Let coaches challenge judgement calls

[The King]

Too many calls are questionable, the officials are confused the announcers are confused and it's having a direct impact on the outcome of games. It's time the NFL let's coaches challenge officials. There should be a team in New York that gets to review the calls the officials make. It's the only way we're going to get this resolved and it will help the officials get more consistent.

[Historian]

We had this in the 1970's

It was called Don Shula.

[justasportsfan]

the reason why refs now wear some kind of wireless headset is to wait for instructions from Kraft.

Kraft" "Money deposited into your account, throw/pick-up flag"

[imbondz]

I like the idea of coaches getting 2 more challenges on judgment call penalties. Like the ridiculous call on Hughes on Sunday would have been overturned.

at least it got some attention how dumb it was

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/bills-player-gets-15-yard-penalty-for-apparently-slapping-own-teammate-214916390.html

[Meathead]

ive never been thrilled with that idea but after what we watched this weekend i think ive been swayed

judgement calls are very tough to remove from pro sports and at some point you just have to let refs make those calls and live with it. but the stuff we saw/have been seeing is so ridiculous and repeatedly moving the goalposts back for no good reason i think its time to give something a shot

marcia was in her zone so im not sure it would have been the difference but it certainly could. time and time again the bills were getting key plays only to have them reversed by very questionable calls to say the least (ie. absurdly inexplicable is more like it)

but at a time when the nfl is continuing to try to speed up games im not sure how they could do that without introducing long delays. its tough enough getting a ruling when the challenges are for objective things like stepping oob, if they are required now to exercise judgement well that could triple the review time easy

[DraftBoy]

You want to slow the game down even more than it already is?

[bf1]

The problem isn't the lack of challenging. The problem is the refs are flag happy. It really sucks. Let them play unless it's something obvious. I'd rather they miss penalties here and there than have ones called that shouldn't be called.

[mightysimi]

I think they are waiting from the CFL data this year as this is the first year you can challenge PI

[The King]

You want to slow the game down even more than it already is?
There will definitely be a period of that. But once they know what they're looking for it will improve.

[bf1]

I forget what game I was watching. There was a play where they were trying to determine if the receiver had possession of the ball. Both announcers were unsure and were bemoaning the fact that no one can really explain what is an isn't a catch. Even that Mike Pereira guy couldn't help in explaining on that play.

There are way to many rule changes year after year that add more complexity than making things straight forward.

[BLeonard]

The problem is, you'd still have the same people looking at the replays during the challenges.

If the refs are making bad calls, in an effort to favor one team or another, why would they reverse it on a challenge?

I like the whole concept of "sending it to NY," but if those people are in on the "fix" as well, it's not going to make a difference.

I'm honestly to the point that, whenever the Bills play the Patriots and the Bills make a good play, I don't even get excited anymore, as I'm awaiting the inevitable flag that follows... Which it does more often than not.

-Bill

[jamze132]

I wish there was a system behind the scenes where when the refs see the video of their previous game, they get docked for BS calls. Oh wait...

[Forward_Lateral]

You want to slow the game down even more than it already is?

Simple cure for that. Charge a team a 15 yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty if their challenge isn't upheld.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

The problem is, you'd still have the same people looking at the replays during the challenges.

If the refs are making bad calls, in an effort to favor one team or another, why would they reverse it on a challenge?

I like the whole concept of "sending it to NY," but if those people are in on the "fix" as well, it's not going to make a difference.

I'm honestly to the point that, whenever the Bills play the Patriots and the Bills make a good play, I don't even get excited anymore, as I'm awaiting the inevitable flag that follows... Which it does more often than not.

-Bill

If the fix is in, the fix is in, and there's no internal change that would fix it. At that point its a criminal issue.


You want to slow the game down even more than it already is?

If they limit it to the existing challenge system, it wouldn't slow the game down any more than it already does. Considering penalties easily can swing the field by 50+ yards, they should be subject to some more scrutiny.

I also said there should be a rule that any penalty that automatically awards a first down or provides a 15+ yard swing should be explained by the ref and shown on TV (or made available later)

- - - Updated - - -


Simple cure for that. Charge a team a 15 yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty if their challenge isn't upheld.

That is an awful idea.

[YardRat]

It certainly is frustrating, but I still don't know if there is an acceptable solution, other than putting together a team that is good enough to overcome the opponent and the ref. Even then, no team is good enough if the calls are as lopsided as they were this past Sunday.

[Thurmal]

The scary thing is that those judgement calls are completely arbitrary, so the course of an entire game can be changed.

Look at that BS offensive interfererence penalty on the Rams last night. That completely swung that game.

Another small-market team getting absolutely hosed against a large-market, signature franchise. What a shocker.

[trapezeus]

it would slow down the game too much (and it's already ridiculously slow) and the more i read about game fixing across a number of sports over the years, it's not hard to believe that the NFL favors certain matchups.

hopefully having one of the richest owners who wants to win puts some of this to bed.

[Typ0]

They clearly aren't being trained properly or held accountable. I don't like the idea in this thread of challenge though. How do you challenge a judgement call? With another judgement call. There just is no end to it. Implementation of league culture and values needs to change.

[paladin warrior]

:btm:fire Ref :btm:

[trapezeus]

They clearly aren't being trained properly or held accountable. I don't like the idea in this thread of challenge though. How do you challenge a judgement call? With another judgement call. There just is no end to it. Implementation of league culture and values needs to change.

agreed in some way it will just create complete chaos. "after review, i made a mistake." and especially on blatant things that were obviously not a penalty before. if the nfl really does grade these refs, then anyone who reverses their calls is going to get a negative mark.

[BuffaloRedleg]

Something has to give. That 49ers/ Rams game was poorly officiated as well. It is absolutely ruining the game.

[Typ0]

agreed in some way it will just create complete chaos. "after review, i made a mistake." and especially on blatant things that were obviously not a penalty before. if the nfl really does grade these refs, then anyone who reverses their calls is going to get a negative mark..

Nor will they admit it's the rule book that is the problem. Too much BS in there. Let them play football and stop expecting the ref's to micromanage a bunch of prima donna's on the field.

[Night Train]

The guy that threw the flag on Hughes shouldn't work an NFL game for a while. A letter of apology is a joke.

[Mr. Pink]

The scary thing is that those judgement calls are completely arbitrary, so the course of an entire game can be changed.

Look at that BS offensive interfererence penalty on the Rams last night. That completely swung that game.

Another small-market team getting absolutely hosed against a large-market, signature franchise. What a shocker.

And later in that game, while the score/outcome was still in doubt, Frank Gore made a catch on the sideline. Was ruled complete on the field, was challenged, was reversed even though you couldn't conclusively tell if Gore's knee hit in bounds first or his hand out of bounds.

San Fran lost a big play, and still drove down the field to score on that drive. Meanwhile the Rams decided to play give up after the ridiculous Cook PI.

Every team gets hosed by the ref at some point.

[DraftBoy]

There will definitely be a period of that. But once they know what they're looking for it will improve.

That's the thing, there is no "know what they're looking for" in a judgement call. It won't be anywhere near consistent in terms of its applicability or the time it takes to review it. I have no desire to see this happen.

[DraftBoy]

If they limit it to the existing challenge system, it wouldn't slow the game down any more than it already does. Considering penalties easily can swing the field by 50+ yards, they should be subject to some more scrutiny.

I also said there should be a rule that any penalty that automatically awards a first down or provides a 15+ yard swing should be explained by the ref and shown on TV (or made available later)

I think the concern I have is in trying to review a judgement call. You're talking about the ref and the guys in NY trying to determine the degree of the act being committed not if it occurred or not. You think that's going to be agreed to in the few minute reviews they are doing now? I'm not sure.

So you want to make officials have to explain themselves for throwing a flag, depending on what the infraction is for? Why? It's not going to change the call (assuming it was wrong) and all you're going to do is have a few beat writers asking basic questions that aren't going to satisfy 99.9% of fans who think the call was wrong anyways. I don't see what value the second idea brings to the current situation.

- - - Updated - - -


The scary thing is that those judgement calls are completely arbitrary, so the course of an entire game can be changed.

Look at that BS offensive interfererence penalty on the Rams last night. That completely swung that game.

Another small-market team getting absolutely hosed against a large-market, signature franchise. What a shocker.

No it didn't, the Rams ****ting the bed in the 2nd half changed the game.

[Forward_Lateral]

These "taunting" penalties are complete BS. There's taunting on every ***** play. It's part of the game. Yes, it gets annoying to watch a guy celebrate a tackle after a 10 yard gain, or a guy celebrating a first down catch when his team is down by 20. However, seeing a Bills player get flagged for taunting, or whatever the fug it's called, for slapping his own guy on the back celebrating is sickening. Get rid of the stupid rule, or go back to how it was called before. This isn't college football. If you don't want celebrating, then get rid of it all together. Don't make it a judgement call for the refs.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

I think the concern I have is in trying to review a judgement call. You're talking about the ref and the guys in NY trying to determine the degree of the act being committed not if it occurred or not. You think that's going to be agreed to in the few minute reviews they are doing now? I'm not sure.

There's no need to find consensus here. If the head ref decides it was or wasn't a penalty, that should control, and if he can't decide in the time allotted then the penalty stands.un

This isn't new or novel. The refs make judgment calls under the hood all the time. What do you think they do when they determine whether a receiver made "an act common to the game" without using their judgment? Why should judgment calls made in the heat of the moment be given totally unchallengeable authority?


So you want to make officials have to explain themselves for throwing a flag, depending on what the infraction is for? Why? It's not going to change the call (assuming it was wrong)

Fewer calls might be perceived as wrong if fans knew what the hell was being flagged and why. I mean, there's a thread over on the range where they are looking at replays of the calls (what could be found anyway) and trying to figure out what was being penalized. Take Jerry Hughes' personal foul. People can't even determine if it was for smacking his teammate's helmet or for some other infraction occurring during the play. And this play automatically continued a drive that led to a scoring opportunity.


and all you're going to do is have a few beat writers asking basic questions that aren't going to satisfy 99.9% of fans who think the call was wrong anyways.

Who gives a crap about reporter questions, honestly? I cannot understand people spending their lives in the entertainment industry who somehow think of reporter questions as this massive burden.


I don't see what value the second idea brings to the current situation.


At a bare minimum, it educates fans as to what exactly the NFL considers certain penalties to be. Referees are shown example plays as textbook examples of certain penalties being committed, so they know what to look for. Why not offer that information to the public? Further, the NFL is developing a serious credibility problem and exposing the process by which they call games can improve that.

[yordad]

Watch the vid. It is pretty obvious we didn't miss anything and Hughes wasn't secretly biting,kicking, over celebrating or taunting someone. The official had a player in-between him and Hughes while Hughes' arms were swinging. By the time the ref got a clean view Powell had moved on and a Patriot was raising in the exact same spot. The ref wrongfully concluded Hughes was slapping the Patriot. Thus threw a ******ed 15 yard penalty for an unsportsmanlike conduct he literally never seen but inferred. Ref'ing 101. You can't throw the flag unless you seen it.

[yordad]

Watch the vid. It is pretty obvious we didn't miss anything and Hughes wasn't secretly biting,kicking, over celebrating or taunting someone. The official had a player in-between him and Hughes while Hughes' arms were swinging. By the time the ref got a clean view Powell had moved on and a Patriot was raising in the exact same spot. The ref wrongfully concluded Hughes was slapping the Patriot. Thus threw a ******ed 15 yard penalty for an unsportsmanlike conduct he literally never seen but inferred. Ref'ing 101. You can't throw the flag unless you seen it.You know, I watched it again.. the refs flag actually came out before the Pats player stood up and before Winn blocked his view. The ref appears to literally flagged him for slapping his teammate.

[DraftBoy]

There's no need to find consensus here. If the head ref decides it was or wasn't a penalty, that should control, and if he can't decide in the time allotted then the penalty stands.un

Agreed, but again this is a degree question. Does a CB wrapping his hand around the shoulder to come around the WR's face and make a PBU become DPI? You may say yes, but the head ref says he needs to see a tug or turn. That's going to be inconsistent all day no matter how many challenges you have. Reviewing within the current set of challenges doesn't change that.


This isn't new or novel. The refs make judgment calls under the hood all the time. What do you think they do when they determine whether a receiver made "an act common to the game" without using their judgment? Why should judgment calls made in the heat of the moment be given totally unchallengeable authority?

Yes but their judgement calls are did the WR complete the three parts of the catch, was the knee down prior to a fumble...not did the player do enough in terms of physical contact to warrant a personal foul or pass interference.



Fewer calls might be perceived as wrong if fans knew what the hell was being flagged and why. I mean, there's a thread over on the range where they are looking at replays of the calls (what could be found anyway) and trying to figure out what was being penalized. Take Jerry Hughes' personal foul. People can't even determine if it was for smacking his teammate's helmet or for some other infraction occurring during the play. And this play automatically continued a drive that led to a scoring opportunity.

Fans could be told till they are blue in the face why a call was made, that's not going to change the preconceived notions that it was thrown against their team and therefor wrong no matter how legitimate it may be. I saw that play, keep in mind it may not have been a physical action that got Hughes a penalty. If he said a magic word (even if in celebration) he's going to get flagged. Additionally if the official felt as though the celebration was taunting that gonna get a flag (again its about a matter of degrees) and that's not even talk about the fact that Hughes already had a Personal Foul in his pocket (a BS one but one none the less) and was going to be watched closely the rest of the game no matter what he did. As I'm sure multiple people have already mentioned in that thread.


Who gives a crap about reporter questions, honestly? I cannot understand people spending their lives in the entertainment industry who somehow think of reporter questions as this massive burden.

Nobody, that's the point.


At a bare minimum, it educates fans as to what exactly the NFL considers certain penalties to be. Referees are shown example plays as textbook examples of certain penalties being committed, so they know what to look for. Why not offer that information to the public? Further, the NFL is developing a serious credibility problem and exposing the process by which they call games can improve that.

I don't believe it would, and we already have that both live on CBS and FOX with former officials breaking down reviews (and some other calls via Twitter). The information is available to the public through the NFL rule book. If they are developing a serious credibility problem then its not manifesting itself in terms of TV ratings, ad revenues, or any of the things the league actually cares about.

Fans scream conspiracy...oh no! Then they all still watch every Sunday from 1pm until MNF ends. It's just comical at this point.

[feldspar]

I don't see how it would slow down the game too much if teams are still allowed the same amount of challenges.

This is something that MUST be done, and done soon, because the NFL is really hard to watch more and more often.

Penalties made on the field absolutely NEED to be challangeable.

I like it when people call penalties "questionable," which is latin for bull****, I guess.

[BertSquirtgum]

You want to slow the game down even more than it already is?

To make sure the game is called fair and right? Absolutely.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Agreed, but again this is a degree question. Does a CB wrapping his hand around the shoulder to come around the WR's face and make a PBU become DPI? You may say yes, but the head ref says he needs to see a tug or turn. That's going to be inconsistent all day no matter how many challenges you have. Reviewing within the current set of challenges doesn't change that.

Two questions
1) Do you contend that it is called consistently now?
2) Do you think it would somehow get worse with the potential for review?


Yes but their judgement calls are did the WR complete the three parts of the catch, was the knee down prior to a fumble...not did the player do enough in terms of physical contact to warrant a personal foul or pass interference.


So? Why is one set of judgment calls fine for review and the other is somehow beyond reproach? And besides, it's not like every call is a split second judgment call - as noted if the Hughes call was indeed for smacking what the ref thought was a Patriot, then there's no close call to be made.

Besides, some penalties can be reviewed already - namely 12 men on the field and illegal forward pass. The world hasn't collapsed.


Fans could be told till they are blue in the face why a call was made, that's not going to change the preconceived notions that it was thrown against their team and therefor wrong no matter how legitimate it may be.

So? Some people will never accept anything no matter how much evidence you put it front of them - check out the Spin Zone. That doesn't mean it's pointless to produce the facts.


I saw that play, keep in mind it may not have been a physical action that got Hughes a penalty. If he said a magic word (even if in celebration) he's going to get flagged. Additionally if the official felt as though the celebration was taunting that gonna get a flag (again its about a matter of degrees)

Gee, maybe we wouldn't have to speculate why he was flagged if the ref explained why he was flagged. But you think that's pointless as well for some reason.


and that's not even talk about the fact that Hughes already had a Personal Foul in his pocket (a BS one but one none the less) and was going to be watched closely the rest of the game no matter what he did. As I'm sure multiple people have already mentioned in that thread.


Yes, let's not even talk about it because that's not the sequence of events. The disputed unsportsmanlike conduct call happened in the first quarter, on the second Pats drive. The Personal Foul for hitting Brady happened hours later in the fourth quarter.


Nobody, that's the point.

If nobody cares, why did you bring it up?


I don't believe it would, and we already have that both live on CBS and FOX with former officials breaking down reviews (and some other calls via Twitter). The information is available to the public through the NFL rule book. If they are developing a serious credibility problem then its not manifesting itself in terms of TV ratings, ad revenues, or any of the things the league actually cares about.

Have you heard the criticism of the league coming out of the Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson situations? Or catastrophically bad revenue projections that sold the Minnesota Vikings stadium? Or the horrendous handling of bountygate? Or Spygate? Or the head trauma litigation?

Goodell's tenure has been horrendous for the league's PR.


Fans scream conspiracy...oh no! Then they all still watch every Sunday from 1pm until MNF ends. It's just comical at this point.

I'm not claiming a conspiracy, but the league's lack of transparency allows that sort of chatter to continue.

[Generalissimus Gibby]

I like the idea of coaches getting 2 more challenges on judgment call penalties. Like the ridiculous call on Hughes on Sunday would have been overturned.

at least it got some attention how dumb it was

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/bills-player-gets-15-yard-penalty-for-apparently-slapping-own-teammate-214916390.html

I have long been in favor of allowing coaches to challenge any ref call up to three times per half with no penalty against timeouts taken. Sure that gives coaches up to six times a half, but it also keeps most of the referee horse **** honest.

[Mr. Pink]

Have another set of people make judgement calls about the judgement of another set of people?

What could possibly go wrong!

Horrible idea.

[Generalissimus Gibby]

Have another set of people make judgement calls about the judgement of another set of people?

What could possibly go wrong!

Horrible idea.

Not necessarily, there are lots of PI calls that are very subjective. A coach could challenge, that would have made sunday's game very different. Gronk would have gotten called for OPI a couple times negating long TD drives, and we would have gotten a couple scores.

[swiper]

Games will all be over 4 hours long.

[BertSquirtgum]

They already are 3.5-4 hours long. With refs getting challenged they will be reluctant to throw flags, IMO. Unless the penalty is completely blatant. In the long run, it may speed the game up.

[DraftBoy]

Two questions
1) Do you contend that it is called consistently now?
2) Do you think it would somehow get worse with the potential for review?

1. Yes
2. No

A response for you, do you think this idea is close to realistic?


So? Why is one set of judgment calls fine for review and the other is somehow beyond reproach? And besides, it's not like every call is a split second judgment call - as noted if the Hughes call was indeed for smacking what the ref thought was a Patriot, then there's no close call to be made.

One has a standard that is measurable, the other does not because its based on degrees. And please beyond reproach? I think we can safely maintain the discussion without the over the top language. So you are now suggesting that the Hughes call should not only be reviewed but that all the live mic feeds should be reviewed as well?


Besides, some penalties can be reviewed already - namely 12 men on the field and illegal forward pass. The world hasn't collapsed.

Yes penalties that have almost no ambiguity or require judgement.


So? Some people will never accept anything no matter how much evidence you put it front of them - check out the Spin Zone. That doesn't mean it's pointless to produce the facts.

True, but you were making a point about educating fans. My point is that the value you are proposing this would have is not there.


Gee, maybe we wouldn't have to speculate why he was flagged if the ref explained why he was flagged. But you think that's pointless as well for some reason.

Have you read how many conspiracy threads/blog posts/tweets have been put out since the game by this fanbase? Even if explained you would be having the same discussion. The explanation would simply be called the company lie and the same fans who are arguing now would be calling the NFL and the refs liars who are looking out for big market teams over small market.



Yes, let's not even talk about it because that's not the sequence of events. The disputed unsportsmanlike conduct call happened in the first quarter, on the second Pats drive. The Personal Foul for hitting Brady happened hours later in the fourth quarter.

Good point, I had mixed up the order. My mistake.


If nobody cares, why did you bring it up?

Lack of value.


Have you heard the criticism of the league coming out of the Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson situations? Or catastrophically bad revenue projections that sold the Minnesota Vikings stadium? Or the horrendous handling of bountygate? Or Spygate? Or the head trauma litigation?

Not germane to the discussion about referees and penalties on the field.


I'm not claiming a conspiracy, but the league's lack of transparency allows that sort of chatter to continue.

Again the leagues rules are not a secret, and with the networks adding former referees much of the previously unknown about how calls are determined is now explained. That sort of chatter is part of what drives record breaking revenues year after year as well.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

1. Yes
2. No

A response for you, do you think this idea is close to realistic?

Yes, of course I do. There is already a system in place for reviewing plays, just expand the scope of plays that can be reviewed.


One has a standard that is measurable, the other does not because its based on degrees. And please beyond reproach? I think we can safely maintain the discussion without the over the top language. So you are now suggesting that the Hughes call should not only be reviewed but that all the live mic feeds should be reviewed as well?

If the penalty involves language, then yes. The noise on the field can reach over 130db, roughly the same as a jet engine at ~100 feet, you don't think there's the potential for officials to mishear something and throw a flag incorrectly?


Yes penalties that have almost no ambiguity or require judgement.

I don't understand why you trust officials to get these ambiguous, judgment calls right in the heat of the play but somehow think they can't handle watching it from different angles on a replay. I said it before, if they can't see anything to overturn it, let the call stand just like the review system we already have.


True, but you were making a point about educating fans. My point is that the value you are proposing this would have is not there.

Just because some fans will never see the light is not a reason to avoid shining it. You are falling into the perfect solution fallacy.


Have you read how many conspiracy threads/blog posts/tweets have been put out since the game by this fanbase? Even if explained you would be having the same discussion. The explanation would simply be called the company lie and the same fans who are arguing now would be calling the NFL and the refs liars who are looking out for big market teams over small market.


And those fans would be the ones I mentioned above, so what?


Not germane to the discussion about referees and penalties on the field.


But it is germane to the credibility of the league. Goodell's handling of the Ray Rice tape fiasco is either staggering incompetence or an outright lie. In neither case does that put people in a frame of mind to trust the actions of the league on the field.


Again the leagues rules are not a secret, and with the networks adding former referees much of the previously unknown about how calls are determined is now explained. That sort of chatter is part of what drives record breaking revenues year after year as well.

I won't deny the league is getting better, both with the release of the All-22 footage and the NFL rulebook. But these are huge, franchise-defining decisions that are made in the heat of the moment without the potential for correction. Why?

[DraftBoy]

Yes, of course I do. There is already a system in place for reviewing plays, just expand the scope of plays that can be reviewed.

I disagree.


If the penalty involves language, then yes. The noise on the field can reach over 130db, roughly the same as a jet engine at ~100 feet, you don't think there's the potential for officials to mishear something and throw a flag incorrectly?

So now you want not only judgement calls reviewed but also the language used on the field? You're greatly expanding your scope now.


I don't understand why you trust officials to get these ambiguous, judgment calls right in the heat of the play but somehow think they can't handle watching it from different angles on a replay. I said it before, if they can't see anything to overturn it, let the call stand just like the review system we already have.

Where did I say that I trust the officials?


Just because some fans will never see the light is not a reason to avoid shining it. You are falling into the perfect solution fallacy.

Disagree. Also the perfect solution fallacy requires that I assume a perfect solution exists and that your solution is void because of that. You're assuming things about my issue with your idea and attempting to attach a fallacy to that.


And those fans would be the ones I mentioned above, so what?

Some of a much larger group. And for the so what...you're the one who presented the information as a way to answer questions fans are asking. I disagreed with that and your response is so what if they don't believe the answer? Doesn't that void out your entire point from the beginning. What's the point of providing an answer if nobody is going to believe it?


But it is germane to the credibility of the league. Goodell's handling of the Ray Rice tape fiasco is either staggering incompetence or an outright lie. In neither case does that put people in a frame of mind to trust the actions of the league on the field.

Not going to go off topic and discuss off the field issues. It's also not the NFL's job to care about the frame of mind people are in based on their actions in terms of on the field calls. Unless or until it affects revenue which it is not right now.



I won't deny the league is getting better, both with the release of the All-22 footage and the NFL rulebook. But these are huge, franchise-defining decisions that are made in the heat of the moment without the potential for correction. Why?

Again I think we can stow away the over the top language about a penalty being a huge, franchise-defining decision. You're selling people not the idea that the judgement of one person (or a group if you're including NY) is somehow better than that of the official who threw the flag. That's not something you can definitively conclude, and we've seen multiple examples of where replays are not conclusive or when an official (and or NY) interpret it differently. Assuming that making it challengeable will end that or even improve it is a logical leap I can't follow you on.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

So now you want not only judgement calls reviewed but also the language used on the field? You're greatly expanding your scope now.

Not really, it'd still be subject to the same limitations of review that already exist and work.


Where did I say that I trust the officials?

I asked if they called PI consistently and you said yes. That might be the most ambiguous call there is, and certainly can have the largest effect on a game. If you trust them to do that consistently, what don't you trust them with?


Disagree. Also the perfect solution fallacy requires that I assume a perfect solution exists and that your solution is void because of that.

No it doesn't. The perfect solution fallacy only requires that you reject a solution for not being perfect, which you have done already several times. Amusingly, the example used in wikipedia is almost an exact replica of our discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy#Examples


Posit (fallacious)
The Umpire Decision Review System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umpire_Decision_Review_System) (in cricket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket)) is a bad idea. It can't fix all missed calls.

Rebuttal
While not all umpiring errors are corrected under the UDRS, it does reduce the number of errors made.


You're assuming things about my issue with your idea and attempting to attach a fallacy to that.

What am I assuming incorrectly?


And for the so what...you're the one who presented the information as a way to answer questions fans are asking. I disagreed with that and your response is so what if they don't believe the answer? Doesn't that void out your entire point from the beginning. What's the point of providing an answer if nobody is going to believe it?

I never said that nobody would believe it, I said that some would never believe no matter what you did. But the fact that there will always be some segment that's fanatical and refuses to see reason is no reason to deny it to all. See the perfect solution fallacy above.


Not going to go off topic and discuss off the field issues. It's also not the NFL's job to care about the frame of mind people are in based on their actions in terms of on the field calls. Unless or until it affects revenue which it is not right now.

Smart business are proactive, not reactive. That has been Goodell's problem lately. He hasn't been getting out in front of these scandals, he just floats an idea, waits for the public reaction and then changes his decision if it's negative. It's the worst kind of leadership.

And off-field issues affect perception of on-field issues. Goodell destroyed the Spygate evidence before anyone could see it. What do you think he'd have done if he was handed the only copy of the Ray Rice tape, before anyone had seen it?


Again I think we can stow away the over the top language about a penalty being a huge, franchise-defining decision.

Ask the Seahawks in Super Bowl XL, among many others. Penalties in crucial situations are a big deal.


You're selling people not the idea that the judgement of one person (or a group if you're including NY) is somehow better than that of the official who threw the flag. That's not something you can definitively conclude, and we've seen multiple examples of where replays are not conclusive or when an official (and or NY) interpret it differently. Assuming that making it challengeable will end that or even improve it is a logical leap I can't follow you on.

Yes, I am saying that the judgment of someone who has the benefit of multiple camera angles and a bit of time to think is better than someone who is limited to what they can see and has to make a decision in only a few seconds. Is that seriously a controversial position?

Why even have replay if it can't improve upon the perceptions of the individual refs, by your estimation?

[DraftBoy]

Not really, it'd still be subject to the same limitations of review that already exist and work.

No, now your including the ability to challenge penalties based on things maybe overheard on the field that we have to hope a mic picked up. That's an expansion of what you originally called for.


I asked if they called PI consistently and you said yes. That might be the most ambiguous call there is, and certainly can have the largest effect on a game. If you trust them to do that consistently, what don't you trust them with?
Yes and I trust them to consistently rule based on individual interpretations. You didn't ask if I trusted them to make the right call consistently or if there is even a right call in those situations.


No it doesn't. The perfect solution fallacy only requires that you reject a solution for not being perfect, which you have done already several times. Amusingly, the example used in wikipedia is almost an exact replica of our discussion

I'm not rejecting you're solution because its not perfect (especially since there is no perfect solution to this question), so again you're fallacy statement is off the mark.


What am I assuming incorrectly?

That I believe that there is a perfect solution.


I never said that nobody would believe it, I said that some would never believe no matter what you did. But the fact that there will always be some segment that's fanatical and refuses to see reason is no reason to deny it to all. See the perfect solution fallacy above.
It's also no reason to expose it to all. Again not a perfect fallacy solution since I'm not contending you're solution isn't perfect nor that a perfect one exists. You seem to want to take this discussion to extremes that I'm not going to meet you at.


Smart business are proactive, not reactive. That has been Goodell's problem lately. He hasn't been getting out in front of these scandals, he just floats an idea, waits for the public reaction and then changes his decision if it's negative. It's the worst kind of leadership.
No disagreement here but that's not part of our discussion.


And off-field issues affect perception of on-field issues. Goodell destroyed the Spygate evidence before anyone could see it. What do you think he'd have done if he was handed the only copy of the Ray Rice tape, before anyone had seen it?
TV ratings, revenues, and record ad deals disagree with you. Your second point is and question are not germane. You can keep trying to circle around to this but I'm not going to engage it as part of this discussion.


Ask the Seahawks in Super Bowl XL, among many others. Penalties in crucial situations are a big deal.
Yes but I think if we ask the Seahawks they would say they won the franchise defining game because they were the better team that day, not because of a call or three.


Yes, I am saying that the judgment of someone who has the benefit of multiple camera angles and a bit of time to think is better than someone who is limited to what they can see and has to make a decision in only a few seconds. Is that seriously a controversial position?
Yes.


Why even have replay if it can't improve upon the perceptions of the individual refs, by your estimation?
I'm not opposed to removing replay all together in all honesty. I think the way its currently handled is fine but if you want to continue with making extreme points then I'm opting for no replay v. replay of every possible play/call. I don't need that level of review in a game.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

No, now your including the ability to challenge penalties based on things maybe overheard on the field that we have to hope a mic picked up. That's an expansion of what you originally called for.

I don't know why you keep ignoring when I say to use the existing replay standard. The existing standard is indisputable evidence to overturn the call on the field. If a coach challenges a language penalty and it wasn't picked up on a boom mic, then tough beans coach: No evidence to overturn, challenge failed, call stands and timeout assessed.


Yes and I trust them to consistently rule based on individual interpretations. You didn't ask if I trusted them to make the right call consistently or if there is even a right call in those situations.

So, you trust them to individually rule


I'm not rejecting you're solution because its not perfect (especially since there is no perfect solution to this question), so again you're fallacy statement is off the mark.

You are, especially with statements like this:

Why? It's not going to change the call (assuming it was wrong) and all you're going to do is have a few beat writers asking basic questions that aren't going to satisfy 99.9% of fans who think the call was wrong anyways. I don't see what value the second idea brings to the current situation.

Which you repeat a few lines later.


It's also no reason to expose it to all.

'If it doesn't convince everyone, why show anyone?'


No disagreement here but that's not part of our discussion.

TV ratings, revenues, and record ad deals disagree with you. Your second point is and question are not germane. You can keep trying to circle around to this but I'm not going to engage it as part of this discussion.

It doesn't matter whether you are willing to engage the issue, it's still an issue. The NFL leadership has been making PR disaster after disaster for years, and it affects the perception of the league on field and off.


Yes but I think if we ask the Seahawks they would say they won the franchise defining game because they were the better team that day, not because of a call or three.

The Seahawks lost Super Bowl XL on some extremely questionable penalties and ref decisions. Bill Leavy even publicly apologized for it. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/08/06/four-years-later-bill-leavy-apologizes-to-seahawks/

Your memory is awfully faulty in this thread.


Yes.

I'm not opposed to removing replay all together in all honesty. I think the way its currently handled is fine but if you want to continue with making extreme points then I'm opting for no replay v. replay of every possible play/call. I don't need that level of review in a game.

How many times a game do referees huddle after a flag was called, each share what they saw, and then decide whether or not to call a penalty?

Why is giving the coach the ability to force a ref to do that review 2-3 times a game such a big burden? It has its own strategic considerations for coaches, just as normal replay review does.

I've leave you with this example from the replacement ref debacle of 2012. Video of a pass interference call on Ike Taylor where he literally did not touch Santonio Holmes while the ball was in the air. At all.
http://www.nfl.com/videos/pittsburgh-steelers/0ap1000000062826/What-were-the-refs-calling

That play turned an upcoming 3rd and 10 into 1st and 10 on what turned into a TD drive. And despite clear, obvious evidence of the mistake there is no way for the coach to correct it.

Props to the NFL for hosting the video on their website though.

[DraftBoy]

I don't know why you keep ignoring when I say to use the existing replay standard. The existing standard is indisputable evidence to overturn the call on the field. If a coach challenges a language penalty and it wasn't picked up on a boom mic, then tough beans coach: No evidence to overturn, challenge failed, call stands and timeout assessed.
I'm not ignoring it, but what you are talking entirely different then I am. I'm talking about the scope of what is reviewable that you have now expanded twice in your suggestions, I'm not making a comment about standard for overturning a call. You keep mentioning it despite there being no contest to that.


So, you trust them to individually rule
Not what I said.


You are, especially with statements like this: Which you repeat a few lines later. 'If it doesn't convince everyone, why show anyone?'

Asking a question which requires you to justify your call for an action or stating that there is no value there does not qualify under the fallacy you listed.


It doesn't matter whether you are willing to engage the issue, it's still an issue. The NFL leadership has been making PR disaster after disaster for years, and it affects the perception of the league on field and off.
The NFL PR is a nightmare for years but it is not affect on the field perceptions. Unless you have evidence outside of fans complaining to support that claim.


The Seahawks lost Super Bowl XL on some extremely questionable penalties and ref decisions. Bill Leavy even publicly apologized for it. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/08/06/four-years-later-bill-leavy-apologizes-to-seahawks/

Your memory is awfully faulty in this thread.

Sorry I thought you were referring to the most recent SB, I didn't see the XL after. And if you ask the Seahawks are they going to say they got beaten on the field not by the refs. Who gives cares if he apologized, that doesn't mean anything. Bad calls happen in every game, you have to overcome them.


How many times a game do referees huddle after a flag was called, each share what they saw, and then decide whether or not to call a penalty?
I don't have a specific number to give you, but I know there are resources that exist that track this. I'll see if I can give you a link.

[QUOTE]Why is giving the coach the ability to force a ref to do that review 2-3 times a game such a big burden? It has its own strategic considerations for coaches, just as normal replay review does.

Because the judgement call is part of what makes the game, at least for me.

The replacement ref debacle, and it was a debacle is also not germane. None of those officials currently work for the NFL.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

I'm not ignoring it, but what you are talking entirely different then I am. I'm talking about the scope of what is reviewable that you have now expanded twice in your suggestions, I'm not making a comment about standard for overturning a call. You keep mentioning it despite there being no contest to that.

I don't see this expansion you're claiming, but yes, you have contested the standard for overturning a call. Again:
"No, now your including the ability to challenge penalties based on things maybe overheard on the field that we have to hope a mic picked up."

If Richard Sherman swats a Kaepernick 3rd down pass, and during the 130dbs of Seattle roar he yells "You suck! Shoulda been a pick!" but the ref hears "You should suck my ****!" that should be reviewable. And we don't have to hope a mic picked it up, the coach throwing the challenge flag has to hope a mic picked it up, otherwise the call on the field stands.



Not what I said.

Yeah my sentence that got cut off there.


Asking a question which requires you to justify your call for an action or stating that there is no value there does not qualify under the fallacy you listed.

I have given you multiple justifications.


The NFL PR is a nightmare for years but it is not affect on the field perceptions. Unless you have evidence outside of fans complaining to support that claim.


Fans complaining, sportswriters complaining, players complaining, US Senators complaining...


Sorry I thought you were referring to the most recent SB, I didn't see the XL after. And if you ask the Seahawks are they going to say they got beaten on the field not by the refs. Who gives cares if he apologized, that doesn't mean anything. Bad calls happen in every game, you have to overcome them.

At this point, any player who is publicly complaining about the officials in a game that happened almost a decade ago is going to look like someone who can't let go (See also Woodson, Charles re: Tuck Rule)
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/seahawks/2010-08-08-bill-leavy-seahawks_N.htm

That doesn't mean they're really over it.


Because the judgement call is part of what makes the game, at least for me.

To me, the refs should influence the game as little as possible. The ideal would be one where the rules are clear and the calls accurate enough that everyone walks away from the game talking about the players. That will never happen, but we should be trying to fix the more egregious mistakes when we can.


The replacement ref debacle, and it was a debacle is also not germane. None of those officials currently work for the NFL.

It doesn't matter who made the call, the point is that there's no way to correct it. Real refs blow calls every week, I just don't have isolated video of them.

[DraftBoy]

I don't see this expansion you're claiming, but yes, you have contested the standard for overturning a call. Again:
"No, now your including the ability to challenge penalties based on things maybe overheard on the field that we have to hope a mic picked up."

If Richard Sherman swats a Kaepernick 3rd down pass, and during the 130dbs of Seattle roar he yells "You suck! Shoulda been a pick!" but the ref hears "You should suck my ****!" that should be reviewable. And we don't have to hope a mic picked it up, the coach throwing the challenge flag has to hope a mic picked it up, otherwise the call on the field stands.

Are either judgement calls or penalties based on what is said between players currently reviewable? That's the large expansion of scope.


To me, the refs should influence the game as little as possible. The ideal would be one where the rules are clear and the calls accurate enough that everyone walks away from the game talking about the players. That will never happen, but we should be trying to fix the more egregious mistakes when we can.
And to me they are there to enforce the rules of the game to the best of their ability.


It doesn't matter who made the call, the point is that there's no way to correct it. Real refs blow calls every week, I just don't have isolated video of them.

Of course it matters, and you know that. Nobody is saying real refs don't blow calls but referencing the replacement refs as justification for reviewing judgement calls when some of those guys never reffed about Division II football before is weak justification and you know that.

We are not going to agree here. I'm happy to continue the discussion because I find it both entertaining and well thought out but I'm afraid we're nearing a point where its going to become both of us going around in a circle saying the same thing with different words.

[swiper]

How about we just get some better refs.