Instant Replay (1 Viewer)

[FreeBaGeL]

Watching the Texans/Jags game and an incomplete pass was called on an Owen Daniels "catch". Replay showed it was clearly a catch, red flag thrown, announcers and everyone in the room pretty much say "yep, easy overturn." The result? Call on the field stands.

Similar situation in the Philly/Washington game. Westbrook catches a pass, falls down, drops the ball before he is touched, replay looks to be an easy overturn. Result? Replay official says "he was touched before the ball came loose". Whaaaa?

The same thing has been going on all season, and the same thing also in college football with the Oregon onside kick, Oregon pass deflection, Florida Chris Leak "fumble" (against Auburn) and Tennessee "not" touching the punt that they clearly did touch.

But it would seem the problem is the same in both the NFL and college. We have ONE person looking at the replay on a TINY monitor. It's just not working in this case. 95% of people with normal sized televisions see it one way, but that one person making the call is in the tiny minority that sees it the other way, likely due to the tiny screen they're looking at it on.

The fix? Quit with the half-assed implementation and A) give these guys a normal sized screen to look at and B) let's move it from one guy to some kind of replay committee with 3, 5, or 7 people looking at it so we don't get these scenarios where the only guy's opinion that matters is a guy who is in the vast minority.

Otherwise, just scrap it. At this point it's so messed up it's just a tease to all of us that think there might be someone competent looking at the replay to make the abundantly obvious call.

 

[3C's]

Move it up to the replay booth. It would save time and there would be less bias.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Strongly disagree. It's not perfect but it's infinitely better than not having it. Unbelievably better.

J

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

Strongly disagree. It's not perfect but it's infinitely better than not having it. Unbelievably better.J

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I think the ref should not be allowed to review his own work. All reviews are voted on by a 3-5 man review panel. Majority vote wins.

 

[GregR_2]

They should go to the NHL replay model. The replays are not conducted at the stadium by the ref, they are reviewed live by the league back at their office. So basically you'd have Peirera and his other directors of officials doing all the reviews. They would also only need to have one or two sets of equipment instead of 32 sets, so cost of enormous monitors and such wouldn't be as big an issue.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Nothing is wrong with the instant replay process. The refs are screwing it up. That being said, despite their mistakes, I think the NFL is generally better off with the refs than without them. I'd say the same thing about instant replay.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Nothing is wrong with the instant replay process. The refs are screwing it up. That being said, despite their mistakes, I think the NFL is generally better off with the refs than without them. I'd say the same thing about instant replay.

I'm with you in that the refs are screwing things up, but I think that the current process is party to blame. As mentioned before, they're watching the video on tiny monitors. I don't even know if they're high-def or not. I think that GregR has the best solution. The replays should be done by a special replay committee. If they could do it at the central office, even better. They could have 70" high-def monitors to review the video footage.

 

[nase]

keep instant replay. funny thing is i just saw an article about this on yahoo sports this week. was that the inspiration for this thread? that said, i agree that review should be handled in the booth or somewhere else.

 

[blueandsilver]

Overall I'm in favor of instant replay, but I don't like it when the referee is the person reviewing a call that he just made on the field. A case of this was in the Lions/49ers game where the referee ruled that Kitna fumbled the ball before hitting the ground on a blind-side corner-blitz. The replay however showed that the ball didn't pop out until after Kitna's back hit the ground, which should have been down-by-contact rather than a fumble. The referee (the same person who made the original call), however ruled that the play stands as called. This is far too common where the referee fails to use the video evidence to overturn something they 'think happened '.

I would rather see it go to a central NFL office or go back to the booth reviews like they used to do (as college does now). I like the idea of a 3 man video replay committee.

 

[jonessed]

I agree with the majority. I think you have refs getting in the way of overturning their own calls. The replay booth should make the call to get the bias out of the way.

 

[redman]

I agree with the majority. I think you have refs getting in the way of overturning their own calls. The replay booth should make the call to get the bias out of the way.

What I sense is that the replay system itself paralyzes the refs and makes them indecisive. If you have to make the call live and then live with the consequences, you're going to be decisive. Baseball umpires are decisive. There are no sporting officials that spend more time huddling and conferring and checking with each other than do NFL refs. It's ridiculous. And replay has made that worse. As for Joe's comment that it makes the game infinitely better, I'm not sure that that's true. Certainly, some critical mis-calls have been overturned in playoff games, but there have been just as many things blown by refs during replay. Remember that infamous QB sneak by the Carolina QB at Seattle a few years back which was called a TD despite the fact that his head, and not the ball, had crossed the goalline? I'm not sure that we've gained much from instant replay. What I do know that it does is slow the game down.

 

[lions327]

They should go to the NHL replay model. The replays are not conducted at the stadium by the ref, they are reviewed live by the league back at their office. So basically you'd have Peirera and his other directors of officials doing all the reviews. They would also only need to have one or two sets of equipment instead of 32 sets, so cost of enormous monitors and such wouldn't be as big an issue.

 

[Doug Drinen]

I agree with the majority. I think you have refs getting in the way of overturning their own calls. The replay booth should make the call to get the bias out of the way.

What I sense is that the replay system itself paralyzes the refs and makes them indecisive.

Anytime there is a catch near the sideline, or a fumble, or a guy tackled within two feet of the goal line, my brain has been trained to turn itself off. It says, "no point getting invested in what's going on right now. Just go get a sandwich and maybe they'll have it figured out by the time you get back."

Many of the most exciting plays in a football game completely lose their drama and impact because you know that whatever just happened might or might not have actually just happened. At the instant a football is bouncing around on the turf at a critical juncture in the game and 22 guys are going crazy trying to get it, I should be interested in who recovers it. But I'm not. Because I know that the outcome won't be decided for about 17 more minutes. It's not the delay that bothers me. It's the fact that it makes every single action on the football field temporary.

And then, as the OP pointed out, they don't even get it right after the delay much of the time.

I don't think it's worth it. I can live with an occasional blown call, but I just hate replay in all its forms.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

What I sense is that the replay system itself paralyzes the refs and makes them indecisive. If you have to make the call live and then live with the consequences, you're going to be decisive. Baseball umpires are decisive.

There are no sporting officials that spend more time huddling and conferring and checking with each other than do NFL refs. It's ridiculous. And replay has made that worse.

Good god, don't make football more like baseball in just about any respect. Particularly their umpires. Those guys flaunt the rules because there are no checks and balances. They rule with impunity. "Who gives a crap what the rules say, I say where the strike zone is, biotch!"On-field conferences are not a problem. I'd rather they consider all the views refs had from various points on the field than some fatass making a call he didn't see just to give the appearance of being "decisive" like you see in baseball.

 

[Godsbrother]

Dump the IR rule. NFL football was just fine in the 70s without it. It just slows the game down.

And the fact that they change the challenge rules in the last 2 minutes of a half is stupid.

 

[Borat]

Strongly disagree. It's not perfect but it's infinitely better than not having it. Unbelievably better.J

I absolutely love the current system. It's not perfect, and no system ever will be, but I like the current system a lot.

 

[JayMan]

They should go to the NHL replay model. The replays are not conducted at the stadium by the ref, they are reviewed live by the league back at their office. So basically you'd have Peirera and his other directors of officials doing all the reviews. They would also only need to have one or two sets of equipment instead of 32 sets, so cost of enormous monitors and such wouldn't be as big an issue.

Fairly easy also - in today's world... you have guys (in Ny or elsewhere "in a bunker") watching every game / with at least one person watching each game all the time... when there is a review play (which should be called by the "bunker" all the time - like in the last 2 minutes of the game presently) - it buzz in the pants of the referee (before the next play) who blows the whistle and announce to the crowd that there is a review... within 30 seconds - the bunker crew has looked at 2 / 3 / 4 angles and relays back to the referee the correct call... case closed... Ready for the next call (I'm pretty sure that the "3-reviews at the same time" occurence would be slim - but that would cause obvious delays (probably less than the ones we're seeing right now anyway))

 

[redman]

They should go to the NHL replay model. The replays are not conducted at the stadium by the ref, they are reviewed live by the league back at their office. So basically you'd have Peirera and his other directors of officials doing all the reviews. They would also only need to have one or two sets of equipment instead of 32 sets, so cost of enormous monitors and such wouldn't be as big an issue.

Fairly easy also - in today's world... you have guys (in Ny or elsewhere "in a bunker") watching every game / with at least one person watching each game all the time... when there is a review play (which should be called by the "bunker" all the time - like in the last 2 minutes of the game presently) - it buzz in the pants of the referee (before the next play) who blows the whistle and announce to the crowd that there is a review... within 30 seconds - the bunker crew has looked at 2 / 3 / 4 angles and relays back to the referee the correct call... case closed... Ready for the next call (I'm pretty sure that the "3-reviews at the same time" occurence would be slim - but that would cause obvious delays (probably less than the ones we're seeing right now anyway))

"Gentlemen, there's no fighting in here! This is the War Room!" Sorry.

 

[Da Guru]

The NCAA version is much better than the NFLs.

 

[sartre]

I agree with the majority. I think you have refs getting in the way of overturning their own calls. The replay booth should make the call to get the bias out of the way.

Certainly, some critical mis-calls have been overturned in playoff games, but there have been just as many things blown by refs during replay. Remember that infamous QB sneak by the Carolina QB at Seattle a few years back which was called a TD despite the fact that his head, and not the ball, had crossed the goalline? I'm not sure that we've gained much from instant replay. What I do know that it does is slow the game down.

Maybe you are referring to a different game, but the play you describe sounds a lot like Vinny Testaverde of the Jets. That phantom score gave NY the win and helped keep Seattle from the playoffs a few years back. There was no replay in that case, and that play in particular was one of the big arguments provided to bring it back.

 

[NEUPJ]

It was either on Sunday or MNF a couple weeks ago, the announcers said that the refs in the replay window only see the play at full speed and not slow motion. I couldn't believe that is actually the case, can anyone confirm or deny that?

 

[JayMan]

It was either on Sunday or MNF a couple weeks ago, the announcers said that the refs in the replay window only see the play at full speed and not slow motion. I couldn't believe that is actually the case, can anyone confirm or deny that?

if that's the case... that's the worst use of technology I have ever seen...You plug a guy in a tiny black boot with hundreds of fans screaming at him... he has to look at a 10inch screen (probably green monochrome also!) that is 4 feet away... at a play at full speed... (while everyone else in the stadium sees the play from every possible angle in super-slomo on a 100foot jumbotron?!)... and if he overules it - it means that one of his guys blew a call (although not easy to make)... Certainly the best way to go...

 

[This_Guy]

I think the NFL is better with replay than without. It certainly isn't perfect but it eliminates some of the errors. Fewer errors is better.

That being said I really think they system could be improved.

1) Get more people involved. Only having the 1 official on the field looking at the replay is a bad scenario. First it wastes a ton of time. They guy is talking to the coaches, then announcing to the crown, then running over to the sideline, then talking to the other refs, then announcing to the crowd. Have 3 guys make the decisions either from the booth or from the home office. Give those guys the top video technology to look at the play. This helps diminish the problem of the call being seen though only 1 set of eyes. It also gives some people a chance to discuss exactly what they are seeing so that people see it from a different perspective.

2) Allow the booth to review plays the entire game. If you have this team constantly looking at plays they will see the bad calls very quickly. If something is wrong it should be changed. Continue to allow coaches to challenge so they can make sure they feel the game was called right, but don't stop officials from correcting a bad call just because a coach doesn't want to risk a time out.

3) Understand the definition of "indisputable". Only calls that are clearly wrong should be overruled. Too often calls that are very questionable are overruled. If it is not clearly the wrong call don't change the call on the field. I see this the most with fumbles where the ball starts to come out when a player's knee hits turf. There frequently isn't an exact point where someone loses control of the ball. Especially when the defensive player is pulling it out. You can't definitively say this is the exact point where the player fumbles. If the knee hits during the process of the ball coming lose but still in the hand of the carrier you have to go with the call on the field. Only plays where INDISPUTABLE VIDEO EVIDENCE exists should be over turned.

 

[GregR_2]

...3) Understand the definition of "indisputable". Only calls that are clearly wrong should be overruled. Too often calls that are very questionable are overruled. If it is not clearly the wrong call don't change the call on the field. I see this the most with fumbles where the ball starts to come out when a player's knee hits turf. There frequently isn't an exact point where someone loses control of the ball. Especially when the defensive player is pulling it out. You can't definitively say this is the exact point where the player fumbles. If the knee hits during the process of the ball coming lose but still in the hand of the carrier you have to go with the call on the field. Only plays where INDISPUTABLE VIDEO EVIDENCE exists should be over turned.

I agree that the NFL is allowing their officials to be inconsistent with what is "indisputable", even seeming to outright ignore that requirement sometimes and just going with what they'd say if they had to make a call, rather than only supposed to make a call if it was indisputable.

 

[Weapon of Mass Instruction]

I think the ref should not be allowed to review his own work. All reviews are voted on by a 3-5 man review panel. Majority vote wins.

I like that...a lot. Shoot, I don't care if it the decision is made 500 miles away at some central office. The ref reviewing his own play is like an "internal investigation". PLUSIf you win the **** challenge, you keep it. Dang referee screwed it up in the first place. How do you get penalized for the ref's error?