Should penalties be reviewable? (1 Viewer)

[gianmarco]

They allow reviews for just about everything except penalties. Why? I don't understand the reasoning for that. There are so many penalties that should easily be reversed or called that never were.

In particular:

1. Helmet to helmet hits

2. Late hits

3. Intentional grounding

4. Block in the back

5. Holding

6. Facemask

7. QB hits

8. Most importantly -- Pass Interference

It's not as if you can just challenge all the game. You're still limited to the challenges currently available. But some of these plays can have a HUGE impact, particularly pass interference.

So, are there any good reasons why penalties shouldn't be reviewable?

 

[Ministry of Pain]

It would kill the game

 

[gianmarco]

It would kill the game

How?

 

[DarkManX]

No, you take the good with the bad.

 

[Arch Stanton]

I'd like to see several of those reviewable but I also want the refs to rely on their judgment out there, not on getting it right with replay. However, the one I can't stand bing unreviewable is PI. Make it a 15 yard/first down penalty or review it. 50 yard penalty because of a crappy angle the out of shape ref has is really terrible

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

No, you take the good with the bad.

You could say this about instand replay on what they use it for now. With that said, I say no. Many of the penalties are objective and the game would really be slowed down because of it, it would be a huge mistake.I understand that pass interference is a huge call, and I would hope that all officiating crews know the impact that a long pass interference call has on a game.

 

[massraider]

No, you take the good with the bad.

If that was true, we wouldn't have replay.

 

[gianmarco]

It would kill the game

You do realize that you're only allowed 2 (and maybe 3) challenges all game, right? How would using a challenge on a missed facemask at the end of the game that results in a 1st down or negating a 60 yd pass interference call that didn't occur in the closing minute "kill the game"? I'm truly curious.

 

[fatness]

Choice missing.

Should penalties be reviewable? Yes No Certain penalties Whining about penalties is waaaaaaaaay up this year.

 

[gianmarco]

No, you take the good with the bad.

You could say this about instand replay on what they use it for now. With that said, I say no. Many of the penalties are objective and the game would really be slowed down because of it, it would be a huge mistake.

I understand that pass interference is a huge call, and I would hope that all officiating crews know the impact that a long pass interference call has on a game.

How is the game "really slowed down"? Only 2 challenges per game and still only have 90 seconds on it.

 

[Arch Stanton]

It would kill the game

You do realize that you're only allowed 2 (and maybe 3) challenges all game, right? How would using a challenge on a missed facemask at the end of the game that results in a 1st down or negating a 60 yd pass interference call that didn't occur in the closing minute "kill the game"? I'm truly curious.

Are you suggesting they should be able to challenge calls that were missed completely?

 

[Eminence]

No, because just as many times as my teams get a bad call. They get a good one.

 

[King of the Wolfies]

too many games are being wrecked by bogus pass interference calls. it either needs to be changed to 15 yards, or made reviewable.

 

[editor47]

i think all reviews should go through the booth. there shouldn't be a penalty for getting a call right like wasting a timeout.

as for the penalties, if the booth wants to review the play, just like in the last two minutes, they buzz down.

 

[Rockchild]

It could add a lot of new strategy involving challenges. Even if you allow a challenge to a missed call I don't think it would be all that bad of an idea. Getting the call right would be worth it and you would still be limited in the number of challenges you have. It's not as crazy as it sounds. They challenge the spot of the ball so why not a missed offside at an opportune time?

 

[Ministry of Pain]

It would kill the game

You do realize that you're only allowed 2 (and maybe 3) challenges all game, right? How would using a challenge on a missed facemask at the end of the game that results in a 1st down or negating a 60 yd pass interference call that didn't occur in the closing minute "kill the game"? I'm truly curious.

Hi Gian,I believe it would kill the flow of the game. I do see where occasionally a ref call can blow a game but I think it is far fewer than most realize. People are upset about the miami/NO game yesterday, at least Phinsfans but the replays don't back up Miami claims so to me if we have to stop every time a flag is called and have a booth review from above inside 5 minutes or 2 minutes...to me it kills the vibe of the game. Just play good clean football and you won't have to rely on the refs for help.

 

[gianmarco]

It would kill the game

You do realize that you're only allowed 2 (and maybe 3) challenges all game, right? How would using a challenge on a missed facemask at the end of the game that results in a 1st down or negating a 60 yd pass interference call that didn't occur in the closing minute "kill the game"? I'm truly curious.

Hi Gian,I believe it would kill the flow of the game. I do see where occasionally a ref call can blow a game but I think it is far fewer than most realize. People are upset about the miami/NO game yesterday, at least Phinsfans but the replays don't back up Miami claims so to me if we have to stop every time a flag is called and have a booth review from above inside 5 minutes or 2 minutes...to me it kills the vibe of the game. Just play good clean football and you won't have to rely on the refs for help.

Hi MOP,The thing is, there are already challenges allowed. I'm not suggesting the # of challenges are changed. I'm just suggesting that WHAT can be challenged is changed. If you don't like how it affects the flow of the game, then your issue is with the current challenge system. What I'm proposing would have ABSOLUTELY ZERO effect on how long the current system takes and it's effect on the flow of the game.What made me think of this? There was a CLEAR helmet to helmet hit last night in the Giants/Cards game that would have tacked on another 15 yds. Simple to see, clear as day, refs missed it. That's a big deal. We allow challenges to move a ball a few feet at times when a runner goes out of bounds or where a ball is spotted. Those are often harder to see on replay than the CLEAR helmet to helmet hit that took place and was missed by the refs. There was absolutely no question about it. And it wasn't the first time.Likewise, we've seen PI calls that were either COMPLETELY missed or COMPLETELY made up that never took place that affect a game for even more yardage. We've heard people complain about some of the roughing the passer calls that on second review were indeed nothing at all. Those are serious penalties, often during a 3rd down play that turns a punting situation into a sustained drive. I never suggested you can review any penalty you don't like. Just whichever ones a coach feels necessary using the 2 challenges he has for the entire game. In fact, I would argue that reviewing these penalties would take far shorter to evaluate and come to a decision (i.e. that helmet to helmet hit would have taken 3 seconds in the booth) vs. trying to determine at what point a ball got punched out and when and where it crossed OOB all the while not having a good angle to do so.

 

[beavers]

What else would the Steelers opponents blame their losses on?

 

[Phurfur]

No, you take the good with the bad.

You could say this about instand replay on what they use it for now. With that said, I say no. Many of the penalties are objective and the game would really be slowed down because of it, it would be a huge mistake.

I understand that pass interference is a huge call, and I would hope that all officiating crews know the impact that a long pass interference call has on a game.

How is the game "really slowed down"? Only 2 challenges per game and still only have 90 seconds on it.

90 seconds? Time it from red flag to the next snap and see what you get. The games are painfully slow! TD - Commercial, Kick off - Commercial, Red Flag - Commercial...................

 

[mystykoekaki]

... Shouldn't be a secret what I voted for

 

[beavers]

... Shouldn't be a secret what I voted for

Exactly.

 

[comfortably numb]

I say yes.

You get 2 flags, and if your review is overturned you should still keep your flag.

Why should you be penalized for a ref not making the proper call.

I will gladly take a slower game than to be whining about a call 3 years later.

 

[GloryDaze]

Why not? They already allow it for 12 men on the field.

I just don't see how many plays would be reversed. Maybe an intentional grounding or two. The other ones are so iffy, it would have to be a catastrophically bad call to be overturned.

 

[elitzer]

They allow reviews for just about everything except penalties. Why? I don't understand the reasoning for that. There are so many penalties that should easily be reversed or called that never were.In particular:1. Helmet to helmet hits2. Late hits3. Intentional grounding4. Block in the back5. Holding6. Facemask7. QB hits8. Most importantly -- Pass InterferenceIt's not as if you can just challenge all the game. You're still limited to the challenges currently available. But some of these plays can have a HUGE impact, particularly pass interference. So, are there any good reasons why penalties shouldn't be reviewable?

i know no one wants to beleive me .but the refs control the games.for vegas.just look at the spead for cincy game.bears were dogs by 3 then it went down to a pickum.everyone betting on bears.guess what cincy clobbered them.look at past games that calls were game winning circumstances.the refs can call whatever they want.wish i just knew what way they were going before the game so i had a chance at making money also.i am not sure they will ever get caught like the basketball refs due to football a multi billion dollar billon dollar business.do you actually think all that money that they pay players comes from fan sales tickets and tv endorsements.if that was the case all teams would be broke.yes i think there is a conspiracy theory but it is fun anyway.

 

[comfortably numb]

They allow reviews for just about everything except penalties. Why? I don't understand the reasoning for that. There are so many penalties that should easily be reversed or called that never were.

In particular:

1. Helmet to helmet hits

2. Late hits

3. Intentional grounding

4. Block in the back

5. Holding

6. Facemask

7. QB hits

8. Most importantly -- Pass Interference

It's not as if you can just challenge all the game. You're still limited to the challenges currently available. But some of these plays can have a HUGE impact, particularly pass interference.

So, are there any good reasons why penalties shouldn't be reviewable?

i know no one wants to beleive me .but the refs control the games.for vegas.just look at the spead for cincy game.bears were dogs by 3 then it went down to a pickum.everyone betting on bears.guess what cincy clobbered them.look at past games that calls were game winning circumstances.the refs can call whatever they want.wish i just knew what way they were going before the game so i had a chance at making money also.i am not sure they will ever get caught like the basketball refs due to football a multi billion dollar billon dollar business.do you actually think all that money that they pay players comes from fan sales tickets and tv endorsements.if that was the case all teams would be broke.yes i think there is a conspiracy theory but it is fun anyway.

Yes.

 

[David Yudkin]

The problem I would have with reviewing penalties is to be fair you would have to allow for challenges for noncalls of penalties that were missed as well. I'm pretty sure you could find a penalty on every play if you looked hard enough. SO teams would save up their challenges and throw the bean bag on game changing plays and demand a penalty to wipe out big plays.

 

[elitzer]

They allow reviews for just about everything except penalties. Why? I don't understand the reasoning for that. There are so many penalties that should easily be reversed or called that never were.

In particular:

1. Helmet to helmet hits

2. Late hits

3. Intentional grounding

4. Block in the back

5. Holding

6. Facemask

7. QB hits

8. Most importantly -- Pass Interference

It's not as if you can just challenge all the game. You're still limited to the challenges currently available. But some of these plays can have a HUGE impact, particularly pass interference.

So, are there any good reasons why penalties shouldn't be reviewable?

i know no one wants to beleive me .but the refs control the games.for vegas.just look at the spead for cincy game.bears were dogs by 3 then it went down to a pickum.everyone betting on bears.guess what cincy clobbered them.look at past games that calls were game winning circumstances.the refs can call whatever they want.wish i just knew what way they were going before the game so i had a chance at making money also.i am not sure they will ever get caught like the basketball refs due to football a multi billion dollar billon dollar business.do you actually think all that money that they pay players comes from fan sales tickets and tv endorsements.if that was the case all teams would be broke.yes i think there is a conspiracy theory but it is fun anyway.

Yes.

do you also believe that the oddsmakers dont have anything to do about the outcome of the games?

 

[Sarnoff]

One problem is that if you really dissect every single play, there's something that looks like holding happening on every snap. So some coach in a close game will just challenge a "big play" or one that puts his team behind late, just to get the cheap holding call, basically getting a do-over on a play where his D screwed up.

 

[gianmarco]

The problem I would have with reviewing penalties is to be fair you would have to allow for challenges for noncalls of penalties that were missed as well. I'm pretty sure you could find a penalty on every play if you looked hard enough. SO teams would save up their challenges and throw the bean bag on game changing plays and demand a penalty to wipe out big plays.

If a team wants to "save challenges" for a game changing play, then what's wrong with that? If it's truly a game changing play because of a missed penalty, then what's the problem? I'd prefer it be called on that than some of the current nonsense anyway. And yes, it should absolutely be able to be used on non-calls. Those are some of the biggest ones (like last night's CLEAR helmet to helmet hit on the WR). Tacking on 15 yds to the end of the pass play would have made the Giant's drive that much easier and given them far more options. Boss was knocked senseless and somehow held the ball, but add another 15 yards to his spectacular catch and it potentially changes the outcome of the game. And there have been LOTS of penalties for helmet to helmet hits so far this year that have either been obviously incorrectly flagged or completely missed. If the NFL is able to go back and review the film and then levy a fine after the fact, then why can't the ref do the same thing in 90 seconds and award the 15 yards that were deserved? It also would make a coach think twice about a silly challenge that a player went down at the 2 yard line than the 1 yard line as we sometimes see.

 

[gianmarco]

One problem is that if you really dissect every single play, there's something that looks like holding happening on every snap. So some coach in a close game will just challenge a "big play" or one that puts his team behind late, just to get the cheap holding call, basically getting a do-over on a play where his D screwed up.

Look, there still has to be INDISPUTABLE evidence as is currently used. Throwing the flag on a questionable hold that isn't indisputable is the gamble you take. There are also blocks in the back or clear holds that are missed that allow for HUGE runs or plays and you can't do anything about it. The point of instant replay is to fix ref mistakes that will invariably happen because they are human. I just don't see why some things can be fixed but not others when they have just as big if not bigger impacts on the game. A missed ticky-tack hold that isn't indisputable isn't going to be overturned.

 

[comfortably numb]

They allow reviews for just about everything except penalties. Why? I don't understand the reasoning for that. There are so many penalties that should easily be reversed or called that never were.

In particular:

1. Helmet to helmet hits

2. Late hits

3. Intentional grounding

4. Block in the back

5. Holding

6. Facemask

7. QB hits

8. Most importantly -- Pass Interference

It's not as if you can just challenge all the game. You're still limited to the challenges currently available. But some of these plays can have a HUGE impact, particularly pass interference.

So, are there any good reasons why penalties shouldn't be reviewable?

i know no one wants to beleive me .but the refs control the games.for vegas.just look at the spead for cincy game.bears were dogs by 3 then it went down to a pickum.everyone betting on bears.guess what cincy clobbered them.look at past games that calls were game winning circumstances.the refs can call whatever they want.wish i just knew what way they were going before the game so i had a chance at making money also.i am not sure they will ever get caught like the basketball refs due to football a multi billion dollar billon dollar business.do you actually think all that money that they pay players comes from fan sales tickets and tv endorsements.if that was the case all teams would be broke.yes i think there is a conspiracy theory but it is fun anyway.

Yes.

do you also believe that the oddsmakers dont have anything to do about the outcome of the games?

Yes.Not to say that a situation may have never happened where a ref and vegas has worked together to rig the outcome of a game(s).

But no, I do not think there is a grand conspiracy where owners/NFL and Vegas are involved.

 

[Phurfur]

The problem I would have with reviewing penalties is to be fair you would have to allow for challenges for noncalls of penalties that were missed as well. I'm pretty sure you could find a penalty on every play if you looked hard enough. SO teams would save up their challenges and throw the bean bag on game changing plays and demand a penalty to wipe out big plays.

If a team wants to "save challenges" for a game changing play, then what's wrong with that? If it's truly a game changing play because of a missed penalty, then what's the problem? I'd prefer it be called on that than some of the current nonsense anyway. And yes, it should absolutely be able to be used on non-calls. Those are some of the biggest ones (like last night's CLEAR helmet to helmet hit on the WR). Tacking on 15 yds to the end of the pass play would have made the Giant's drive that much easier and given them far more options. Boss was knocked senseless and somehow held the ball, but add another 15 yards to his spectacular catch and it potentially changes the outcome of the game. And there have been LOTS of penalties for helmet to helmet hits so far this year that have either been obviously incorrectly flagged or completely missed. If the NFL is able to go back and review the film and then levy a fine after the fact, then why can't the ref do the same thing in 90 seconds and award the 15 yards that were deserved? It also would make a coach think twice about a silly challenge that a player went down at the 2 yard line than the 1 yard line as we sometimes see.

What makes you think the NYG would use one of their precious challenges to add 15 yards to a play? They already had a first and 10.

 

[David Yudkin]

The problem I would have with reviewing penalties is to be fair you would have to allow for challenges for noncalls of penalties that were missed as well. I'm pretty sure you could find a penalty on every play if you looked hard enough. SO teams would save up their challenges and throw the bean bag on game changing plays and demand a penalty to wipe out big plays.

If a team wants to "save challenges" for a game changing play, then what's wrong with that? If it's truly a game changing play because of a missed penalty, then what's the problem? I'd prefer it be called on that than some of the current nonsense anyway. And yes, it should absolutely be able to be used on non-calls. Those are some of the biggest ones (like last night's CLEAR helmet to helmet hit on the WR). Tacking on 15 yds to the end of the pass play would have made the Giant's drive that much easier and given them far more options. Boss was knocked senseless and somehow held the ball, but add another 15 yards to his spectacular catch and it potentially changes the outcome of the game. And there have been LOTS of penalties for helmet to helmet hits so far this year that have either been obviously incorrectly flagged or completely missed. If the NFL is able to go back and review the film and then levy a fine after the fact, then why can't the ref do the same thing in 90 seconds and award the 15 yards that were deserved? It also would make a coach think twice about a silly challenge that a player went down at the 2 yard line than the 1 yard line as we sometimes see.

My point was that teams will challenge every play that matters and say there was holding . . . or bumping . . . or a face mask . . . or a late hit . . . or a guy twitched at the sanp . . . or whatever just to cancel out an 80 yard TD. Pretty much any kick return could be challenged on a witch hunt looking for a penalty.Then there would be a big debate over what a penalty is or isn't. No thanks, I'd rather just let them keep it the same rather than have every big play come back.

 

[elitzer]

They allow reviews for just about everything except penalties. Why? I don't understand the reasoning for that. There are so many penalties that should easily be reversed or called that never were.

In particular:

1. Helmet to helmet hits

2. Late hits

3. Intentional grounding

4. Block in the back

5. Holding

6. Facemask

7. QB hits

8. Most importantly -- Pass Interference

It's not as if you can just challenge all the game. You're still limited to the challenges currently available. But some of these plays can have a HUGE impact, particularly pass interference.

So, are there any good reasons why penalties shouldn't be reviewable?

i know no one wants to beleive me .but the refs control the games.for vegas.just look at the spead for cincy game.bears were dogs by 3 then it went down to a pickum.everyone betting on bears.guess what cincy clobbered them.look at past games that calls were game winning circumstances.the refs can call whatever they want.wish i just knew what way they were going before the game so i had a chance at making money also.i am not sure they will ever get caught like the basketball refs due to football a multi billion dollar billon dollar business.do you actually think all that money that they pay players comes from fan sales tickets and tv endorsements.if that was the case all teams would be broke.yes i think there is a conspiracy theory but it is fun anyway.

Yes.

do you also believe that the oddsmakers dont have anything to do about the outcome of the games?

Yes.Not to say that a situation may have never happened where a ref and vegas has worked together to rig the outcome of a game(s).

But no, I do not think there is a grand conspiracy where owners/NFL and Vegas are involved.

i hope the players and owners are not involved.but i do believe the refs are.

 

[Rockchild]

My point was that teams will challenge every play that matters and say there was holding . . . or bumping . . . or a face mask . . . or a late hit . . . or a guy twitched at the sanp . . . or whatever just to cancel out an 80 yard TD. Pretty much any kick return could be challenged on a witch hunt looking for a penalty.Then there would be a big debate over what a penalty is or isn't. No thanks, I'd rather just let them keep it the same rather than have every big play come back.

You wouldn't be able to challenge every play as you would have the same amount of challenges as you do now.

 

[David Yudkin]

My point was that teams will challenge every play that matters and say there was holding . . . or bumping . . . or a face mask . . . or a late hit . . . or a guy twitched at the sanp . . . or whatever just to cancel out an 80 yard TD. Pretty much any kick return could be challenged on a witch hunt looking for a penalty.Then there would be a big debate over what a penalty is or isn't. No thanks, I'd rather just let them keep it the same rather than have every big play come back.

You wouldn't be able to challenge every play as you would have the same amount of challenges as you do now.

You would have the same number of challenges, but teams would save them for BIG PLAYS instead of some of the smaller things they use them for now (where someone was down, a borderline fumble, 12 men on the field, etc.).If teams could have a trump card to wipe out a 50-yard TD by saying there was holding or hands to the face (which pretty much happens on every play), defenses could probably wipe out every big play.Offensively, if they had their backs to the wall and had to have a key first down or gain a large amount of yardage quickly, they could challenge for pass interference, illegal contact, or a number of other penalties when they needed it most.IMO, games could come down to who had challenges left in key moments. And what about the final two minutes? Would the booth have to review every play to make sure there were no penalties anywhere?

 

[B-Deep]

i hope the players and owners are not involved.but i do believe the refs are.

Mike Pereira, the league's vice president of officiating, IS a freemason.I'm just sayin...

 

[Dancing Bear]

I'm definitely in favor of having penalties reviewable!

For instance, I hate how the UN-NECESSARY ROUGHNESS on QB's is being applied ...

Warner gets clocked last night with a BIG hit significantly after the ball was away, and there's no penalty; E. Manning gets wrestled down as a continuation of the play with no "aggressive" or actual hit and he gets 15 ...

Breathe on either Brady or P. Manning and they get 15 yards.

I also don't like how the PASS INTERFERENCE is being applied from one game to the other or one reffing crew to another.

 

[Bri]

If penalties were reviewable it could get real ticky tack almost whiney if the coaches didn't stick with a strict limit.

I also think that OL doing just about anything and WRs committing PI would be common. Once a play is reviewed, it'll be pandora's box. We all know there's some dirty grunt work going on in the trenches. We might not want to go down this road

 

[Rockchild]

A lot of the arguments against are quite similiar to the arguments against replay challenges before it was instituted and are still quite legitimate. Some of the decisions made from reviews seem to be quite questionable and very subjective. Instead of conclusive evidence to overturn it seems that there is a lot more inference involved. And I admit I make this statement with only anecdotal memories of some calls this year and nothing specific I can remember. As much as we'd like to use technology to get things right it is still an imperfect system trying to get perfect an imperfect game. Asking the question to correct bad or missed penalties isn't as outrageous as some make it out to be but is it absolutely needed? One could argue against any form of replay review and not necessarily hurt the integrity of the game. Is the current system making the game that much better than it was?

 

[The Mooreticians]

There are already some penalties that are reviewable, such as touching of a forward pass by an inelligible receiver.

But the basic principle that the NFL has stood by in the review system is that only OBJECTIVE matters may be reviewed - such as whether someone crossed a line or his knee touched the ground. Subjective matters, such as pass interference or roughing - are NOT reviewable.

The reason for this is that things look very different at full speed. The subjective plays have to be called at full-speed...

 

[Stryker]

They allow reviews for just about everything except penalties. Why? I don't understand the reasoning for that. There are so many penalties that should easily be reversed or called that never were.In particular:1. Helmet to helmet hits2. Late hits3. Intentional grounding4. Block in the back5. Holding6. Facemask7. QB hits8. Most importantly -- Pass InterferenceIt's not as if you can just challenge all the game. You're still limited to the challenges currently available. But some of these plays can have a HUGE impact, particularly pass interference. So, are there any good reasons why penalties shouldn't be reviewable?

After yesterday you can add tripping to the equation/

 

[gianmarco]

There are already some penalties that are reviewable, such as touching of a forward pass by an inelligible receiver.But the basic principle that the NFL has stood by in the review system is that only OBJECTIVE matters may be reviewed - such as whether someone crossed a line or his knee touched the ground. Subjective matters, such as pass interference or roughing - are NOT reviewable.The reason for this is that things look very different at full speed. The subjective plays have to be called at full-speed...

Helmet to helmet is pretty objective. No less objective than trying to determine if a knee is down before a ball is out. Likewise with pass interference. There's this misconception that penalty calls are more subjective than fumbles or INTs or catch vs. incompletion. If you think about what's involved in those, that misconception is silly, IMO. Looking to see if a helmet hits another player's helmet is a lot easier to see than if the player maintained control after several movements as he's going to the ground, watching frame by frame by frame. The helmet either hit or it didn't and it's usually pretty conclusive. If not, no penalty.So sorry, I don't buy the "objective" argument.

 

[j3r3m3y]

There are already some penalties that are reviewable, such as touching of a forward pass by an inelligible receiver.But the basic principle that the NFL has stood by in the review system is that only OBJECTIVE matters may be reviewed - such as whether someone crossed a line or his knee touched the ground. Subjective matters, such as pass interference or roughing - are NOT reviewable.The reason for this is that things look very different at full speed. The subjective plays have to be called at full-speed...

Helmet to helmet is pretty objective. No less objective than trying to determine if a knee is down before a ball is out. Likewise with pass interference. There's this misconception that penalty calls are more subjective than fumbles or INTs or catch vs. incompletion. If you think about what's involved in those, that misconception is silly, IMO. Looking to see if a helmet hits another player's helmet is a lot easier to see than if the player maintained control after several movements as he's going to the ground, watching frame by frame by frame. The helmet either hit or it didn't and it's usually pretty conclusive. If not, no penalty.So sorry, I don't buy the "objective" argument.

There is a difference between a helmet contacting another helmet and unnecessary roughness helmet to helmet contact.

 

[TakiToki]

There are already some penalties that are reviewable, such as touching of a forward pass by an inelligible receiver.

But the basic principle that the NFL has stood by in the review system is that only OBJECTIVE matters may be reviewed - such as whether someone crossed a line or his knee touched the ground. Subjective matters, such as pass interference or roughing - are NOT reviewable.

The reason for this is that things look very different at full speed. The subjective plays have to be called at full-speed...

Helmet to helmet is pretty objective. No less objective than trying to determine if a knee is down before a ball is out. Likewise with pass interference. There's this misconception that penalty calls are more subjective than fumbles or INTs or catch vs. incompletion. If you think about what's involved in those, that misconception is silly, IMO. Looking to see if a helmet hits another player's helmet is a lot easier to see than if the player maintained control after several movements as he's going to the ground, watching frame by frame by frame. The helmet either hit or it didn't and it's usually pretty conclusive. If not, no penalty.

So sorry, I don't buy the "objective" argument.

Pass interference is subjective. Contact is not prohibited. It's a judgment of the capacity in which the contact impacted the motion and catch attempt by either side.

 

[gianmarco]

There are already some penalties that are reviewable, such as touching of a forward pass by an inelligible receiver.

But the basic principle that the NFL has stood by in the review system is that only OBJECTIVE matters may be reviewed - such as whether someone crossed a line or his knee touched the ground. Subjective matters, such as pass interference or roughing - are NOT reviewable.

The reason for this is that things look very different at full speed. The subjective plays have to be called at full-speed...

Helmet to helmet is pretty objective. No less objective than trying to determine if a knee is down before a ball is out. Likewise with pass interference. There's this misconception that penalty calls are more subjective than fumbles or INTs or catch vs. incompletion. If you think about what's involved in those, that misconception is silly, IMO. Looking to see if a helmet hits another player's helmet is a lot easier to see than if the player maintained control after several movements as he's going to the ground, watching frame by frame by frame. The helmet either hit or it didn't and it's usually pretty conclusive. If not, no penalty.

So sorry, I don't buy the "objective" argument.

Pass interference is subjective. Contact is not prohibited. It's a judgment of the capacity in which the contact impacted the motion and catch attempt by either side.

It's not more subjective than the myriad of "was it a catch or not" replays we see on a weekly basis. Oftentimes it's so subjective that the announcers say one thing and the refs say another or the announcers can't even agree with each other. And when you took that statement out of context. I said it was no less objective than trying to determine if a knee is down before a ball is out. In other words, what we already see in instant replay challenges is amazingly subjective. Saying we shouldn't review penalties because they are "subjective" is foolish when considering what's already reviewable.

 

[gianmarco]

There are already some penalties that are reviewable, such as touching of a forward pass by an inelligible receiver.But the basic principle that the NFL has stood by in the review system is that only OBJECTIVE matters may be reviewed - such as whether someone crossed a line or his knee touched the ground. Subjective matters, such as pass interference or roughing - are NOT reviewable.The reason for this is that things look very different at full speed. The subjective plays have to be called at full-speed...

Helmet to helmet is pretty objective. No less objective than trying to determine if a knee is down before a ball is out. Likewise with pass interference. There's this misconception that penalty calls are more subjective than fumbles or INTs or catch vs. incompletion. If you think about what's involved in those, that misconception is silly, IMO. Looking to see if a helmet hits another player's helmet is a lot easier to see than if the player maintained control after several movements as he's going to the ground, watching frame by frame by frame. The helmet either hit or it didn't and it's usually pretty conclusive. If not, no penalty.So sorry, I don't buy the "objective" argument.

There is a difference between a helmet contacting another helmet and unnecessary roughness helmet to helmet contact.

You sure?

 

[TakiToki]

There are already some penalties that are reviewable, such as touching of a forward pass by an inelligible receiver.

But the basic principle that the NFL has stood by in the review system is that only OBJECTIVE matters may be reviewed - such as whether someone crossed a line or his knee touched the ground. Subjective matters, such as pass interference or roughing - are NOT reviewable.

The reason for this is that things look very different at full speed. The subjective plays have to be called at full-speed...

Helmet to helmet is pretty objective. No less objective than trying to determine if a knee is down before a ball is out. Likewise with pass interference. There's this misconception that penalty calls are more subjective than fumbles or INTs or catch vs. incompletion. If you think about what's involved in those, that misconception is silly, IMO. Looking to see if a helmet hits another player's helmet is a lot easier to see than if the player maintained control after several movements as he's going to the ground, watching frame by frame by frame. The helmet either hit or it didn't and it's usually pretty conclusive. If not, no penalty.

So sorry, I don't buy the "objective" argument.

Pass interference is subjective. Contact is not prohibited. It's a judgment of the capacity in which the contact impacted the motion and catch attempt by either side.

It's not more subjective than the myriad of "was it a catch or not" replays we see on a weekly basis. Oftentimes it's so subjective that the announcers say one thing and the refs say another or the announcers can't even agree with each other. And when you took that statement out of context. I said it was no less objective than trying to determine if a knee is down before a ball is out. In other words, what we already see in instant replay challenges is amazingly subjective. Saying we shouldn't review penalties because they are "subjective" is foolish when considering what's already reviewable.

"Knee is down" or "catch" is not subjective. The camera angles may be unclear, and the the judgments of such are certainly subjective. But the acts are not. The knee is either down or it's not. The ball hits the ground or it doesn't.The camera angles create the subjectivity. I'm not claiming that review should not be expanded. I'm just saying that your attempt to make these events more similar than they actually are is wrong.

 

[gianmarco]

There are already some penalties that are reviewable, such as touching of a forward pass by an inelligible receiver.

But the basic principle that the NFL has stood by in the review system is that only OBJECTIVE matters may be reviewed - such as whether someone crossed a line or his knee touched the ground. Subjective matters, such as pass interference or roughing - are NOT reviewable.

The reason for this is that things look very different at full speed. The subjective plays have to be called at full-speed...

Helmet to helmet is pretty objective. No less objective than trying to determine if a knee is down before a ball is out. Likewise with pass interference. There's this misconception that penalty calls are more subjective than fumbles or INTs or catch vs. incompletion. If you think about what's involved in those, that misconception is silly, IMO. Looking to see if a helmet hits another player's helmet is a lot easier to see than if the player maintained control after several movements as he's going to the ground, watching frame by frame by frame. The helmet either hit or it didn't and it's usually pretty conclusive. If not, no penalty.

So sorry, I don't buy the "objective" argument.

Pass interference is subjective. Contact is not prohibited. It's a judgment of the capacity in which the contact impacted the motion and catch attempt by either side.

It's not more subjective than the myriad of "was it a catch or not" replays we see on a weekly basis. Oftentimes it's so subjective that the announcers say one thing and the refs say another or the announcers can't even agree with each other. And when you took that statement out of context. I said it was no less objective than trying to determine if a knee is down before a ball is out. In other words, what we already see in instant replay challenges is amazingly subjective. Saying we shouldn't review penalties because they are "subjective" is foolish when considering what's already reviewable.

"Knee is down" or "catch" is not subjective. The camera angles may be unclear, and the the judgments of such are certainly subjective. But the acts are not. The knee is either down or it's not. The ball hits the ground or it doesn't.The camera angles create the subjectivity. I'm not claiming that review should not be expanded. I'm just saying that your attempt to make these events more similar than they actually are is wrong.

Sorry, but I completely disagree. Knee is down or not is pretty objective. But, is the ball coming out when the knee is down? Was it in possession still? The players toes were both in bounds, but did he have possession when the toes hit? Was the ball bobbling? Did the receiver control it all the way down? Surely this isn't your 1st week watching football. Surely you've seen all of these replays with announcers going back and forth on what the decision will be and sometimes it's the same and sometimes the refs go against it. Why? Because there's NOTHING objective about many of those questions. What looks like ball control all the way down to one person may look like bobbling to another. What may look like the ball coming loose BEFORE the knee hits to one may look like ball control until AFTER the knee hits. So sure, the actual act of a knee hitting the ground is objective but the entire play involved with it which involves ball control at the same time is sometimes clear cut and other times VERY ambiguous. In other words, it's subjective. If it were objective as you claim, then you wouldn't hear people arguing about the REPLAY well after the fact like we see every week in the in-game threads. That's the very definition of objective. It's not subject to opinion. It's clear. It's fact. It's not open to interpretation. Yet the majority of these "objective" replays that currently exist are exactly that---open to interpretation and subject to opinion based on who you talk to.

I can tell you that reviewing some of these helmet to helmet hits or late QB hits or pass interference calls are more "objective" than some of the current calls. If I were to show you the replay of the hit on Boss last night, there would be ZERO question that it was a helmet to helmet contact and should result in 15 yds. NO. QUESTION. WHATSOEVER. I can also show you a replay of MULTIPLE fumbles that have occurred in the first few weeks of this year that you could watch over and over and not be sure if the ball was truly coming out as the knee hit or not.

So sorry, but these events are completely similar in that sometimes it's completely clear cut for both and sometimes it's completely clear as mud for both. But to argue that some of these "is the knee down" is objective is preposterous. Most of the time they are anything but.

 

[editor47]

again, i say let the man upstairs decide EVERYTHING. take away the challenges. the man in the booth is watching the game on TV. he sees the replays. if he sees something, he buzzes down.

the objective is to get the call right.

if another play is run, so be it. if a team is in the hurry-up, so be it.