Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
It would depend entirely on how it's being done. If the officials used him as the end-all-be-all when it came to deciding the correct interpretation, then obviously it is a problem. Or if they are giving what he said any undue weight, like going with what he said when their belief in the rule differs. But I doubt that is the case.If he's offering up what he believes the correct rule or interpretation to be, how's he any different than any other coach lobbying for the call and suggesting what the ruling should be? As long as it is the official making the final decision based on HIS knowledge of the rules it is fair. If Fisher or any other coach says something that jogs his memory as to the correct way to call it, there's nothing wrong with that.
I favor a centralized replay crew like the NHL has.1. You have WIDE disparity between crews as to how replays are viewed.2. What crew...wants to overturn their own call if it can be avoided?3. Sometimes you have an activist judge, I mean ref, like in the Pitt/Ravens game.I'm just saying...maybe it gives additional consistency.
While I also would favor the NFL going to a centralized replay, though I don't think I agree with the latter 2 of your 3 points. I think the refs are going to try to make the right call regardless of whether it is live or replay. If they aren't kind of person they should be removed as a ref. And I completely disagree with categorizing #3 as an "activist judge". But having one group of officials including the head of officials in New York revealing the plays would be better than doing it on the field.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.