Instant Replay

J-Mike88 · 11-03-2010, 07:59 PM

What's your take on overall instant replay?

Should more plays be reviewable per the rules?

What about how many challenges a team gets?

I think each team should get up to 2 wrong per game.

So if the refs keep effing up time and time again, as they are prone to do, then the coach can challenge all of them until he misses 2 challenges.

If it adds 10 minutes to a game, I'm fine with that if it ever helps a team from getting banged. Much more important to get the callz right than be out of there by 3:10 pm.

More time at the stadium is more time away from the wife and kids (for some of us). That's actually a bonus IMO.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-networ...ets-get-robbed

Giantsfan1080 · 11-03-2010, 08:03 PM

If coaches keep getting challenges right it should be unlimited. They shouldn't be punished if a ref makes more than 3 mistakes a game.

MetSox17 · 11-03-2010, 08:07 PM

I like the up to two wrong idea, a lot. It still puts the minimum at two, but if you're getting your **** straight you can keep going as long as the refs keep ******* up.

WinslowBodden · 11-03-2010, 08:09 PM

I feel like you should get 2 replays per game and the booth should be allowed to review at any time.

yourfavestoner · 11-03-2010, 08:09 PM

John from Neptune Beach, FL
Has the game ended or are there still challenges and replay reviews going on?
Vic: I’m with you, John. That was way over the top and it just keeps getting worse. I turned on the TV to watch the game last night when I got home and what was the first thing I saw? A time out for replay review, followed by the extremely boring referee’s explanation of what happened, which is starting to sound more every week like an officiating seminar. Plus, I don’t think I agreed with one of the replay review decisions they made in Sunday’s game. I’m at the point now that I just wait for it to end so the game can resume. If there’s one thing about football I could change, replay review would be it. I would use it only for plays involving potential touchdowns.

Best. Idea. Ever.

The refs get half of the "reviews" wrong anyways, so what does it even ******* matter anymore?

Giantsfan1080 · 11-03-2010, 08:29 PM

I'd rather watch a 4 hour game with correct calls over a quick game where I know I'm going to scream afterwards because the refs blew it numerous times.

umphrey · 11-03-2010, 08:50 PM

Whenever a play gets challenged I watch the replay once or twice and go do something else until they finally figure it out. I don't care what the call is, just make a call. It's all overly dramatic and drawn out to get more commercials in. A complete joke. There is always going to be a massive human element and an uneven playing field so long as holding and pass interference exist. Anyone who things instant replay makes the game fair is kidding themselves or delusional. It's contribution to a fair game is very minimal relative to everything else the refs do to make it unfair.

fenikz · 11-03-2010, 08:52 PM

Replays should be reviewed in a room not on the field in a little booth

J-Mike88 · 11-03-2010, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giantsfan1080

I'd rather watch a 4 hour game with correct calls over a quick game where I know I'm going to scream afterwards because the refs blew it numerous times.

No sh*******t.
People who complain about the delay... what's the rush to get the game over with? Gotta get to class or something?

Getting the calls as correct as possible should be the goal, not getting the hell outta there by 3:00 or 3:10.

The game is 60 minutes. The other 120 is already bullsh**.
You want to shorten the time inside the stadium or watching on your tv?
Why?
And if so, ***** about 67% of the time being commercials and other garbage.

fontes · 11-03-2010, 09:12 PM

I don't think you should lose a timeout when the review is inconclusive.

PackerLegend · 11-03-2010, 09:13 PM

I don't mind reviews at all. Usually if the flag is thrown the call in question could have a drastic outcome on the game. Its not like there is fifty challenges a game maybe a few and sometimes none. They should be able to review everything. It has improved in that area compared to a few years ago when certain plays couldn't be reviewed because of some stupid rule. 2 challenges seems like enough hardly ever do I remember a team needing more. Should just make it 3 no matter what to avoid a team getting screwed because they couldn't review a play.

eaglesalltheway · 11-03-2010, 10:12 PM

I think its OK the way it is now, but I really like like idea of being able to challenge until you get two wrong. The only problem is how to go about the timeouts. If you are right, no timeout charged, and whenever you're wrong, that's when the timeout is charged? I think that'd be the best option... If this system were to be adapted.

Shane P. Hallam · 11-04-2010, 07:25 AM

I think being penalized for an overturned call is wrong. Agree with the poster, shouldn't lose a challenge for getting things right. I do prefer the college system however.

Caddy · 11-04-2010, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenikz

Replays should be reviewed in a room not on the field in a little booth

This. It's works perfectly fine in other sports and is a hell of a lot quicker. There should be some sort of video referee who has access to all the footage of an event and can make quick decisions.

AntoinCD · 11-04-2010, 08:45 AM

I dont like the fact that any replay to be overturned needs to have definitive proof. I understand the logic and all but on numerous plays that are challenged the play is upheld simply because they can't prove for definite that it was different. I would prefer a beyond reasonable doubt approach, but then again that would leave some problems with grey areas that could be debated. However I feel if it looks like a TD then call it a TD, if it looks like a catch call it a catch. Why not have the replays go to a group of officials in a booth and majority rules on challenged calls

bigbluedefense · 11-04-2010, 09:27 AM

Im a firm believer in instant replay. I much rather have them review a call then complain the next day about a stupid call that wasn't even reviewed.

My change would be this: The person who reviews the play should be upstairs, not the head ref.

The head ref is biased, he's going to naturally favor the ruling on the field bc its a call that his fellow ref made, and they'd prefer to believe that their colleague made the right call.

Whether that's the case or not, there's an instinctual bias by the head ref to lean towards his guys. You can eliminate that by having a guy upstairs review the play, he'll be independent of the team on the field and has no vesting interest one way or the other.

Plus, if the head ref was the one who made the call, and now he has to challenge it, he's obviously biased towards his own call. Again, you can eliminate this bias by having someone upstairs review the play.

Damix · 11-04-2010, 09:34 AM

Use college system.

XxXdragonXxX · 11-04-2010, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eaglesalltheway

I think its OK the way it is now, but I really like like idea of being able to challenge until you get two wrong. The only problem is how to go about the timeouts. If you are right, no timeout charged, and whenever you're wrong, that's when the timeout is charged? I think that'd be the best option... If this system were to be adapted.

Thats already how the timeouts work.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf) · 11-04-2010, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Im a firm believer in instant replay. I much rather have them review a call then complain the next day about a stupid call that wasn't even reviewed.

My change would be this: The person who reviews the play should be upstairs, not the head ref.

The head ref is biased, he's going to naturally favor the ruling on the field bc its a call that his fellow ref made, and they'd prefer to believe that their colleague made the right call.

Whether that's the case or not, there's an instinctual bias by the head ref to lean towards his guys. You can eliminate that by having a guy upstairs review the play, he'll be independent of the team on the field and has no vesting interest one way or the other.

Plus, if the head ref was the one who made the call, and now he has to challenge it, he's obviously biased towards his own call. Again, you can eliminate this bias by having someone upstairs review the play.

Maybe if they handled it like hockey? In hockey, the ref skates over to the boards and gets on the phone with someone in the league office. The ref never even sees the replay AFAIK. If it was all handled by the same person, there could at least be more consistency.

bigbluedefense · 11-04-2010, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)

Maybe if they handled it like hockey? In hockey, the ref skates over to the boards and gets on the phone with someone in the league office. The ref never even sees the replay AFAIK. If it was all handled by the same person, there could at least be more consistency.

Yeah, I think that would eliminate bias, don't you think?

yourfavestoner · 11-04-2010, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by umphrey

Whenever a play gets challenged I watch the replay once or twice and go do something else until they finally figure it out. I don't care what the call is, just make a call. It's all overly dramatic and drawn out to get more commercials in. A complete joke. There is always going to be a massive human element and an uneven playing field so long as holding and pass interference exist. Anyone who things instant replay makes the game fair is kidding themselves or delusional. It's contribution to a fair game is very minimal relative to everything else the refs do to make it unfair.

Well, at least I know I'm not alone here.

Like Vic said, only plays involving touchdowns can be reviewed. Seems like the majority of challenges ends up either with an "inconclusive evidence" ruling or the wrong call gets made anyways, so why the **** even bother reviewing them?