Instant Replay (1 Viewer)

[renesauz]

Every NFL game there's at least one coaches challenge on a play that one quick look at a replay shows wasn't even close. Some coaches are so bad at choosing their challenges that they have success rates so low the number would barely be adequate as a MLB batting average.

Then...a play like Green Bay's fumble return happens...bad call...easy overturn on review...but Dallas can't challenge because there's 2:04 on the clock and they're out of timeouts.

Kind of goes against the spirit and intent of the system!

College does it right, IMHO. A booth official stops the game, reviews the footage, and makes the call. Not the guy who potentially blew the call to begin with. Not the coach desperate for something good stopping the game uselessly. Not failing to review a tough call simply because they already didn't overturn one earlier. No official failing to make a call relying on a coach to risk a timeout to fix it.

Use a radio to communicate, and take advantage of the network's 20 camera angles...and let the booth official stop the game and decide the right call. Not only would such a system should be faster, but instant replay could be easily expanded to include questionable penalties (was that facemask inadvertant? Was that hit late? Did that defender launch himself into the head/neck area?...all tough calls at full speed, but usually pretty easy calls on slo-mo replay.) Make the man in the booth, the one with all the tools, the man really in charge, not the guy on the field.

 

[TheChairman]

They should do this for every play to get every spot to within a grass blade of perfection. Also for penalties and non-penalties. It would be nice to stretch out the games over a few days instead of having it all happen in 3 hours.

 

[David Yudkin]

Other than cut and dried penalties (12 men on the field, past the line of scrimmage on a pass, etc.), I can't support instant replay on penalties or non-calls. There's a penalty on every play if you look hard enough. What happens if in reviewing a play there are other fouls spotted that weren't called to begin with? What about the latest trend of rough hits? How do you draw the line on defenseless, helmet to helmet, unnessary roughness, etc.?

If a team has no more timeouts and needs a challenge, they should still be able to challenge. IMO, they should face a 15-yard penalty if they lose. Perhaps there is a way to get additional challenges on plays involving like change of possession or points being scored only.

On a side note, some coaches challenge the dumbest plays to begin with. For example, in the Pats game yesterday NE challenged that CLE didn't get into the end zone and that instead it should have been 1st and goal at the 6 inch line. Even if they won the challenge, CLE was still going to score (and on replay there really was no point in challenging in the first place). In the past, Belichick has challenged the spot of the ball on plays where it made no difference (say the difference between 2nd and 3 vs 2nd and 5). I'm not sure what the point of those are, as it costs a challenge even if you win.

 

[Pnishthm]

Every NFL game there's at least one coaches challenge on a play that one quick look at a replay shows wasn't even close. Some coaches are so bad at choosing their challenges that they have success rates so low the number would barely be adequate as a MLB batting average.Then...a play like Green Bay's fumble return happens...bad call...easy overturn on review...but Dallas can't challenge because there's 2:04 on the clock and they're out of timeouts.Kind of goes against the spirit and intent of the system!College does it right, IMHO. A booth official stops the game, reviews the footage, and makes the call. Not the guy who potentially blew the call to begin with. Not the coach desperate for something good stopping the game uselessly. Not failing to review a tough call simply because they already didn't overturn one earlier. No official failing to make a call relying on a coach to risk a timeout to fix it.Use a radio to communicate, and take advantage of the network's 20 camera angles...and let the booth official stop the game and decide the right call. Not only would such a system should be faster, but instant replay could be easily expanded to include questionable penalties (was that facemask inadvertant? Was that hit late? Did that defender launch himself into the head/neck area?...all tough calls at full speed, but usually pretty easy calls on slo-mo replay.) Make the man in the booth, the one with all the tools, the man really in charge, not the guy on the field.

But if Dallas hadn't challenged one of those plays that you mention earlier in that game, they would have had one timeout left. Dallas had challanged that the GB rb had not cross the goal line when it was clear that there was nothing conclusive to show that he didn't. Challenges are part of coaching now and coaches need to account for that.

 

[Mello]

I don't see a problem with the current system. The NFL doesn't want every play reviewed due to time. I don't think it's asking too much for a coach to save at least 1 timeout until the last two minutes. If I were to change anything with the system, it would be to give the coach another challenge if their second challenge was successful regardless of the outcome of the first challenge.

What really needs to change is that the NFL needs to hire full time officials, they need to seriously grade every official, and they need to remove the worst every year instead of just not allowing them to do playoff games.

 

[Pnishthm]

Other than cut and dried penalties (12 men on the field, past the line of scrimmage on a pass, etc.), I can't support instant replay on penalties or non-calls. There's a penalty on every play if you look hard enough. What happens if in reviewing a play there are other fouls spotted that weren't called to begin with? What about the latest trend of rough hits? How do you draw the line on defenseless, helmet to helmet, unnessary roughness, etc.?If a team has no more timeouts and needs a challenge, they should still be able to challenge. IMO, they should face a 15-yard penalty if they lose. Perhaps there is a way to get additional challenges on plays involving like change of possession or points being scored only.On a side note, some coaches challenge the dumbest plays to begin with. For example, in the Pats game yesterday NE challenged that CLE didn't get into the end zone and that instead it should have been 1st and goal at the 6 inch line. Even if they won the challenge, CLE was still going to score (and on replay there really was no point in challenging in the first place). In the past, Belichick has challenged the spot of the ball on plays where it made no difference (say the difference between 2nd and 3 vs 2nd and 5). I'm not sure what the point of those are, as it costs a challenge even if you win.

Not so fast on that...the announcers tried to say the same thing to S. Payton last Sunday night when he challenged a TD and won but it still gave the Steelers 1st and goal from the inch yard line. 3 stops and a FG later I bet Payton was pretty happy he challenged that.

 

[j3r3m3y]

I like the current system.

 

[David Yudkin]

Other than cut and dried penalties (12 men on the field, past the line of scrimmage on a pass, etc.), I can't support instant replay on penalties or non-calls. There's a penalty on every play if you look hard enough. What happens if in reviewing a play there are other fouls spotted that weren't called to begin with? What about the latest trend of rough hits? How do you draw the line on defenseless, helmet to helmet, unnessary roughness, etc.?If a team has no more timeouts and needs a challenge, they should still be able to challenge. IMO, they should face a 15-yard penalty if they lose. Perhaps there is a way to get additional challenges on plays involving like change of possession or points being scored only.On a side note, some coaches challenge the dumbest plays to begin with. For example, in the Pats game yesterday NE challenged that CLE didn't get into the end zone and that instead it should have been 1st and goal at the 6 inch line. Even if they won the challenge, CLE was still going to score (and on replay there really was no point in challenging in the first place). In the past, Belichick has challenged the spot of the ball on plays where it made no difference (say the difference between 2nd and 3 vs 2nd and 5). I'm not sure what the point of those are, as it costs a challenge even if you win.

Not so fast on that...the announcers tried to say the same thing to S. Payton last Sunday night when he challenged a TD and won but it still gave the Steelers 1st and goal from the inch yard line. 3 stops and a FG later I bet Payton was pretty happy he challenged that.

The Pats D yesterday could not have stopped my grandmother from going 6 inches in 4 tries yesterday. In the Pats case yesterday, it was clear CLE scored, so challenging made no sense at all. Sure, if it was clear the guy didn't get in and they were trying to stay in the game it might make sense, but there was nothing to go on to think it could have been reversed.

 

[davearm]

The NFL's current system involves an element of strategy that one could easily argue shouldn't be there. The point should be to get the calls right, period. Not to get the calls right when a coach thinks it's important enough, and has both timeout(s) and challenge(s) remaining, and doesn't feel it would be better to hold onto his timeout(s) and challenge(s) for later than use one now.

Having said that, the college system has always bothered me in one respect: the booth is instructed to call for a replay on any and every play where there's any question that the call on the field was correct (on a correctable element of the game). So why do they add coach's challenges on top of that? If a coach challenges and loses, then it was an unnecessary and annoying waste of time. If a coach challenges and wins, then the booth f'ed up by not calling for a replay itself. That should never, ever happen if the system is working properly. But yet they built this dynamic into the system for some strange reason.

 

[Wilbur Wood]

Get rid of the Challenge system.

Put a replay official (with several video assistants) up in the booth. The replay official can buzz the head umpire of a review at any time before the next snap. The video official than has 60 seconds (with a formal shot clock counted down) to reverse the call on the field. If the 60 second clock runs out then the original play on the field stands. Criteria would be developed such that replay official would not stop the action for routine "ball spot" plays but only such spot would have resulted in a change of possession.

Overall, I don't that the above approach would make games longer and would uphold the spirit that things should be fairly "obvious" (i.e., something that can be plainly seen in 60 seconds) to warrant a reversal.

On field penalties (which should be a stand alone topic because offiating has been lousy this year) would not be reviewable at all.

 

[Pnishthm]

Other than cut and dried penalties (12 men on the field, past the line of scrimmage on a pass, etc.), I can't support instant replay on penalties or non-calls. There's a penalty on every play if you look hard enough. What happens if in reviewing a play there are other fouls spotted that weren't called to begin with? What about the latest trend of rough hits? How do you draw the line on defenseless, helmet to helmet, unnessary roughness, etc.?If a team has no more timeouts and needs a challenge, they should still be able to challenge. IMO, they should face a 15-yard penalty if they lose. Perhaps there is a way to get additional challenges on plays involving like change of possession or points being scored only.On a side note, some coaches challenge the dumbest plays to begin with. For example, in the Pats game yesterday NE challenged that CLE didn't get into the end zone and that instead it should have been 1st and goal at the 6 inch line. Even if they won the challenge, CLE was still going to score (and on replay there really was no point in challenging in the first place). In the past, Belichick has challenged the spot of the ball on plays where it made no difference (say the difference between 2nd and 3 vs 2nd and 5). I'm not sure what the point of those are, as it costs a challenge even if you win.

Not so fast on that...the announcers tried to say the same thing to S. Payton last Sunday night when he challenged a TD and won but it still gave the Steelers 1st and goal from the inch yard line. 3 stops and a FG later I bet Payton was pretty happy he challenged that.

The Pats D yesterday could not have stopped my grandmother from going 6 inches in 4 tries yesterday. In the Pats case yesterday, it was clear CLE scored, so challenging made no sense at all. Sure, if it was clear the guy didn't get in and they were trying to stay in the game it might make sense, but there was nothing to go on to think it could have been reversed.

David, I started a thread on this two weeks ago how teams should pay a guy to sit in the booth and do nothing but look at what should be challenged and what should not be challenged. Most of these teams are so bad with challenges that having somebody up there with knowledge of the rules and lots of common sense could easily make a difference of at least one win per season. To soley rely on your coaches to look what should be challenged or not when these guys are busy doing many other things is just dumb. I know there is not always a lot of time to decide but we as fans get to see a couple of slow mo replays before the ball is snapped for the next play and 90% of the time we can tell what should be challenged and what should not be.

 

[The_Man]

I like the theory of the NFL's system, but not the implementation - it gives a huge and unfair advantage to the home team. At Ravens games, any time there's a questionable play that might go against Baltimore, the control booth immediately shows every possible replay on the stadium's giant HD screens, including replays from the team's own in-house camera system that aren't part of the network broadcast. But when a play might go against the Ravens? Nothing. I hate the unfairness of this, even as it benefits my team. I think each team should have its own guy in either the network production truck or the stadium control booth who gets instant, unedited access to all the footage - then he can buzz down to his coach and tell him whether or not it's worth a challenge.

These guys would also have a much better grasp of what's really worth a challenge. Way too often I feel like coaches get caught up in stuff and call for a challenge on something like an incomplete pass on second down - it's only going to be worth 6 yards if you're right, but it's going to cost you a timeout and a challenge if you're wrong. They're so busy with the game that they could benefit from someone helping make the decisions: "Coach, he might have caught the ball, but none of the videos are conclusive" or "It's a 50-50 shot, but if he overturns the call we get the ball in great scoring position so it's worth the chance" or whatever.

 

[FantasyTrader]

On a side note, some coaches challenge the dumbest plays to begin with. For example, in the Pats game yesterday NE challenged that CLE didn't get into the end zone and that instead it should have been 1st and goal at the 6 inch line. Even if they won the challenge, CLE was still going to score (and on replay there really was no point in challenging in the first place). In the past, Belichick has challenged the spot of the ball on plays where it made no difference (say the difference between 2nd and 3 vs 2nd and 5). I'm not sure what the point of those are, as it costs a challenge even if you win.

Couldn't disagree more. If you can clearly see the ball fall short of the end zone, it's almost always correct to challenge and take pts. off the board. I don't care if you can't fit a paper-clip between the ball and the end zone. Stuff happens. False start, holding, fumble, etc. No way do you give them points just because, "Oh well, we won't stop them anyway".Now that doesn't mean there aren't scenarios where you choose not to challenge because you can't afford to be wrong and lose that TO, or maybe that TD puts you down by 8 pts. with 90 seconds left and you WANTED them to score, etc.

 

[Pnishthm]

I like the theory of the NFL's system, but not the implementation - it gives a huge and unfair advantage to the home team. At Ravens games, any time there's a questionable play that might go against Baltimore, the control booth immediately shows every possible replay on the stadium's giant HD screens, including replays from the team's own in-house camera system that aren't part of the network broadcast. But when a play might go against the Ravens? Nothing. I hate the unfairness of this, even as it benefits my team. I think each team should have its own guy in either the network production truck or the stadium control booth who gets instant, unedited access to all the footage - then he can buzz down to his coach and tell him whether or not it's worth a challenge.These guys would also have a much better grasp of what's really worth a challenge. Way too often I feel like coaches get caught up in stuff and call for a challenge on something like an incomplete pass on second down - it's only going to be worth 6 yards if you're right, but it's going to cost you a timeout and a challenge if you're wrong. They're so busy with the game that they could benefit from someone helping make the decisions: "Coach, he might have caught the ball, but none of the videos are conclusive" or "It's a 50-50 shot, but if he overturns the call we get the ball in great scoring position so it's worth the chance" or whatever.

I think at times emotion leads to poor challenges as well. How many times do we see the same replay and one guy who is pulling for his team CLEARLY sees the play one way while the other guy who is pulling for his team CLEARLY sees the play the other way. Some of these coaches are so emotionally involved in the game that they see a play a certain way where if they had somebody in the booth not as emotionally involved and looking at the play more rationally, it would lead to more correct challenges.

 

[Blutarsky]

College has it right. The NFL system is completely screwed up. If the logic is to get the call right, why a system that give coaches only two (possibly 3) challenges during a game. Watch how the college system works, it is far superior than the NFL system.

And reviews are not done to catch missed penalties.

Pat Kirwin (Sirius NFL) has put a stop watch to college games and found that the college does NOT lengthen the game any more than the current NFL system.

Implement next season!

 

[The_Wolfman]

But if Dallas hadn't challenged one of those plays that you mention earlier in that game, they would have had one timeout left. Dallas had challanged that the GB rb had not cross the goal line when it was clear that there was nothing conclusive to show that he didn't. Challenges are part of coaching now and coaches need to account for that.

When I saw Wade Phillips was challenging that Jackson TD run, I thought to myself "wtf?" Even if he won the challenge, the ball would have been down on the 2 inch line, so it was basically pointless. Phillips didn't have the foresight to realize he may need that challenge/timeout later in the game, and it came back to cost him later. Very poor coaching IMO.

 

[FFdork]

I think others have covered it, but why in the world do we need the official going over to stick his head in a box to watch TV instead of having a dedicated replay official in front of a 52" HD monitor reviewing the footage as soon as a call looks questionable is beyond me. Those Fox games where Mike P. weighs in really drives it home. He's usually watched it sitting in the studio and has the right call before the guy on the field has even stuck his head in the curtain.

Case in point: it felt like 3 plays took about an hour in that Philly/Indy game when the two calls were 'red flagged' on the same goal line series.

Agree that reviewing on most non-calls/penalties is a bad idea. Just overturn important mistakes in an efficient manner. I'd do it more like the college system to, as long as it's done quickly. Leave the coaches with a challenge just in case there's something the replay officials miss.

 

[Flash]

They should do this for every play to get every spot to within a grass blade of perfection. Also for penalties and non-penalties. It would be nice to stretch out the games over a few days instead of having it all happen in 3 hours.

Ignorance is bliss

 

[Flash]

College has it right. The NFL system is completely screwed up. If the logic is to get the call right, why a system that give coaches only two (possibly 3) challenges during a game. Watch how the college system works, it is far superior than the NFL system. And reviews are not done to catch missed penalties.Pat Kirwin (Sirius NFL) has put a stop watch to college games and found that the college does NOT lengthen the game any more than the current NFL system. Implement next season!

The NFL system is horrible.The College system is just right and easily takes less time than the NFL to review a play.

 

[solorca]

I think others have covered it, but why in the world do we need the official going over to stick his head in a box to watch TV instead of having a dedicated replay official in front of a 52" HD monitor reviewing the footage as soon as a call looks questionable is beyond me. Those Fox games where Mike P. weighs in really drives it home. He's usually watched it sitting in the studio and has the right call before the guy on the field has even stuck his head in the curtain. Case in point: it felt like 3 plays took about an hour in that Philly/Indy game when the two calls were 'red flagged' on the same goal line series.Agree that reviewing on most non-calls/penalties is a bad idea. Just overturn important mistakes in an efficient manner. I'd do it more like the college system to, as long as it's done quickly. Leave the coaches with a challenge just in case there's something the replay officials miss.

That's really the answer. Add another ref solely for replay duties, with the ability to stop the game. He can simply radio into the ref on the field and give the result in a matter of a minute or two (tops). It's easy and painless.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

The real question is - what is more important to the NFL, getting the calls right or creating a strategy of when to use challenges?

If they are more interested in getting calls right, the NCAA method should be adopted.

Frankly any other choice is not in the best interest of the game.