I don't think it's a fair

[DIHARD2]

set up the way instant replay is done.

Now that it looks like instant replay is here to stay, I have a problem with it and the amount of cameras involved.

If the game is being televised nationally there are more cameras as you know on the ball and players, whereas games that are just being televised for areas and opponents.

What I see that isn't fair here is, when a play it being scrutinized on national coverage there are more camera angles to look at which makes instant replay not fair to the other teams with less cameras coverage.

When isn't it fair? If a team loses a game because of the lack of good camera coverage from instant replay and therefore loses their shots for the playoffs or when another team wins an instant replay challenge because of national coverage and it puts them in the playoffs by one game. This is even more so today because teams are becoming more competitive through the cap and the team it creates. The cap is creating a situation that is controlling the quality of players per team. More and more teams are learning how to live with in the cap, so in the future a lot of teams will be a one game difference between playoffs and not a playoff spot.

So there should be a designated amount of cameras at each game to make it an even playing field and those cameras should only be the ones used. Or if there is national coverage and they are using 20 different camera angles, than those same type of cameras set up, should be at all the games that day, another answer could be, there could be team camera setups or stadium camera setups that are designated for instead replay only. I just don't see the system the way it set up today to be fair especially in the future as teams become equal in personnel, which is going to happen.

I don't know if Ralph Wilson along with any other owner would be willing to put out the money that this type of system would create, if they vote to keep replay as it is, then they should be willing to make it in even playing field at every game and have only certain cameras utilized for a replay.

There was a game this year that we lost a challenge because there wasn't enough cameras on the game. Where an almost same play that day, on another team on national TV won their challenge because of national coverage.

GO!!!...BUFFALO!!!...

[Dozerdog]

Well, if they are going to "Standardize" the camera angles to make it even in every NFL venue, you will have less replay angles overall, not more.

Plus, you need to consider location of the cameras. Stadiums are configured differently, and camera angles are different from venue to venue.

Replaty is not perfect- but the idea of replay is to make the correct calls. If they only overtirn 1 out of 10 calls, it's better than not reversing 0 out of 10.


What needs to get fixed are officials making the correct calls from the outset. To many times they won't call a close one until they confer, talk it over, and then rely on the video to make the right call. Be decisive, then let the replay overturn it.

And the quick whistles have to stop. So many times the refs will blow plays dead - negating any replay regardless if they called it right. The Ricky Fumble early in the Bills/Miami game on 12/1 and the fumble in the Green Bay game come to mind.

[Typ0]

I have been saying this for years. This issue is of huge importance. Until the league is committed to enforcing policy uniformly accross the league they can never really make a step in the right direction towards getting the problems with officiating corrected. The replay is bias towards larger market teams because they get more national games and better replay coverage. You don't need a $50M camera to view evidence of an instant replay.

Dozer, your points aren't neccessarily true. In fact, they could go to less television cameras for each game but also install many smaller cameras that were not the quality for television transmission. These could be cameras focused on a fixed area of the field at a fixed angle. There would be a lot more evidence available for each replay and the rules would be enforced equally accross the league. It's bad enough when the refs can't make the right calls but when the league is willing to put a system in place that does not uniformly enforce the rules accross the league there are more serious problems.

What about the ref's who don't get the national games? Do you think their arguement about being hung out to dry by the league has some validity here because they don't have the same support mechanism as the top officials who get the national games?

If the replay stays the only appropriate action from the league is to completely delineate the replay coverage from the television coverage. From a public relations perspective it's a nightmare having the audience at home see the same replays as the people making the decisions. In fact, if the system is built correctly, there should be two different sources of images and they should both render the same decisions. The league should have an independant camera system in each stadium used to enforce the replay. They should then release still photo's of the exact evidence of why a call was made the way it was AFTER ALL GAMES FROM THE WEEK ARE COMPLETED.

Sure there will be some increased cost here. It won't come from the zillionairres that run the league though it will come out of the pockets of the poor people who pay for cable television and tickets to games. The NFL could have learned a good lesson from the XFL they efficiently employed the use of cameras all over the stadium.