Expanded Replay in 2019??

Post Reply  
Great White Shark
Posts: 4848
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014
Sand$: 4,822.74
That 1 call gave Gronk another ring.

:popcorn:
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 21274
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006
Sand$: 43,688.26
ubertaco wrote:
und2006 wrote:
ubertaco wrote:
Yeah, they lost because of that call.

Not because they were throwing the ball in the first place.

Not because their defense couldn't come up with a stop.

Or because their offense couldn't score in OT.

Or because their defense couldn't bail them out in OT.

They lost because they took the lead with less than 2m to go and won the OT coin toss.

:F


So you disagree that if that play had been correctly called the Saints would have won the game?

Because unless you can say that with a straight face, the rest of those things don't matter.


They would have been more likely to win the game, but they did not lose the game because of that one play.

They would have also been more likely to win the game if they ran on 1st down instead of throwing that screen to Thomas. They would have been more likely to win the game if Brees just took a knee three times as well.

But they didn't do any of those things, and even after the missed call they were pretty massive favorites in terms of expected win rate.

But yeah, let's all get overexcited about a blown call and pretend that no other kinds of blown calls exist or ultimately help shape the outcomes of games.

It's nearly impossible to extrapolate out for those other variables though. You can however say that if that had been properly called, they would have been what... a 99%+ favorite at that point?

Just like the kickoff rule, they put this in for one year and will vote on it's permanency next offseason. I guess I'm crazy for wanting the game called correctly. Could work out like the "body weight on the QB" stuff from last season and everyone hates it and it suddenly isn't being called anymore.
Great White Shark
Posts: 2837
Joined: Thu Sep 7, 2017
Sand$: 6,944.78
I agree you can't play the 'what if' game, and that the Saints would have been more likely to win with the call than they were (according to the projections) without it.

We will see how this plays out. Frankly what I dislike about it more than anything is that they just did PI and not other types of fouls (I think there was something about personal fouls or ejections as well).

I read their reasoning for it, but I think it's bad reasoning. Any kind of call (like phantom offsides on 4th and short) can have a huge impact on a game, not just PI calls. Realistically if they wanted to address the outsized impact PI has they should have changed the penalty to something like in the NCAA rather than this.

I want a game called correctly, but I don't think that adding random scrutiny to a handful of plays is the way to go about it. Get better refs, how about that?
Great White Shark
Posts: 2612
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014
Sand$: 2,378.18
ubertaco wrote:I agree you can't play the 'what if' game, and that the Saints would have been more likely to win with the call than they were (according to the projections) without it.

We will see how this plays out. Frankly what I dislike about it more than anything is that they just did PI and not other types of fouls (I think there was something about personal fouls or ejections as well).

I read their reasoning for it, but I think it's bad reasoning. Any kind of call (like phantom offsides on 4th and short) can have a huge impact on a game, not just PI calls. Realistically if they wanted to address the outsized impact PI has they should have changed the penalty to something like in the NCAA rather than this.

I want a game called correctly, but I don't think that adding random scrutiny to a handful of plays is the way to go about it. Get better refs, how about that?

Agree. Lessening the PI impact makes more sense to me than adding another layer of interpretive officials. lSimplifying the rules would be a more logical measure I.e. One foot down for a catch, a knee hits and your down even without contact, etc.
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 21274
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006
Sand$: 43,688.26
ubertaco wrote:I agree you can't play the 'what if' game, and that the Saints would have been more likely to win with the call than they were (according to the projections) without it.

We will see how this plays out. Frankly what I dislike about it more than anything is that they just did PI and not other types of fouls (I think there was something about personal fouls or ejections as well).

I read their reasoning for it, but I think it's bad reasoning. Any kind of call (like phantom offsides on 4th and short) can have a huge impact on a game, not just PI calls. Realistically if they wanted to address the outsized impact PI has they should have changed the penalty to something like in the NCAA rather than this.

I want a game called correctly, but I don't think that adding random scrutiny to a handful of plays is the way to go about it. Get better refs, how about that?


I like that it has limited scope. The fact that PI was the most frequent blown call that affected a game makes it the obvious choice vs offsides etc. I always found it odd that 12 men on the field was a reviewable play already.

I think we would all be for refs getting it right the first time, I just hate seeing games where you come away feeling like the refs directly affected the outcome (don't say a word Cowboys fans, he didn't catch it and you know it).
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 24325
Joined: Sat Nov 5, 2005
Sand$: 63,358.28
Cadence calls wrote:Smacks of Hegelian Dialectic

Create a crisis: NFL officials "blow" a critical PI in NFCCG > Public Outrage

Offer a solution: PI now challenge able and "booth" reviewable

Result: The NFL now has the power to alter the course of games in an even more effective manner.



I think that is a very jaded view of things, and the actual results will be opposite.

Previously, if a referee made a mistake and missed an obvious PI (false negative) or incorrectly called PI (false positive), the public chalked it up to human error made in a split second without benefit of review.

Now, if the NFL overturns a correctly called PI or calls PI when it isn't warranted (based on the 2 minute review), there would be even more public outrage because people would see that the NFL had the opportunity to make the right call (or correct their mistake) and didn't.
Great White Shark
Posts: 2837
Joined: Thu Sep 7, 2017
Sand$: 6,944.78
PI being the call which impacts the most is more a function of the level of the penalty itself, not an issue with how often they get it right or wrong. It's freaking judgement so many times anyway that I find the notion of reviewing it ludicrous anyway.

12 men on the field and offsides are calls which can be accurately determined by replay. So although they are of a much smaller impact (usually, when they affect a turnover or 1st down conversion they are important) they are also entirely possible to get 100% right without any room for judgement.

That's how baseball went after their replay anyway, but there are fewer judgement calls in baseball beyond the strike zone, and guess what, they aren't reviewing that.
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 24325
Joined: Sat Nov 5, 2005
Sand$: 63,358.28
ubertaco wrote:
Cyguy84 wrote:
ubertaco wrote:Y'all forgetting that all challenges go to the booth in the final 2m.

I wonder how many times a pass will be thrown by a team trying to come back in the last 2m...

Literally, by this rule, every passing play will be reviewable for PI.

It's idiocy.


There is a huge difference between "reviewable" and "reviewed." Every passing play will not be reviewed. The referees will call most calls properly on the field. This just gives the in-booth official a chance to correct any major mistakes.

That's the key-- the in booth official will be the filter, only flagging obviously incorrect calls for review.


There is a difference.

You and I apparently have different interpretations of how the NFL will handle it.

But hey, at least the argument will now shift from 'was that PI' to 'was that PI reviewable'.

Yay. More grist for the talking heads.

I guess?


I view your argument as similar to saying "You shouldn't be able to get a ticket for going 1 mph over the speed limit! By this rule, a vast majority of drivers can be pulled over, it will be chaos!"

Technically, you can get a ticket for going 1 MPH over the speed limit, but police officers generally only pull over drivers that are 10+ MPH over the speed limit (and sometimes even 15+).

I think the NFL will be similar -- hand fighting, incidental contact (e.g., hand on the waist or even tripping) and other minor interference won't be called, but pulling a jersey, redirecting the WR, or anything that prevents the WR from catching the ball will be called even if the official didn't notice it in real-time.
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 24325
Joined: Sat Nov 5, 2005
Sand$: 63,358.28
endzoneview wrote:What happens next year when a game winning touchdown is thrown and a very balatant holding call is missed? Or a roughing the passer call is missed? An offsides is missed?

I’ll tell you what happens- waterworks followed by a new rule to allow that play to be reviewed



I think most blatant holding, roughing the passer or offsides are called successfully by the on-field referees. I'm not worried about this creating outrage.

At this point, I think the NFL almost has the opposite issue of penalizing defenses for "roughing the passer" even when it was a legal hit. I would be in favor of allowing coaches to challenge a called roughing the passer penalty, giving referees a chance to review the replay and make the correct call, but not extending challenges to "non-calls."
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 24325
Joined: Sat Nov 5, 2005
Sand$: 63,358.28
ubertaco wrote:PI being the call which impacts the most is more a function of the level of the penalty itself, not an issue with how often they get it right or wrong. It's freaking judgement so many times anyway that I find the notion of reviewing it ludicrous anyway.

12 men on the field and offsides are calls which can be accurately determined by replay. So although they are of a much smaller impact (usually, when they affect a turnover or 1st down conversion they are important) they are also entirely possible to get 100% right without any room for judgement.

That's how baseball went after their replay anyway, but there are fewer judgement calls in baseball beyond the strike zone, and guess what, they aren't reviewing that.



I agree that it has a huge impact because of the level of the penalty itself, but there isn't an easy solution. Either:

1- Penalty yards are based on the spot of the foul, or
2- Fixed 15 yard penalty for pass interference, regardless of where it occurred

#1 can result in a ton of yards, which is extremely costly to the defense. In theory this is bad, because it has a huge impact on the game when the WR might not have even caught the ball in the first place.

However, #2 results in the defense mugging any WR at the end of the game or on long passes, as 15 yards is the "preferred outcome" instead of letting the WR catch the ball. This would have a huge impact on the game as well.

I think the NFL made a good decision when it created a third option, with illegal contact being a fixed 5 yard penalty (and automatic first down) and pass interference being spot of the foul. I definitely think that the risk of a huge penalty is required to keep defenses from doing the equivalent of "hack a Shaq" and intentionally getting the penalty.
Great White Shark
Posts: 2837
Joined: Thu Sep 7, 2017
Sand$: 6,944.78
Do NCAA games reduce to just WRs getting mugged all the time?

Hmm?

Besides, NFL can institute a flagrant foul type of situation like the NBA has if you really think that additional punishment is required for intentional fouls.

But my concern is not solely based on how many PI calls there could be in the final 2m of a game. It's about how those plays are going to be scrutinized now on a different level which is eventually going to change the way the rule is interpreted in the first place.

Maybe that could turn out to be a good thing, but I am skeptical.
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 24325
Joined: Sat Nov 5, 2005
Sand$: 63,358.28
Interestingly, I just stumbled on this....

https://weei.radio.com/blogs/alex-reime ... alled-pass

Personally, I think that the play in question would have been a ticky tack pass interference penalty, since there were two players in good position and similar contact occurred frequently without penalties in that game (the refs weren't calling it).

That said, I can see the point that the DB reached from behind and held Cooks arm, preventing him from using two arms to catch the ball. If plays like that are called uniformly throughout the game, I have no problem with that being pass interference.
User avatar
Great White Shark
Posts: 6940
Joined: Thu Oct 5, 2006
Sand$: 3,675.00
rsr1 wrote:Woohoo more commercials, yeah baby. This is going to be great for the viewer with more pee breaks, more time to get snacks, and more time to check ffb scores. This will be awesome.
I can't wait for the extended length of game time to force the network to leave the end of the game I'm watching and move onto the start of the next game. Or even better, move to the next games pregame show of talking heads who then inform me of whats going on in the previous game I was just watching!! Yessss, psyched! Let's go!!


Nailed it very early on.
Great White Shark
Posts: 2612
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014
Sand$: 2,378.18
Cyguy84 wrote:
Cadence calls wrote:Smacks of Hegelian Dialectic

Create a crisis: NFL officials "blow" a critical PI in NFCCG > Public Outrage

Offer a solution: PI now challenge able and "booth" reviewable

Result: The NFL now has the power to alter the course of games in an even more effective manner.



I think that is a very jaded view of things, and the actual results will be opposite.

Previously, if a referee made a mistake and missed an obvious PI (false negative) or incorrectly called PI (false positive), the public chalked it up to human error made in a split second without benefit of review.

Now, if the NFL overturns a correctly called PI or calls PI when it isn't warranted (based on the 2 minute review), there would be even more public outrage because people would see that the NFL had the opportunity to make the right call (or correct their mistake) and didn't.

So, I'm a cynic.
And the officials could have fixed that call simply by huddling up. Somebody saw it.
My view on public outrage is that the more occasions occur for outrage, the more desensitized viewers will become to "meddling".
Eventually, viewers will accept outrageous officiating gaffs. Wrestling, here we come.
But, I'm a cynic.
Carry on.
User avatar
Moderator
Posts: 48847
Joined: Sun Aug 2, 2009
Sand$: 40,680.95
Cadence calls wrote:And the officials could have fixed that call simply by huddling up. Somebody saw it.


This is what they should have done. Got in a huddle, tossed the flag out of the huddle and explained the call.

Optics would have sucked but the call would have been correct.