Refs Admit Mistake(s)... Found on ESPNDallas and not ESPN

[Hypnotoad]

You can't make everything reviewable. For example, if this became a reviewable part of a play then every time there was a fumble, you could challenge who came up with it... that would be a disaster because you'd rarely have good film on it. Ours was a rare play - and you don't want to allow reviews for things where you'd overturn only once in a blue moon.

Does it not cost more time to go into the booth and spend 5 mins and come back saying we cant review this play? Here's your review and timeout back.

Also there's 2 challenge limit with a chance to win

 

[fanfromvirginia]

You can't make everything reviewable. For example, if this became a reviewable part of a play then every time there was a fumble, you could challenge who came up with it... that would be a disaster because you'd rarely have good film on it. Ours was a rare play - and you don't want to allow reviews for things where you'd overturn only once in a blue moon.

Not until you raise the number of challenges allowed per game. Challenges are only used when a coach thinks he can/is going to win the challenge.

That's why you should, in fact, make everything reviewable -- if the refs can't overturn, for example, because the whistle had blown, then the coach loses one of his two precious challenges.

 

[AbeBeta]

That's a very lame excuse. If there wasn't good film on it, people would rarely challenge, and if they did decide to challenge at first, they'd stop once they kept losing due to inconclusive evidence. There's already a rule to cover cases where it's not clear what happened, no need to add another one that also removes very legitimate challenges.

Really? I guess in your world you NEVER see teams challenge now when they don't have good evidence.

The point remains, opening up challenges to examining who recovered a fumble is going to have a minimal effect. It just is so rare that you'd ever be able to change a call - yet, late in the game, got a challenge... and we see another 5 minute + delay.

 

[AbeBeta]

Does it not cost more time to go into the booth and spend 5 mins and come back saying we cant review this play? Here's your review and timeout back.

Also there's 2 challenge limit with a chance to win

The ref made a mistake there - that part shouldn't have happened - and it DOESN'T most of the time.

 

[AbeBeta]

Not until you raise the number of challenges allowed per game. Challenges are only used when a coach thinks he can/is going to win the challenge.

That's why you should, in fact, make everything reviewable -- if the refs can't overturn, for example, because the whistle had blown, then the coach loses one of his two precious challenges.

Yes, let's add more challenges. I'd really like for those late games to cut in just about when halftime is starting because the early games have gone 6 hours.

 

[fanfromvirginia]

Yes, let's add more challenges. I'd really like for those late games to cut in just about when halftime is starting because the early games have gone 6 hours.

Yes, well the implication of my post was that raising the limit would be a really bad idea. Here is a short restatement of my argument in explicit terms you will no doubt understand: The limit on challenges is a good thing that makes your worries totally irrelevant.

 

[DallasEast]

You can't make everything reviewable. For example, if this became a reviewable part of a play then every time there was a fumble, you could challenge who came up with it... that would be a disaster because you'd rarely have good film on it. Ours was a rare play - and you don't want to allow reviews for things where you'd overturn only once in a blue moon.

If the league ever decides to re-consider the validity of replaying fumbles, they should not use the Woodson/Romo/Jones fumble as neither pro nor con evidence. The ref would need a blindfold not to see Jones recover that fumble.

In that one particular instance, the question of whether the fumble should or should have been reviewed is completely irrelevant. The question of the referee(s)' competency is entirely in question.

 

[fanfromvirginia]

If the league ever decides to re-consider the validity of replaying fumbles, they should not use the Woodson/Romo/Jones fumble as neither pro nor con evidence. The ref would need a blindfold not to see Jones recover that fumble.

In that one particular instance, the question of whether the fumble should or should have been reviewed is completely irrelevant. The question of the referee(s)' competency is entirely in question.

Yes, but the review process is the only proven (if very flawed) check to referee incompetence. If you allow that play to be reviewed, the incompetent ruling gets overturned.

 

[AbeBeta]

Yes, well the implication of my post was that raising the limit would be a really bad idea. Here is a short restatement of my argument in explicit terms you will no doubt understand: The limit on challenges is a good thing that makes your worries totally irrelevant.

Let's see... how many games do teams go without challenging at all? Lots. Do you REALLY want to give the opportunity to challenge something else?

If every game ended with all the challenges exhausted, you would have a point. But games do not always end with all the challenges used. Adding still another time wasting option is not a good idea.

 

[fanfromvirginia]

Let's see... how many games do teams go without challenging at all? Lots. Do you REALLY want to give the opportunity to challenge something else?

If every game ended with all the challenges exhausted, you would have a point. But games do not always end with all the challenges used. Adding still another time wasting option is not a good idea.

I'm not at all worried about this for a couple of related reasons:

• As you and others have noted (correct me if I'm wrong), there wouldn't be that many plays that are overturnable. This won't happen every game.
• Some extra challenges will be used especially in the beginning after the new rule gets enacted. But this number should drop as coaches learn the hard way which types of challenges are most likely to fail and under what circumstances.I'm quite happy to add 0.2 challenges per game (or whatever low number it turns out to be) to decrease the total number of badly missed calls significantly. It's like an insurance policy against getting screwed.

 

[DallasEast]

Yes, but the review process is the only proven (if very flawed) check to referee incompetence. If you allow that play to be reviewed, the incompetent ruling gets overturned.

I think you wanted to say, "If you allow that play to be reviewed, the incompetent ruling may be overturned". We have all seen instances where the video replay has been more than conclusive enough to overturn a ruling, but the referees have stated otherwise.

 

[fanfromvirginia]

I think you wanted to say, "If you allow that play to be reviewed, the incompetent ruling may be overturned". We have all seen instances where the video replay has been more than conclusive enough to overturn a ruling, but the referees have stated otherwise.

No, not really. They almost always usually get it right and that play was very conclusive. But of course they are too conservative on occasion so I'll downgrade it to "would almost certainly have been overturned." But I'm not budging from that

 

[cowboyjoe]

If the league ever decides to re-consider the validity of replaying fumbles, they should not use the Woodson/Romo/Jones fumble as neither pro nor con evidence. The ref would need a blindfold not to see Jones recover that fumble.

In that one particular instance, the question of whether the fumble should or should have been reviewed is completely irrelevant. The question of the referee(s)' competency is entirely in question.

Exactly, totally agree, yet nothing is being done about the competency of the refs yet;

 

[cowboyjoe]

I think you wanted to say, "If you allow that play to be reviewed, the incompetent ruling may be overturned". We have all seen instances where the video replay has been more than conclusive enough to overturn a ruling, but the referees have stated otherwise.

Totally agree, that rule should be in there, if its conclusive evidence that the ref blew the call in a review from the booth, that should be overtuned. The ref should be held accountable for the blown call too.

this is what gets me, Goodell the NFL Commissioner is quick to fine players, coaches and even owners, but he does nothing to refs who are employed by the NFL and Goodell.

If your going to fine the players, suspend them, then you should do the same to the refs. Take away some of their 100,000 to 200,000 a year they make, and they will have a better attitude to make the calls right, know the rules like they should.

In fact their should be tests on the refs every week to show that they know the rules and are up on them.

No More Excuses for the refs.

 

[random Cs]

this is what gets me, Goodell the NFL Commissioner is quick to fine players, coaches and even owners, but he does nothing to refs who are employed by the NFL and Goodell.

Define nothing. You sound very ignorant on the subject.

A player or owner is fined for violating a contract they sign. An official signs no such contract that says they will not make mistakes or miss calls. That is unrealistic.

The NFL heavily grades and evaluates every official for every game. They have a committee and a thorough system to evaluate every call. When a negative is presented, the committee will vote and grade the official accordingly.


And just so you know, NFL officials don't really make that much money. No one makes $200,000 a year. Top guys might make $100,000 if they get the playoffs and Superbowl. Most officials make around 30k.


As for your talks about accountability, there is not an official on this planet that thinks they are above fan or team accountability.

 

[AmishCowboy]

Define nothing. You sound very ignorant on the subject.

A player or owner is fined for violating a contract they sign. An official signs no such contract that says they will not make mistakes or miss calls. That is unrealistic.

The NFL heavily grades and evaluates every official for every game. They have a committee and a thorough system to evaluate every call. When a negative is presented, the committee will vote and grade the official accordingly.


And just so you know, NFL officials don't really make that much money. No one makes $200,000 a year. Top guys might make $100,000 if they get the playoffs and Superbowl. Most officials make around 30k.


As for your talks about accountability, there is not an official on this planet that thinks they are above fan or team accountability.

Agreed, it's just a outrage when they miss the fact that GB had used up their Challanges, That should never happen, it's basic and it should have been a 15 yard penalty.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

The problem is human error.

It should NOT be part of the game. The "human element" that is.


The sooner we get to all around replay and computer/sensor calls the better the sport will be. No one gets cheated, no unfair advantage... JUST THE CORRECT calls!

 

[random Cs]

Agreed, it's just a outrage when they miss the fact that GB had used up their Challanges, That should never happen, it's basic and it should have been a 15 yard penalty.

Its not uncommon to just run up to a coach and say they are out of challenges or timeouts.

If it interrupts the game then it should be a penalty.

 

[AdamJT13]

Its not uncommon to just run up to a coach and say they are out of challenges or timeouts.

If it interrupts the game then it should be a penalty.

It always should be a penalty. It's in the Rulebook.

 

[links18]

It always should be a penalty. It's in the Rulebook.

Adam,

Are they supposed to take the coaches flag away when he is out of challenges or not? There has been some conflicting reports on that being the reason why there was no penalty--because they forgot to take his flag away.