Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
If you could change any NFL rules.....
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jaybadger82" data-source="post: 479630" data-attributes="member: 6211"><p><span style="color: #000000">Great topic, ForgetFavre. Though I'm not sure how much tweaking is needed with America's most popular sport right now. </span>My thoughts on your suggestions in red below:</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>I don't really have any ideas but I'm going to wax philosophical on some of the posts above:</p><p> </p><p>I agree with those that have talked about the problems with pass interference these days but there's no simple fix. The problem with setting up a fixed yardage penalty has already been pointed out, though something should probably be done. A lot has been taken away from defenses in order to protect player safety (which is a good thing) but defensive backs should have greater leeway in defending the pass (you know, to make up for the fact that they can no longer launch themselves at a receivers' heads). I hate seeing pass interference when players' legs get tangled or when the defender gets his head around to locate the ball in time. Perhaps defensive backs should be able to keep a hand on a receiver in order to facilitate getting his head around to look for the pass. Either way, it's largely a judgment call that's difficult to make in real time.</p><p> </p><p>Despite these problems, I disagree with those that have suggested <em>significantly</em> liberalizing the current system of coach's challenges. Penalties such as pass interference and holding are fundamentally <em>judgment</em> calls, so it's often difficult to form a unanimous opinion of whether a lineman was held or a receiver was interfered with. Consider the nuts out there arguing that Golden Tate actually caught that ball in Seattle...</p><p> </p><p>And I'm not interested in additional lengthy stoppages so coaches can second-guess every questionable call. The idea of reviewing plays for calls that were missed entirely is absolutely preposterous. How much time do you think such a review takes? -Doesn't sound like a very spectator-friendly proposition for the fans at Lambeau in December. At some point you only subtract from the entertainment value of the sport.</p><p> </p><p>You can't totally legislate human error from NFL officiating. It's going to happen. As long as such errors are not outcome determinative (ala the Seattle game), then I can accept these. It's another element teams must deal with (like weather conditions) and, theoretically, it affects all franchises equally over the course of a season (ala the Bears game last week).</p><p> </p><p>With that said, I find what aspects of a play that coaches are allowed to review is arbitrary and stupid. Although, I'm apprehensive about making judgment calls such as holding or pass interference subject to replay review, I don't see why coaches can't have a play reviewed in order to determine whether a runner was down by contact or whether the clock has been correctly administered. Dumb.</p><p> </p><p>Instead of receiving a third challenge, I think coaches should receive two red flags for the entire game. When they correctly challenge a ruling on the field, they retain their flag. If they lose the challenge, the coach loses one of his flags. In effect, challenges would be subject to a two-strike rule: if you're incorrect twice during the course of a game, you can't challenge anymore plays (with teams continuing to forfeit a TO when they're wrong).</p><p> </p><p>Also, rather than have an additional NFL official in the booth reviewing the calls on the field, why not have each team appoint a specialist to advise the coach from the booth on challenges? Instead of relying on an independent official in the booth, everyone would understand that each team has it's own replay specialist on staff, looking after his club's best interests. This eliminates concerns of bias by the replay official in choosing what, if any, plays to review and I like placing restrictions on booth review by tying it to a team's challenge flags. It means there wouldn't be stoppages unless the mistake is obvious.</p><p> </p><p>Again, I don't think you can eliminate mistakes or the element of judgment from NFL officiating and I don't think the number of disruptions necessary to fix every error would benefit the spectator experience.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jaybadger82, post: 479630, member: 6211"] [COLOR=#000000]Great topic, ForgetFavre. Though I'm not sure how much tweaking is needed with America's most popular sport right now. [/COLOR]My thoughts on your suggestions in red below: I don't really have any ideas but I'm going to wax philosophical on some of the posts above: I agree with those that have talked about the problems with pass interference these days but there's no simple fix. The problem with setting up a fixed yardage penalty has already been pointed out, though something should probably be done. A lot has been taken away from defenses in order to protect player safety (which is a good thing) but defensive backs should have greater leeway in defending the pass (you know, to make up for the fact that they can no longer launch themselves at a receivers' heads). I hate seeing pass interference when players' legs get tangled or when the defender gets his head around to locate the ball in time. Perhaps defensive backs should be able to keep a hand on a receiver in order to facilitate getting his head around to look for the pass. Either way, it's largely a judgment call that's difficult to make in real time. Despite these problems, I disagree with those that have suggested [I]significantly[/I] liberalizing the current system of coach's challenges. Penalties such as pass interference and holding are fundamentally [I]judgment[/I] calls, so it's often difficult to form a unanimous opinion of whether a lineman was held or a receiver was interfered with. Consider the nuts out there arguing that Golden Tate actually caught that ball in Seattle... And I'm not interested in additional lengthy stoppages so coaches can second-guess every questionable call. The idea of reviewing plays for calls that were missed entirely is absolutely preposterous. How much time do you think such a review takes? -Doesn't sound like a very spectator-friendly proposition for the fans at Lambeau in December. At some point you only subtract from the entertainment value of the sport. You can't totally legislate human error from NFL officiating. It's going to happen. As long as such errors are not outcome determinative (ala the Seattle game), then I can accept these. It's another element teams must deal with (like weather conditions) and, theoretically, it affects all franchises equally over the course of a season (ala the Bears game last week). With that said, I find what aspects of a play that coaches are allowed to review is arbitrary and stupid. Although, I'm apprehensive about making judgment calls such as holding or pass interference subject to replay review, I don't see why coaches can't have a play reviewed in order to determine whether a runner was down by contact or whether the clock has been correctly administered. Dumb. Instead of receiving a third challenge, I think coaches should receive two red flags for the entire game. When they correctly challenge a ruling on the field, they retain their flag. If they lose the challenge, the coach loses one of his flags. In effect, challenges would be subject to a two-strike rule: if you're incorrect twice during the course of a game, you can't challenge anymore plays (with teams continuing to forfeit a TO when they're wrong). Also, rather than have an additional NFL official in the booth reviewing the calls on the field, why not have each team appoint a specialist to advise the coach from the booth on challenges? Instead of relying on an independent official in the booth, everyone would understand that each team has it's own replay specialist on staff, looking after his club's best interests. This eliminates concerns of bias by the replay official in choosing what, if any, plays to review and I like placing restrictions on booth review by tying it to a team's challenge flags. It means there wouldn't be stoppages unless the mistake is obvious. Again, I don't think you can eliminate mistakes or the element of judgment from NFL officiating and I don't think the number of disruptions necessary to fix every error would benefit the spectator experience. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
Most hated teams outside of the division
Latest: Thirteen Below
37 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 Round 7, pick 245: Michael Pratt, QB
Latest: gopkrs
46 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 Round 7, pick 255 (compensatory): Kalen King, CB
Latest: Dantés
Today at 10:42 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 Round 6, pick 202: Travis Glover, OT
Latest: Dantés
Today at 10:35 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The 11th Annual Amish Draft Contest 2024
Latest: Thirteen Below
Today at 10:35 PM
Draft Talk
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
If you could change any NFL rules.....
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top