knows, but I think the officiating has become too much of the outcome, especially on 35 yard interference calls on on 3rd and longs. Those are killing the game in my opinion.

There are so many poor calls that can be used as an example, but the Giant Indy game was a great example where you see why instant replay does not help show who the better team is because the important plays can't be over turned. The Giants had a 25 yard run called back on a crack back block on Plaxico. This was a 40 yard swing and was an absolutely horrible call as this was nothing other than two guy hitting each other. Why can't instant replay be used to show the ref he thought he saw something wrong? 2) Late in the game, the Giants are down by 2 and Eli hits about a 20 yard pass to Tim Carter, but the ref calls offensive pass interference. This was one of the worst calls I have ever seen on offensive pass interference (I have seen tons of defensive ones). I have been watching football for 30+ years and I have never seen offensive PI without the receiver using his hands to push a defender? This killed the Giants as they ended up throwing a pick on the next play.Where was IR? Point is that only reviewing some plays and not the crappy holding calls or PI's doesn't help the game and all the negative that comes along with it does not help the game determine the winner.IR stinks and for the few calls that get overturned, there are MANY where they get it wrong on IR as well as tons where they simply can't review that are far more crucial. I say you should be able to review any plays you want but you can only challenge twice.

 

[mad sweeney]

I think there are better ways to handle instant replay. Though your last point doesn't seem to have anything to do with replay, as well as being subjective. In the past "what is a catch" was very subjective. Now it is defined in a much more consistent manner... though that definition isn't what we were used to it being.I digress though. I really think they should just have a booth of officials who do reviews. If they see something they think is wrong, they initiate a review. The ref on the field doesn't go look at it, the guys up in the booth do.Even better, do it like the NHL. They have a booth review, but the review is done at the league central office in Toronto. So the guys doing the review are the heads of officiating and should therefore be less likely to make a mistake since they are the ones that tell the refs how the league wants the rules interpreted.If it was really set up right, a normal review might only take 20 or 30 seconds since a lot of times they'll quickly find a view that definitively shows something one way or another.

GregR I see that you might have meant that my opinion that officiating has been worse since IR is just that, my opinion. Maybe that is correct, but I think it impacts the way the officiate and they even said the same at first. Who knows, but I think the officiating has become too much of the outcome, especially on 35 yard interference calls on on 3rd and longs. Those are killing the game in my opinion.

There are so many poor calls that can be used as an example, but the Giant Indy game was a great example where you see why instant replay does not help show who the better team is because the important plays can't be over turned. The Giants had a 25 yard run called back on a crack back block on Plaxico. This was a 40 yard swing and was an absolutely horrible call as this was nothing other than two guy hitting each other. Why can't instant replay be used to show the ref he thought he saw something wrong? 2) Late in the game, the Giants are down by 2 and Eli hits about a 20 yard pass to Tim Carter, but the ref calls offensive pass interference. This was one of the worst calls I have ever seen on offensive pass interference (I have seen tons of defensive ones). I have been watching football for 30+ years and I have never seen offensive PI without the receiver using his hands to push a defender? This killed the Giants as they ended up throwing a pick on the next play.Where was IR? Point is that only reviewing some plays and not the crappy holding calls or PI's doesn't help the game and all the negative that comes along with it does not help the game determine the winner.IR stinks and for the few calls that get overturned, there are MANY where they get it wrong on IR as well as tons where they simply can't review that are far more crucial. I say you should be able to review any plays you want but you can only challenge twice.

Chris Collinsworth has long ampaigned for Replay on PI calls. It's the most devastating penalty and usually called by a ref on the run, seeing it from one angle. I agree. A bad call on a 53 yd penalty is really unacceptable and should be reviewable. But remember, the more you replay stuff the mor it undermines a ref's ability to make the call in the first place. You'll see more flags thrown 'just in case', knowing they can be reviewed and reversed, but there has to be a flag in the first place.As for the NYG call last night...it might not have been textbook PI but the WR did lower his shoulder into the defender, made contact and used the elbow as a flipper to push the defender off. Not much, granted, but from an unbiased viewer it could've gone either way. I've seen worse.

 

[Godsbrother]

That ref makes the final decision. Based on what HE saw on the screen. And he can still be wrong. Last years Super Bowl proved that. I'm glad the Steelers won. But Big Ben didn't score that TD. But according to the instant replay, he did.

The call on the field was a TD. IR was inconclusive so the TD stood.Did anyone see the Dallas game where Parcells threw the challenge flag late? I don't think I had ever seen coaches throwing the flag late and now in Week 1 of 2006 you have it occurring twice.Personally I would get rid of IR because:1) Not everything can be challenged.2) I don't like that the rules change in the final 2:00 and then it is only reviewable by the officials.3) IR can reverse correct calls (Polamalu's INT in the AFC Championship game)All in all it just slows the game down too much. You get a call you don't like? Tough, bad calls happen. Get on with the next play and do something about it...

 

[Statorama]

I would be in favor of the "review by commitee" approach. When you have a ref on the field deciding the calls, he can get bullied by a 'big personality' coach like Parcells. In fact, there was an example of that very thing in the Jacksonville/Dallas game. All game long, on any questionable call, Parcells is all over the head ref. On Dallas' last drive, a Jacksonville player clearly intercepted a pass and it was ruled an interception on the field. Replays verified that the ball never hit the ground. But somehow it got overturned...because of the ball hitting the ground? It's my belief that after hearing Parcells scream at this guy about all the calls that went against the Cowboys, this ref subconciously thought he "owed him one" or this might "even things out".

The ref is on the field. If you've watched one football game, you've seen the refs joking with the players on the field and seen coaches giving refs an earfull (or joking with them as well). The refs are only human, and they can get swept up in the emotion of the game just as easily as you and I can.

Nah, that's just crazy talk. The officials are emotionless robots. They are completely detached and cannot be influenced in any way by outside forces.

But I digress...

When a ref on the field makes the wrong call, but the ruling on the field stands after replay doesn't bother me nearly as much as when the ref on the field makes the right call but it gets overturned.