You gotta be f**king kidding me

[mraynrand]

Exactly why I have never been a fan of replay. That situation, the failure to overturn the simultaneous possession ruling last week, and the failure to overturn the catch on Sunday, pretty much prove that replay rulings are no more certain than the initial on field rulings. When it's inherent shortcomings fail to correct key rulings at crucial times, its not worthy the effort, in my opinion.

I don't think the circumstances you cite favor/support abolishing replay. 1) Last week at Seattle was a clear screw up. Read what Ed hochuli wrote and you know that 999/1000, normal refs would have ruled interception. 2) The catch that wasn't overturned on Sunday wasn't a terrible mistake. The receiver had the ball secured in his hands and next to his body when the nose hit the ground. it's easy for me to see why a neutral ref didn't see enough to overturn. The ball and the hands moved together when the nose hit the ground. Was that enough to rule that the catch wasn't secure and overturn? It's a judgment call. So the replay did what it was supposed to do - allow one team to force a review of what they deemed a questionable call.

Many times that I've seen, replay has allowed a very bad call on the field to be overturned. That's what it's for - so that a clear Jerry Rice fumble, just to take a random example, can be reviewed and corrected so that the outcome is mostly fair.

[mraynrand]

Exactly. For example, they did and still do talk about if there was any ball movement during a catch. The problem is that high definition and super slow motion show that the ball almost always moves in a receivers hands, even when he seems to have complete control of it.

Right - there wasn't enough to overturn. I suspect had the opposite call been made on the field and challenged, that might not have been overturned. That's one of the good things about the current replay system - the visual evidence standard for overturning a call is that it must be indisputable, and most of the time, the refs make sure that it is, or the cal stands. It's not perfect, but it's better than no ability to review.

[LEWCWA]

If they call it a fumble and decide who recovered it, guess what, the saints in turn can challenge if it was down. Don't they also review all turnovers now? Ref copped out. Call it the other way and they can get it right.

[mraynrand]

After extensive review, it seems the only place where the refs may have copped out on that fumble was in deciding there was no clear possession by either team. No clear possession of a non-fumble that is!

[Patler]

Right - there wasn't enough to overturn. I suspect had the opposite call been made on the field and challenged, that might not have been overturned. That's one of the good things about the current replay system - the visual evidence standard for overturning a call is that it must be indisputable, and most of the time, the refs make sure that it is, or the cal stands. It's not perfect, but it's better than no ability to review.

I don't see it as enough better than no review at all to have added yet another layer of complexity to what should be a simple game.

I think they screwed up the catch on Sunday, too. The ball was slipping through his hands, as evidenced by the growing length of the ball below his hands. The ground stopped that movement and allowed him to hang on to it. It seems everyone in the booth saw it that way too. What makes the ref's opinion the correct one?

The only things replay has done are extend the length of some plays and make officials more cautious. The game is played with players and coaches who do not perform perfectly. Since you will never make officiating perfect either, I say just leave it in the hands of humans, too.

By the way, I'm not convinced replay would have altered the ruling on Rice's catch, or that the Packers would have had a challenge left to use on it.

[mraynrand]

I don't see it as enough better than no review at all to have added yet another layer of complexity to what should be a simple game.

I guess we disagree. Hard to measure, but I think it's more complicated than you do, and I definitely want review available in some form.

I think they screwed up the catch on Sunday, too. The ball was slipping through his hands, as evidenced by the growing length of the ball below his hands. The ground stopped that movement and allowed him to hang on to it. It seems everyone in the booth saw it that way too. What makes the ref's opinion the correct one?

Sure, that call may have been incorrect. I see your POV. That's what I was screaming at the TV yesterday for sure The refs opinion isn't always correct, but they have the final word.

The only things replay has done are extend the length of some plays and make officials more cautious. The game is played with players and coaches who do not perform perfectly. Since you will never make officiating perfect either, I say just leave it in the hands of humans, too.

I strongly disagree with the only part. I suspect that is hyperbole on your part All aspects of refereeing are in human hands. If you think there is a way to streamline reviews and make them better, I would agree with that. Perhaps unintentionally you raise an interesting point. We can't be too far off from computer-aided officiating. For example, I'm sure a computer algorithm could determine the level of ball security on any given play, and that possession could be set a certain threshold. But I agree with what Spock said to Kirk: "Computers make excellent and efficient servants, but I have no wish to serve under them."

By the way, I'm not convinced replay would have altered the ruling on Rice's catch, or that the Packers would have had a challenge left to use on it.

I am totally convinced it would have been ruled a fumble, and since it was with less than 2 minutes left, it would have been booth reviewed.

[pbmax]

I think they should go back to boundary rulings like in the original replay system and perhaps add in turnovers or disputed turnovers/down by contact/inadvertent whistle. Because for me the only ruling I want overturned from a historical perspective is Mike Renfro's non-touchdown versus the Steelers in the AFC Playoffs in 1979. They called him out and the Steelers won a close game.

Keep the challenge system. Could keep the peep show booth or have upstairs private booth review in the Champagne Room.

Forget catch/not a catch or spotting the football. Out of bounds, touchdowns and possession. End of story.

Maybe 12 men on the field, but that's it!

And Field Goals! But that's the last one!

And raise the FG uprights until flyovers need to dodge them.

[mraynrand]

We wuz ROBBED!!!!

[Patler]

All aspects of refereeing are in human hands. If you think there is a way to streamline reviews and make them better, I would agree with that. Perhaps unintentionally you raise an interesting point. We can't be too far off from computer-aided officiating. For example, I'm sure a computer algorithm could determine the level of ball security on any given play, and that possession could be set a certain threshold. But I agree with what Spock said to Kirk: "Computers make excellent and efficient servants, but I have no wish to serve under them."

But it is not left in human hands. We give them high definition, super slow-motion, telescopic images to judge, then we apply artificial rules to it. For example, why should he not have been able to correct the failure to call PI on Tate? It was just as determinative as the interception/reception call.

Why do we allow a team only to challenge a limited number of plays? if it is so important to correct errors, shouldn't all errors be corrected?

Why do we make a coach decide whether to challenge this call that he knows is wrong, but not real significant, or hold that challenge in case something of greater importance occurs? If it is important to correct error, shouldn't all errors be corrected? Does it make any sense at all for the correction of errors to have a strategy component to it, by making the coach decide whether or not to challenge?

I am totally convinced it would have been ruled a fumble, and since it was with less than 2 minutes left, it would have been booth reviewed.

I guess that would have depended on what review rules applied at the time, and whether or not the replay official was quick enough on the trigger. Besides, wasn't there an instance a few years back where a clear fumble was not reviewed due to a malfunction of the alerting buzzer, or something like that?

[mraynrand]

But it is not left in human hands. We give them high definition, super slow-motion, telescopic images to judge, then we apply artificial rules to it. For example, why should he not have been able to correct the failure to call PI on Tate? It was just as determinative as the interception/reception call.

Why do we allow a team only to challenge a limited number of plays? if it is so important to correct errors, shouldn't all errors be corrected?

Why do we make a coach decide whether to challenge this call that he knows is wrong, but not real significant, or hold that challenge in case something of greater importance occurs? If it is important to correct error, shouldn't all errors be corrected? Does it make any sense at all for the correction of errors to have a strategy component to it, by making the coach decide whether or not to challenge?

But it's humans deciding the rules of replay; what to review and what not to review, regardless of the technology. It's not like Skynet is in control. Perhaps the review process could be improved and streamlined?

I guess that would have depended on what review rules applied at the time, and whether or not the replay official was quick enough on the trigger. Besides, wasn't there an instance a few years back where a clear fumble was not reviewed due to a malfunction of the alerting buzzer, or something like that?

get that buzzer fixed!

[pbmax]

M3 in press conference said he saw one shot of Nelson's non catch and thought he maintained control. Threw flag on his own. After he threw it, knew he should't have after seeing 2nd replay.

Nearly did not challenge Graham TD because he only had one left and waited until last possible moment. After film still certain about that one.

Thought he would have had grounds to review Sproles if he had another challenge. Was told whistle blew and down by contact, but said Moses and all other players are taught to get ball regardless of whistle and get up with it and hand it back to ref to reduce the chance of an unclear recovery being called.

Also said MD Jennings had radio in helmet. Which seems odd, but thought that whoever got the radio next (Burnett, McMillan?) would not have been as comfortable relaying signals off it and might have contributed to late or confused calls.

[Patler]

But it's humans deciding the rules of replay; what to review and what not to review, regardless of the technology. It's not like Skynet is in control. Perhaps the review process could be improved and streamlined?

But
- they give them super slow motion
- they give them telescopic views
- they give them stop action
- they give them HD views showing mis-shappen texture on the balls (OK, I exaggerate a little)

As I stated earlier, (or was it in a different thread?) give them different angles, but not slow motion, etc. Make them review it as it would be in a real game situation, but with the advantage of the official in a better position to see it.

[sharpe1027]

But
- they give them super slow motion
- they give them telescopic views
- they give them stop action
- they give them HD views showing mis-shappen texture on the balls (OK, I exaggerate a little)

As I stated earlier, (or was it in a different thread?) give them different angles, but not slow motion, etc. Make them review it as it would be in a real game situation, but with the advantage of the official in a better position to see it.

For me there are two main issues.

1. The official on the field reviews the call.

This slows things down as he has to saunter over to the review booth only after announcing this to everyone.

The official may have misunderstood the rule in the first instance and only compound the problem.

This also is like having an internal review carried out by the people being reviewed. Not usually a good idea.

2. Only one person does the review.

On any one given call someone will disagree. That means that even though 70% of officials might make the call one way, you might get the other 30%.

Any one person can easily miss things that happen and/or not recognize the full implication of a rule.

My solution would be to have a group of 3 dedicated replay officials do all reviews. They can confer with each other and vote on the call. 2 out of 3 gets the call. This would help reduce the one-off calls be having multiple opinions. Also having the decision upstairs should speed things up. Finally, subjective decisions are usually improved by discussing the basis behind the decision.

[sharpe1027]

Also said MD Jennings had radio in helmet. Which seems odd, but thought that whoever got the radio next (Burnett, McMillan?) would not have been as comfortable relaying signals off it and might have contributed to late or confused calls.

Don't know if this is related but Clay was screaming at the sideline after one play. It looked like he was pissed about not getting the calls in on time.

[LEWCWA]

Check the cowboy/bear game, close fumble with dallas taking the ball away. Very close they call it a fumble and automatically review the play. reverse call on this one, but nobody had to use a challenge. same shoulda been done in the GB game and they would have gotton the call right.....