Should replay challenges be allowed for penalties? (3 Viewers)

[TheIronSheik]

I never understood why not.  You'd still only get a limited amount of challenges (same as now), but the Saints could've thrown a red flag (or if under 2 minutes, had a booth review) and all the controversy goes away.  

If a guy has his facemask pulled and it's not called, why not let the coach throw a flag and get the call right?  What is the downside to this?

 

[Max Power]

How would you regulate OL holding on almost every play?  Or push-offs by the WRs?  I'm not totally against the idea, but I think it would need to be heavily regulated.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Yes and if coaches want to waste their 2 or 3 challenges on something like holding or offsides in the first quarter then so be it.   If coaches had unlimited challenges then I would say no because games would become four hours long.  But they only get a max of three anyway so let them use it on PI instead of challenging a spot, for example, if they want.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Yes.  You could even make it so you get 1 or 2 penalty challenges.  And no matter the outcome, they are used.  Not like the other challenges where if you win the argument, you keep your challenge.

 

[3 hour lunch]

I’d say one challenge for a penalty and if successful, you get one more. Would have to be clear penalties, and some, like offensive holding, couldn’t be challenged.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Yes and if coaches want to waste their 2 or 3 challenges on something like holding or offsides in the first quarter then so be it.   If coaches had unlimited challenges then I would say no because games would become four hours long.  But they only get a max of three anyway so let them use it on PI instead of challenging a spot, for example, if they want.

This is what makes it so odd.  You can challenge the spot of a football, to where they move it a couple inches.  But you can't review a guy getting leveled before the ball gets to him.

 

[Sand]

This is what makes it so odd.  You can challenge the spot of a football, to where they move it a couple inches.  But you can't review a guy getting leveled before the ball gets to him.

In this case it wouldn't have been challengeable anyway - it was inside 2 minutes.  

 

[TheIronSheik]

In this case it wouldn't have been challengeable anyway - it was inside 2 minutes.  

Right, but the replay booth can initiate challenges inside of 2 minutes.  

Honestly,  if they just put a referee in front of a TV and had him radioed in to all the other refs, they could make calls on the fly and not have to worry about replays at all.  One of the big concerns that's always brought up is that "they're taking it out of the refs hands or second guessing their calls."  But if you had 4 more refs, in refs uniforms and watching monitors, we could do away with replay and just have them make the calls we see on TV.

Of course, I've gotten off the original topic, but I feel like we have the technology to make calls better and more accurate (in a lot of sports) but people argue against it because... honestly, I couldn't think of a valid reason why people do.  But they do.  And then they label themselves "Purists", as if that means something.  

 

[facook]

Right, but the replay booth can initiate challenges inside of 2 minutes.  

Honestly,  if they just put a referee in front of a TV and had him radioed in to all the other refs, they could make calls on the fly and not have to worry about replays at all.  One of the big concerns that's always brought up is that "they're taking it out of the refs hands or second guessing their calls."  But if you had 4 more refs, in refs uniforms and watching monitors, we could do away with replay and just have them make the calls we see on TV.

Of course, I've gotten off the original topic, but I feel like we have the technology to make calls better and more accurate (in a lot of sports) but people argue against it because... honestly, I couldn't think of a valid reason why people do.  But they do.  And then they label themselves "Purists", as if that means something.  

They don't even need refs.  You and I could do it for 99% of plays.  Play happens, facook and TIS buzz the ref: "Actually that was blatant pass interference, spot foul, ,1st and 10 New Orleans at the spot."  I'd be willing to do it for, say...$10k/week.

 

[TheIronSheik]

They don't even need refs.  You and I could do it for 99% of plays.  Play happens, facook and TIS buzz the ref: "Actually that was blatant pass interference, spot foul, ,1st and 10 New Orleans at the spot."  I'd be willing to do it for, say...$10k/week.

Ok, but I want the stripped shirt.  That's non-negotiable.  

 

[facook]

Ok, but I want the stripped shirt.  That's non-negotiable.  

100% fine with that.  I'll be in shorts and a tee drinking my vodka/soda.  I'm way better at evaluation in that mode.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

Ok, but I want the stripped shirt.  That's non-negotiable.  

Awesome, Iron Sheik is going to strip!

Oh wait....

 

[whiskey7]

If I was an official, my concern would be that the right call was ultimately made. If I whiffed on one, I would want one of my crew (or an off field supervisor) to say “Hold up. Missed one here.” and straighten it out. My ego is not so fragile I couldn’t handle that. In fact, I’d much rather have that happen than get to stew about a bad call having major implications on the outcome of a game. Those officials that worked the NFC game are gonna never live that down. So I guess I wouldn’t mind to see each team given one opportunity per game to (on an otherwise unchallengeable play) appeal to the off field supe to intervene and ensure the right call is made. I don’t think it would happen often (so as to detract from the watchability or anything) but would help ensure what happened yesterday doesn’t happen again.  My $0.02...

 

[Sullie]

Yeah I mean I guess so but, my God, the game gets dragged out enough as it is already you know?  

 

[TheIronSheik]

Yeah I mean I guess so but, my God, the game gets dragged out enough as it is already you know?  

How would one extra challenge really affect the game, though?  Plus, I bet Saints fans would've welcomed the game going an extra 4 minutes longer to get the call correct.

 

[ChainsawU]

There's a precedent. You can challenge PI calls/missed PI calls in the CFL.

 

[Sullie]

How would one extra challenge really affect the game, though?  Plus, I bet Saints fans would've welcomed the game going an extra 4 minutes longer to get the call correct.

It won't but then it will be "every penalty or non-penalty call under 2 minutes will be reviewed" and then "every play where someone was injured (potential targeting) will be reviewed" and on and on.  Again, on the surface it seems fine but I think it's a big can of worms and I feel like the game gets dragged out enough as it is already.

 

[TheIronSheik]

It won't but then it will be "every penalty or non-penalty call under 2 minutes will be reviewed" and then "every play where someone was injured (targeting) will be reviewed" and on and on.

Exactly why we should go to my deeper plan of having 4 refs in the booth watching TV's and radioed into their coworkers on the field.  Make calls in real time.  No having a ref run to a monitor to watch the play and talk with people.  Use technology and speed everything up.

 

[Anarchy99]

As I mentioned in a similar discussion in the Shark Pool, the issue will be that coaches will save their challenges for when they absolutely need them. Give up an 80 yard bomb on defense? Challenge for holding on a lineman. Throw a pick six? Challenge for hands to the face on the D line. There are penalties on almost very play. There is holding or pass interference on pretty much on each play. Every big play in the game would run the risk of getting wiped out. IMO, things could get WORSE, as coaches will challenge penalties away from the ball that had no bearing on the play itself. So a 60 yard sweep to the left could be negated by a jersey pull by the WR on the right side of the field.

I get that people want to isolate THAT ONE PLAY that may have made a huge difference in any given game, but it's the results of the other 99% of plays that people will scream about.

 

[Wingnut]

It might happen:

https://www.houstonherald.com/sports/professional/nfl/report-after-saints-debacle-nfl-to-consider-changing-replay-rules/article_3f44a3dd-d179-537e-b874-a0a1859b46ff.html

It won't make a difference for jilted Saints fans and players, but the missed call that likely cost New Orleans a Super Bowl berth could lead to a big rule change. 

The NFL competition committee -- of which Saints coach Sean Payton is a member -- will consider making penalties like pass interference reviewable when it meets this offseason, according to a report from the Washington Post.

The possible change will be discussed "at length," as well as other calls coaches feel should be subject to review, according to the report, citing an anonymous source. 

A change would have to be approved by at least 75 percent of the NFL owners. Pass interference calls are currently not reviewable under league rules. 

 

[TheIronSheik]

As I mentioned in a similar discussion in the Shark Pool, the issue will be that coaches will save their challenges for when they absolutely need them. Give up an 80 yard bomb on defense? Challenge for holding on a lineman. Throw a pick six? Challenge for hands to the face on the D line. There are penalties on almost very play. There is holding or pass interference on pretty much on each play. Every big play in the game would run the risk of getting wiped out. IMO, things could get WORSE, as coaches will challenge penalties away from the ball that had no bearing on the play itself. So a 60 yard sweep to the left could be negated by a jersey pull by the WR on the right side of the field.

I get that people want to isolate THAT ONE PLAY that may have made a huge difference in any given game, but it's the results of the other 99% of plays that people will scream about.

But you'd have to say what you're challenging.  You couldn't just throw a flag and go "Check to see if there were any penalties on that play."  And if they see a penalty and it wasn't called, and the team got a 60 yard run, why shouldn't it be called back if there was a penalty?

 

[Thunderlips]

No. I think we're going to have to reach a point where the idea that humans, prone to error, are calling the penalties in these games and are going to make mistakes.  To slow down the game to an almost impossible crawl or create a situation where a coach might be phishing for penalties would, IMO be worse for the game.  

 

[Anarchy99]

But you'd have to say what you're challenging.  You couldn't just throw a flag and go "Check to see if there were any penalties on that play."  And if they see a penalty and it wasn't called, and the team got a 60 yard run, why shouldn't it be called back if there was a penalty?

Guys on the field complain every play that there was an uncalled penalty. It would not take much effort to figure out what to challenge. Many times, the refs follow the ball and miss things behind the play. For example, on the interception that happened after the ball went off Julian Edelman's hands yesterday, he immediately got OBLITERATED by a defender that took multiple steps to hit him. Call it what you want . . . personal foul, shot to the head, helmet to helmet contact, hit on a defenseless player, etc. It's football, things happen. Do we really want every call on every play to be under a microscope? If not, then what are the ones we DO want under much greater scrutiny? Only the ones late in the game that effect the team we are rooting for?

I generally side with BB. He has been leading the charge for years on a lot of things. Longer extra points. Pylon and sideline cameras. And he's been advocating for all calls being reviewable for as long as I can remember. That tells me that it needs to happen, but I still think people won't like the broad sweeping brush of plays that it could impact.

 

[Brony]

Just hire better refs 

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The problem is that half the PI calls are terrible even when the refs see them.  You're going to have reviews where a defender grazes a guy's shirt on the way by on an INT and it'll get overturned.

I'd like to seem the get rid of it except the automatic review for turnovers and TDs.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Guys on the field complain every play that there was an uncalled penalty. It would not take much effort to figure out what to challenge. Many times, the refs follow the ball and miss things behind the play. For example, on the interception that happened after the ball went off Julian Edelman's hands yesterday, he immediately got OBLITERATED by a defender that took multiple steps to hit him. Call it what you want . . . personal foul, shot to the head, helmet to helmet contact, hit on a defenseless player, etc. It's football, things happen. Do we really want every call on every play to be under a microscope? If not, then what are the ones we DO want under much greater scrutiny? Only the ones late in the game that effect the team we are rooting for?

I generally side with BB. He has been leading the charge for years on a lot of things. Longer extra points. Pylon and sideline cameras. And he's been advocating for all calls being reviewable for as long as I can remember. That tells me that it needs to happen, but I still think people won't like the broad sweeping brush of plays that it could impact.

But it's not every call.  You get one challenge.  If you want to use it for a possible holding call, go for it.

 

[whiskey7]

No. I think we're going to have to reach a point where the idea that humans, prone to error, are calling the penalties in these games and are going to make mistakes.  To slow down the game to an almost impossible crawl or create a situation where a coach might be phishing for penalties would, IMO be worse for the game.  

Hear ya. I don’t really want the game slowed down any further, either. That said, if we put more importance on getting the game completed in an acceptable amount of time than the game being completed as justly as possible, have we lost sight of the point? 

To me it’s clear the speed of the game is such it’s just not realistic to expect the on field officials won’t miss stuff/make bad calls in real time. I think we can (and should) leverage technology and off field observers to help ensure the proper calls are made as much as possible. Not every play...as we all know there are violations on every single play. I would just like to see a policy put in place that gives each team one chance per game to appeal to an off field official/supervisor in the event of a complete whiff like we saw yesterday. 

 

[Sullie]

Exactly why we should go to my deeper plan of having 4 refs in the booth watching TV's and radioed into their coworkers on the field.  Make calls in real time.  No having a ref run to a monitor to watch the play and talk with people.  Use technology and speed everything up.

Yeah, yeah I see your point and I'm sure they'll do that.  What ever was I worried about?  I completely forgot that Roger Godell is in charge and he and all those brilliant, forward thinking minds that work for him always do an outstanding job of making sure everything runs brilliantly.  My fault for bringing up my concerns, I'm sure it will work just as well as you described, hell probably even better because Roger will be all over it.  I feel like such an idiot now, forget I ever questioned it. 

 

[TheIronSheik]

Yeah, yeah I see your point and I'm sure they'll do that.  What ever was I worried about?  I completely forgot that Roger Godell is in charge and he and all those brilliant, forward thinking minds that work for him always do an outstanding job of making sure everything runs brilliantly.  My fault for bringing up my concerns, I'm sure it will work just as well as you described, hell probably even better because Roger will be all over it.  I feel like such an idiot now, forget I ever questioned it. 

At least you didn't take our discussion personal.  That's all that I was worried about.

 

[Sullie]

At least you didn't take our discussion personal.  That's all that I was worried about.

Yeah, and you know, I get the distinct vibe from you that you're fine with everyone's opinion so long as it doesn't stray too far from yours.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I’d say one challenge for a penalty and if successful, you get one more. 

I like this because we can't keep slowing the game down, it becomes unwatchable with too many reviews. By making you risk losing your challenge you eliminate stopping play over borderline calls while retaining the ability to overturn blatant screwups by the refs.

 

[Max Power]

They should just get a"booth" ref who will page down to the field if a call should be reviewed.  Let the on-field refs review and make their own call.

I agree with the poster earlier who said letting the coaches challenge could be a slippery slope.  Any long TD could be challenged for judgement calls that happen on most plays. 

 

[Mr. Ected]

Agree, but a couple thoughts...

1) What do you think about limiting the penalties you could challenge? Only do it for the 'big' ones, like PI, personal fouls, etc. Maybe also easy to identify penalties, like too many men on field.

2) A possible work around could be allowing refs to add an post-play identified penalty on a reversed call. On a play like the Rams/Chiefs - coach challenges for incomplete pass, and refs say it was incomplete, but there was PI, so...I know this one was inside 2 minutes, so NYC ought to have been able to use that as a work around.

3) Allow NYC to buzz Head Ref and say..."maybe you need to do a huddle (like they do in baseball) and change that call."

4) There was some talk about there being a tipped ball, and therefore PI was not callable. (It wasn't) But regardless, the refs there should have called that and then if there was a tip, they can pick up the flag.

 

[Arodin]

Wow, I thought for sure when I came into this FFA thread half the responses would be about Joe B’s Goodell-like control of the process and who would be handling the replays of critical suspensions and “timeouts” for rofl emojis.

But you guys are actually talking about football.  

Man, this place really has changed...

 

[ZenoRazon]

So it is ok to talk NFL here, cool.

Pass interference must be a reviewable call, it has to be.

AND....a BIG BROTHER who oversees everything, and has the power to call in with.....throw the flag that was a penalty....the ref does what he's told.

 

[Wingnut]

Maybe give the coach one penalty challenge per game ..or even just allow them to make one of their current challenges a penalty challenge. If they win, they still have 2 non penalty challenges. If they lose, they have one non penalty challenge left.

It's not gonna slow the game down much at all, and something has to be done about missed calls that affect the outcome of games.

 

[dino259]

How about having a panel of 5 people watching a game, either random people or an additional part of the referees. They watch the broadcast feed. They each have a buzzer. If at least 3 of the 5 feel it needs review , it goes to review. Those same 5 then vote to uphold or over turn the call. You would need at least 3 of the 5 to over turn the call. 

 

[jonessed]

Only specific types of penalty.  Personal fouls and PI comes to mind.

 

[DallasDMac]

How would one extra challenge really affect the game, though?  Plus, I bet Saints fans would've welcomed the game going an extra 4 minutes longer to get the call correct.

Actually the game would have been about 20 or 30 minutes shorter as you wouldn't have had overtime.

 

[sublimeone]

My proposal: a team of refs monitor each game from the league office. They can watch replay and throw an electronic flag up until the snap of the ball on the next play. The officiating crew on the field manages the game and these guys look out for egregious issues like the pass interference no-call in the NFC Championship.

 

[BoltBacker]

I like this because we can't keep slowing the game down, it becomes unwatchable with too many reviews. By making you risk losing your challenge you eliminate stopping play over borderline calls while retaining the ability to overturn blatant screwups by the refs.

I like the suggestion as well but I don't think the coaches would ever let that fly because that would put more emphasis on their decision making throughout a game and escalate second guessing and criticism of coaches by the fans. Which ultimately could lead to them losing their jobs sooner. I think the people actually making the rule changes(even Payton outside the heat of the moment) would rather the ref's be the bad guy in these situations rather than coaches having less longevity in their jobs.

 

[BoltBacker]

But it's not every call.  You get one challenge.  If you want to use it for a possible holding call, go for it.

He's not saying it would get challenged on every call, he's saying on every play in a football game there is a "grey area" interaction between two players somewhere on the field.

For instance if I was NE I would have 11 coaches up in the booth each focusing on ONE opponent on every snap. You can't tell me that on that "Miracle in Miami" play at the end of the game there wasn't a single guy somewhere on the field that was guilty of hands to the face, or holding, or a block in the back, or a helmet to helmet.... even if it happened 40 yards from the actual action of the play. Now the rules are so silly if you lower your helmet that could technically be called a penalty. Do you think anyone on the field might have lowered their helmet at some point on that play?

His point is on every huge, dramatic play during a game that it would get challenged.... because why not? If that ONE CHALLENGE leads to the biggest play in the game then do we even get to celebrate a great play without waiting for the 9min review that the game hinges on? Imagine if the Dwight Clark catch gets challenged and wiped out? The Bo Jackson 91 yard run. Lynch running past and through the entire Saints team. The Leon Lett Thanksgiving fumble. The Tyree catch. IMO it would really be a mistake to jeopardize the biggest pivotal plays in the sport all because the refs blew a call in one game.  

 

[BoltBacker]

The problem is that half the PI calls are terrible even when the refs see them.  You're going to have reviews where a defender grazes a guy's shirt on the way by on an INT and it'll get overturned.

I'd like to seem the get rid of it except the automatic review for turnovers and TDs.

I agree and can't understand why an NFL ref blowing a call is such a cataclysmic event. Watch an hour of an NBA or MLB game. I can't watch an hour without seeing at least a dozen bad calls(if you are counting balls and strikes) in either sport. You'll never take the refs completely out of the game in any sport but I honestly think an NFL game has a fraction of obviously bad calls compared to any of the other major sports. People just make a much bigger deal about the blown calls in the NFL.

 

[BoltBacker]

Just hire better refs 

This is probably the best solution for everyone concerned. Have a bigger pool of refs and stiffer consequences for the refs that under-perform. I realize that there already is a grading process that takes place, but my point it they need a bigger pool if the crew that missed that PI is the best and the brightest they have to choose from.

 

[BoltBacker]

There's a precedent. You can challenge PI calls/missed PI calls in the CFL.

Does that mean we all get free healthcare too?

 

[TheIronSheik]

Yeah, and you know, I get the distinct vibe from you that you're fine with everyone's opinion so long as it doesn't stray too far from yours.

You totally figured me out.  If there's any one description of me on this board, it's that I cannot be reasoned with and I'm always right. 

 

[TheIronSheik]

He's not saying it would get challenged on every call, he's saying on every play in a football game there is a "grey area" interaction between two players somewhere on the field.

For instance if I was NE I would have 11 coaches up in the booth each focusing on ONE opponent on every snap. You can't tell me that on that "Miracle in Miami" play at the end of the game there wasn't a single guy somewhere on the field that was guilty of hands to the face, or holding, or a block in the back, or a helmet to helmet.... even if it happened 40 yards from the actual action of the play. Now the rules are so silly if you lower your helmet that could technically be called a penalty. Do you think anyone on the field might have lowered their helmet at some point on that play?

His point is on every huge, dramatic play during a game that it would get challenged.... because why not? If that ONE CHALLENGE leads to the biggest play in the game then do we even get to celebrate a great play without waiting for the 9min review that the game hinges on? Imagine if the Dwight Clark catch gets challenged and wiped out? The Bo Jackson 91 yard run. Lynch running past and through the entire Saints team. The Leon Lett Thanksgiving fumble. The Tyree catch. IMO it would really be a mistake to jeopardize the biggest pivotal plays in the sport all because the refs blew a call in one game.  

I understand that.  But what I said was that if there's an actual penalty, then why should a play be allowed to stand, just because it was a huge play?  If there was holding on the "Miracle in Miami", then why should it count?  Is your argument simply that because it was a great play, it shouldn't be subjected to the rules of the game?

 

[Sullie]

You totally figured me out.  If there's any one description of me on this board, it's that I cannot be reasoned with and I'm always right. 

So argumentative, you are persistent about getting the last word in I'll give you that. 

I will say this, I've been thinking it over and I'm sure you're right, the NFL will end up having booth reviews for penalties.  I don't think it's the end of the world, I'm sure it will be fine.  I would really like it if the NFL would hold the referees accountable though.  I mean, players get penalized for things they do wrong on the field, if they make mistakes they get benched.  I guess I don't understand why referees that make bad calls don't get dinged in some sort of point system you know?  Why they don't get moved down to college football for bad calls, etc.  I don't know just thinking out loud.

 

[TheIronSheik]

You keep making my point for me, thanks.

No I don't!!!!  Don't you understand I'm never wrong?!?  I AM THE BULLY OF THE FFA!!!!!11111111 

THAT NOT WHY WERE HERE!

 

[CletiusMaximus]

But it's not every call.  You get one challenge.  If you want to use it for a possible holding call, go for it.

If you set a precedent for making major rule changes based on one high-profile incident, how long will it take until there’s another high profile incident which demands a small expansion to the rule or a new rule? Adding a second challenge,  more reviews, expanding the list of reviewable plays? The aggrieved coach and fans will say it’s jusy one small addition to the existing rule, to prevent a grave injustice.  The game has changed so much in my lifetime, I’m pretty much already lost as a fan. It’s the same with college football and the obsession with perfecting something that inherently depends on humans acting in the moment, under pressure and sometimes making mistakes. Far better to accept the imperfections than try to fix something that doesn’t need fixing imo.