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.
if the goal is to get it right.....the booth ref should buzz down if he possibly sees something.....right?....so the game is not over....at that point every little thing is fair game......and the ref most certainly will have to make an announcement once a decision has been made......
So only 1 team did not overreact - that's not a compelling argument for the rule.31 teams
"Possibly sees something"? As in "not apparent in real time"? No, then the ref should not buzz down.
Why is "perfection" the metric? On-field refs aren't nearly held to that standard.
How? They are not going to completely re-write the PI rule and anytime you have a ball up for grabs there is PI. Once you go to the video review you will be able to slow down the video to the point that there is always PI. You then leave the interpretation up to individuals that have their own thoughts of what is "allowed" and what is not. The rule is written as black and white and once you go to video review you cannot go back on that for the intent.
kinda what I am getting at...."I think there might be something there"....or whatever......however you want to say it....
actually they are....they just don't ever meet it and never willl....refs are actually supposed to be perfect if you think about it....its actually a saying that we have...I say we because I do actually ref...
see I don't agree with this....you need to adjust your slide to be able to stay on the bag.....and if that "adjustment" slows you down....maybe you don't beat the tag and you are out....it's not the defenses fault you slid in like a bat out hell....
But at the end of games in a hurry up mode prior to this any play that is questioned is buzzed down for the on field ref to review. SInce all possible PI calls are reviewable then he should be buzzed on 95% of the pass plays. This will have to happen because the offense is in hurry up and that is the only way to stop play. I just don't see how you can differentiate based on the way the rule is written.
If every base was like the plate I would agree with you. However, a raised base that causes you to "bump" off because of physics is just wrong to me. The runner didn't do anything incorrectly in my opinion. Physics just doesn't allow you to stick to the base for .0001 seconds. You met the intent of the rule by beating the tag and something beyond your physical control because of the raised nature of the base shouldn't be cause for the out. I get both sides. I just don't think this case should be an out.
31 teams
wow...at its core I can't disagree with you more....it is the responsibility of the base runner to stay on the base....period....by whatever means necessary....if you know you might "bump off:....adjust your slide so you don't "bump off"....
Yes, this is exactly my concern. If you're saying "the rule is the rule", then you're gonna have to call it on almost every pass play. If you're arguing that common sense will prevail, then you're asking humans to go in and discern intent after the fact - and if you think that's easy, ask a CFB fan what they think about video reviews on targeting penalties.
I get it and understand why you have that opinion. I also think that without replay we wouldn't even be having this discussion as this is a situation found only in super slo mo. I think replay for these type of things should be removed and then it's a non-issue as a real time view of a play like this would not be able to be seen. I guess that is the reason I don't like the overturn. It's only noticed because of the slow down replay.wow...at its core I can't disagree with you more....it is the responsibility of the base runner to stay on the base....period....by whatever means necessary....if you know you might "bump off:....adjust your slide so you don't "bump off"....
Ha. I just posted this exact same thing right down to the half speed limit. Super Slow mo is the culprit because you can make any play look the way you want it to.
this will never happen....too many potential problems.....one being, technology....not always perfect...and if there is a clock ticking...no thanks....if the goal for stopping and reviewing is to get it right....do whatever you have to do...don't have a guy making these decisions with a clock going 5...4..3..2..1....like he is on a game show or something....just IMO....
Lots of soft lines in the CFL. And some days during the All Star break it's the only game in town. As a result I always catch a few games a year. It's compelling enough. Watch a few CFL games and you'll see that there's nothing to worry about with this new rule. I see it as just one of many necessary, consistent improvements. I promise you guys everything will be okay. When it's all said and done, these people are professionals. No one's ruining the sport.
Someone really bothered by this should write an Onion-style article on how the NFL instates holding as a reviewable penalty. Would be cathartic at the very least.
The goal should not be to get every call right (IMO). Replay (if we have it) should be there to fix obviously bad calls. The timer is needed to prevent zapruder level analysis during every replay. If the call isn't obviously wrong in 30 or 60 seconds then let the call stand.
We have seen teams move the ball and win games on BS calls due to chucking a ball up. My only worry is who will do the reviewing... in the final decision if it's the NY Replay Center I can see that being a problem.
This is also what Mike Pereira advocates (linked on pg 1 of this thread). I agree wholeheartedly.
I've seen some stubborn calls in the MLB. Calls that went blatantly opposite of what replay showed. To me, once you put the call in the hands of a baseball umpire, it's still subjective based on their discretion of how the game is going. And I think that's an example of how umpires are way different than referees. They seem to be stubborn by nature. And intolerant. And I think that contributes to the disconnect in the analogy between baseball and football here.
I am not so sure about that when every strike zone is different and nothing like what is actually in the book.......and I like that about the sport. It is part of the strategy game to game. The offense and pitcher need to figure out what is being called today and adjust accordingly. My only problem on the strikezone dilemma is when the ump is inconsistent. I don't mind a strike on a ball 4 inches off the plate but it better be called a strike both ways the entire game. Once I know that I have to adjust accordingly for that game. It adds to the strategy for me. I like the subjectivity of the strike zone over being absolute (provided it is consistent).
Seemingly. All great empires fall, I just never thought I would live to see the demise of the NFL. I may not live long enough to see it, but it is on course IMO. Every year I watch less and less personally and I don’t see any adjustments that would entice me to watch more. It would be interesting to see how bad ratings would be in today’s game if FF did not exist.
This is so true. FF and DFS is propping up the NFL at this point (at lest to the level it is now).
I don't know man....even without any type a FF....a good full day of Sunday football still moves my needle....I think it would still be #1 by a long shot....IMO
The NFL, rather than simplify rules, makes them as convoluted as possible in order to make it easy on officials and ostensibly reduce confusion and controversy. This, of course, always produces the opposite of the intended effect. So the problem will be that in 5 years we'll have PI rules reminiscent of "is that a catch or not a catch?".
Yes true. I am curious on how they are going to define pass interference. It might actually be harder in slow motion to tell if there was "enough contact" than in fast motion as it is still kind of a judgement thing (obviously there will be SOME contact, but how much is too much?).
Herein lies part of the problem and what I alluded to earlier. Let's say the refs let a lot of contact go and PI WAS NOT called on several other similar plays in the game, but there was a review with a minute to go that could decide the outcome. IMO, if it wasn't worthy of drawing a flag all those other instances IN THAT GAME, I would not want a retroactive flag called on that particular play . . . even if to the letter of the law it might be a foul.
How about be consistent with the calls they do make? The reason people are so upset over calls/non-calls is because on one play they get called for PI then on the next play there is no call which favors the other team. There is no consistency and that is the real issue.
I looked this up earlier and supposedly it was the Bengals... although they probably just messed up and voted incorrectly
@QuizGuy66
