Official Lions studs and duds

[Sky King]

...I think replay is only going to make refs more incompetent. and if speed has nothing to do with it, why do they slow it down for replay?

It already has made officials less-decisive since they can fall back on booth reviews for scores and turnovers.

Personally, I preferred the flow of the game much more before the advent of replay. But commercials can be sold and replay conveniently boosts income for NFL owners, their staffs and players. Unfortunately, that probably means it will only get worse as game times expand to accommodate the additional clock-fodder needed for more and more replay reviews. There will never be enough. Too many people have become highly addicted to replay and may have an addict's chance of kicking that dependency.

The game can never be made perfect even if every play were to be reviewed to the nth degree. Officials will still make mistakes just as they always have and always will. They're only human whether calling them from on the field or up in the booth. It's not life or death and it's an insult to the real thing to treat the game so.

Strangely, it does not feel like replay has reduced controversies from occurring any less often than they had before. I'm not so sure that it has actually facilitated greater satisfaction with the game, either. The direction this thread has taken is a sign of that.

 

[JBlood]

Few remember when replay was abolished for a time after it was first tried. For the same reasons now discussed. It will never be perfect but is better than no replay imo. It'll be better when they figure out what a catch is.

 

[Mondio]

Few remember when replay was abolished for a time after it was first tried. For the same reasons now discussed. It will never be perfect but is better than no replay imo. It'll be better when they figure out what a catch is.

I remember and whether or not it's better is debatable. If they expand it to include more reviewable plays more reviews overall I think it only stands to hurt the game. There are obviously instances when a review has corrected something. There are plenty of others where it has only stood to add controversy and rather than clarity has brought about confusion and more grey. I'm Ok with it as it is now, though I think in 10 more years we'll see some pretty hefty expansion of it because they'll never, ever, in a million years get them all "right" and pissed off owners and teams, and players and fans will demand it, and they'll get it and then our officiating will continue to suffer and nobody will know why.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

how can I explain to you that what is "obvious" to you, is not "obvious" to the next guy and what is "obvious" to them is NOT "obvious" to you. Take a poll today on the fail mary, ask ten thousand people what they thought. If it's not at least 50/50 or more in favor of it being an INT and not a completion for a TD I'd be surprised.

Take a poll on the Dez Bryant non-catch last year, I bet you have a whole lot of controversy and nothing is "obvious" about it.

I think replay is only going to make refs more incompetent. and if speed has nothing to do with it, why do they slow it down for replay?

I realize that what may be obvious to one person may not to another. But I did qualify 'obvious' as indisputable visual evidence, which is what is used today to overturn a call, so rather than saying obvious I will use 'indisputable visual evidence' if that makes you feel better.

I didn't say the Fail Mary catch was obvious, did I? I said Tate pushing the defender down was obvious, and should have been a penalty. If offensive pass interference was reviewable then that would have been called. By not being able to review it, it cost the Packers the game.

Not sure why you bring up the Dez Bryant non catch. It was reviewed and they determined there was no indisputable evidence to change it (according to the rules, which I think they should change but is another topic of discussion). If a play doesn't have undisputable visual evidence to overturn it, then the play should stand as called, which is the way they call it today. Why is that so difficult to understand?

You are twisting my words about the speed. I didn't say speed doesn't matter for the replay, I said the speed they use to determine if a call is wrong shouldn't matter - in other words, if it is undisputable at regular speed or half speed or quarter speed then it should be undisputable no matter what speed they use to determine it.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

Unfortunately, that probably means it will only get worse as game times expand to accommodate the additional clock-fodder needed for more and more replay reviews.

No one here is asking that more plays be reviewed (ie. give the coach more challenges). I'm only advocating that more types of plays be able to be reviewable. Just because more types of plays could be reviewed does not mean that there will be more reviews (at least by the coaches).

I would also be in favor of changing the current rule where in the last 2 minutes of each half only the replay booth can challenge a play. I say give each coach his 2 challenges and let them use them anytime, including the last 2 minutes of each half, and not let the replay booth make challenges. Once a coach uses up his challenges then no more challenges.

 

[Carl]

No one here is asking that more plays be reviewed (ie. give the coach more challenges). I'm only advocating that more types of plays be able to be reviewable. Just because more types of plays could be reviewed does not mean that there will be more reviews (at least by the coaches).

I would also be in favor of changing the current rule where in the last 2 minutes of each half only the replay booth can challenge a play. I say give each coach his 2 challenges and let them use them anytime, including the last 2 minutes of each half, and not let the replay booth make challenges. Once a coach uses up his challenges then no more challenges.

I'd prefer no challenges and they switch to the college system. I don't think coaches should have to worry about whether a call is good or not. Let the booth decide it all.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

I'd prefer no challenges and they switch to the college system. I don't think coaches should have to worry about whether a call is good or not. Let the booth decide it all.

The problem I have with that is that would slow the game down since the booth would not be limited in how many plays could be challenged. I'd be happy with allowing each team 2 challenges (3 if they get the first 2 right), but no more than that.

 

[Carl]

The problem I have with that is that would slow the game down since the booth would not be limited in how many plays could be challenged. I'd be happy with allowing each team 2 challenges (3 if they get the first 2 right), but no more than that.

Individual challenges could be sped up as the booth can start looking immediately following the play instead of the terrible system now, in which we often know what the call should be before the official even starts looking.

More challenges overall could slow the game down though.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

Individual challenges could be sped up as the booth can start looking immediately following the play instead of the terrible system now, in which we often know what the call should be before the official even starts looking.

More challenges overall could slow the game down though.

The officials on the field no longer 'go under the hood' and review the play like they did pior years. All games are monitored at headquarters in New York and the replay official is the one who decides whether the call stands or should be overturned, not the on-field official. I'm sure questionable calls are already being looked at even before an official challenge is made, so I don't see booth calls being any faster than they are today.

 

[TJV]

Not sure why you bring up the Dez Bryant non catch. It was reviewed and they determined there was no indisputable evidence to change it...

The Dez Bryant "catch" was first ruled a catch and then overturned after McCarthy threw the challenge flag.

 

[gemoran4]

Disclaimer: I'm very late to this thread, and frankly I didn't read much of it so if I'm preaching to the choir I apologize.

With that disclaimer in mind, I have to apologize to Richard Rodgers a little bit. I'll be honest, I haven't been a fan of a guy since we drafted him. He wasn't highly touted, and in my mind i thought he was at best semi-talented dude who was a project (as Cal seemingly made him transform his body for a completely different role every year) at the pro level. When I saw him as a rookie, he looked like nothing more than a slow TE with poor blocking skills and good hands. Coming off the athlete that was Jermichael Finley, I found myself quite frankly disappointed. Not once did I see anything worthwhile in him.

This year came around, and while he showed improvement, but I still felt meh about him, especially given the woes we've had on offense. But hail mary aside, the dude showed up in a big way tonight and he frankly wowed me. The dude made some incredible catches, always found a way to get himself open, and really played a big role in jumpstarting our offense and getting back in this game when nobody else was capable of stepping up and making plays for us. I still am not 100% convinced, but he did a whole lot to change my mind about him in the Lions game. I felt like in a way this was a coming out party for the guy, and I hope he builds off of this game and becomes one of the staples of this offense.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

The Dez Bryant "catch" was first ruled a catch and then overturned after McCarthy threw the challenge flag.

I stand corrected, it was initially ruled a catch but was overturned. But that doesn't change my stance that all plays should be reviewable.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Disclaimer: I'm very late to this thread, and frankly I didn't read much of it so if I'm preaching to the choir I apologize.

With that disclaimer in mind, I have to apologize to Richard Rodgers a little bit. I'll be honest, I haven't been a fan of a guy since we drafted him. He wasn't highly touted, and in my mind i thought he was at best semi-talented dude who was a project (as Cal seemingly made him transform his body for a completely different role every year) at the pro level. When I saw him as a rookie, he looked like nothing more than a slow TE with poor blocking skills and good hands. Coming off the athlete that was Jermichael Finley, I found myself quite frankly disappointed. Not once did I see anything worthwhile in him.

This year came around, and while he showed improvement, but I still felt meh about him, especially given the woes we've had on offense. But hail mary aside, the dude showed up in a big way tonight and he frankly wowed me. The dude made some incredible catches, always found a way to get himself open, and really played a big role in jumpstarting our offense and getting back in this game when nobody else was capable of stepping up and making plays for us. I still am not 100% convinced, but he did a whole lot to change my mind about him in the Lions game. I felt like in a way this was a coming out party for the guy, and I hope he builds off of this game and becomes one of the staples of this offense.

There´s no doubt Rodgers had a great game vs. the Lions but I want to see him do it more often before having any trust in him. The coaching staff did a good job using him to his strengths on Thursday though and hopefully that will continue over the next few weeks.

 

[Mondio]

nobody is asking for more plays in this thread, you're correct. But officiating, to me, already has demonstrated indisputable evidence, that they are less decisive on the field and that isn't always for the better. I can foresee many problems going foward. The play they don't blow dead so there is an opportunity for review of a "fumble", but there are not clear camera angles and it's not overturned. The official was pretty sure he saw the knee down in the pile, but err'd on the side of replay to sort it out, and now it's "wrong", but "right" by rule. These things are already happening, they're going to get worse I imagine.

and when a 3rd or 4th reviewable play comes up, and the coaches have no more reviews and they lose a big game, owners, teams, fans will be screaming for more replay and they'll probably get it, because people have this false notion that they can get perfection. So people in this particular thread may not be asking for more replays, there are plenty of people out there that are, and it's not a far reach to see that more reviewable plays is where this is headed.

and Tate did shove our guy in the back, maybe 4 other of our defenders shoved a WR before the ball got there too, now they have illegal contacts, OPI, DPI and a holding call too just by looking for stuff. I am not for this use of review at all. I'd rather have none at all.

and the "obvious" and "indisputable" visual evidence has sure cleared everything up in replay. Clear as mud, and every week there is controversy over calls, overturned, not overturned, right, wrong, clear, disputed indisputable calls.

 

[scotscheese]

What does the speed have to do with it? If it is obvious at any speed - then wouldn't that make it obvious/indisputable evidence? I am sick and tired of incompetent refs making horrible calls that can't be reviewed.

but then that's where technology takes away from the game. what would have happened 20-30 years ago? we would have got the "facemask" on Rodgers and no-one bats an eyelid. but now with 20 replay angles and super super slow-mo we're all armchair refs.

being from the UK, we're really far behind on tech being used in game, and this has only happened over the past few seasons in football, as the EPL has introduced goal-line tech to ascertain whether a ball has crossed the line for a goal or not. and in all honesty this is as far as it should be in football(sorry Soccer).

the NFL is slightly different as it is more stop/start than football, but i think the way plays are reviewed(scoring/turnover, & coach challenges) is probably about the best way it can happen. putting too much more technology or reviews into the game may slow it down so much as to be as boring as baseball

 

[Curly Calhoun]

Duds. The Refs. The poor penalty calling is getting to be to much. If they don't do something about it soon people are going to stop watching. Don't take this the wrong way. But when a bad penalty called or un-called ends up deciding the outcome of a game it's a problem.

Golden Tate had this coming.....

 

[Sky King]

There´s no doubt Rodgers had a great game vs. the Lions but I want to see him do it more often before having any trust in him. The coaching staff did a good job using him to his strengths on Thursday though and hopefully that will continue over the next few weeks.

Amen to this point. Since the other receivers have also looked very uncomfortable and unproductive most of the time, let's hope the coaching brain trust tries to play to their strengths more often, too. And if they have been doing that all along then this team is likely to be going nowhere in the playoffs.

If I see one more pass to Rodgers on a lateral route to the flat I might hurl. You know the one: After the catch the DB puts his shoulder into Rodgers thigh and he goes down immediately with no YAC.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

the NFL is slightly different as it is more stop/start than football, but i think the way plays are reviewed(scoring/turnover, & coach challenges) is probably about the best way it can happen. putting too much more technology or reviews into the game may slow it down so much as to be as boring as baseball

I agree that they shouldn't allow more reviews as we don't want to slow the game down any more, but I still feel they should allow more types of plays to be reviewed. The following article pretty much sums up my point of view.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2576494-bill-belichick-is-right-the-nfl-needs-more-replay

 

[Croak]

Right now it takes almost 3 and a half hours to witness 11 minutes of action. http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704281204575002852055561406

I'm not in favor of anything that will make it drag out more. Constant commercials are killing the enjoyment of the game. I've become a real fan of "world football" partially for that reason. Once in a while extra time is added on to a match, but usually a 90 minute match will go about 110 minutes (which includes halftime and stoppage time.) I coached Varsity Baseball and Jr. High Soccer. My wife always said she much preferred the soccer matches because she knew pretty close to how soon it would be over.

 

[TJV]

There is no going back to the era before reviews but there has to be a limit on what can be reviewed: For example, the ability to review any passing play to see if a holding penalty occurred that wasn’t called would be impractical. No one is calling for that but the point is we have to accept some human error. Also "more important" nationally broadcast games, as opposed to a noon game between division cellar dwellers, have more cameras available to review. So we also have to accept some "unfairness". And that’s OK because over the course of a season bad or absent calls should generally even out.

I think defining a catch so it is more in line with common sense and the tradition of the game would have a bigger impact on the game than tinkering with reviews but I do have a couple of suggestions regarding the review procedure since both can be accomplished. I would suggest two changes to the review process: (1) Disallow slow motion replays for the official doing the review. The game doesn’t happen in slow motion and of course the officials on the field don’t have the benefit of it. IMO the object of reviewing plays should be to eliminate obviously incorrect calls. If it doesn’t look like a call should be reversed in real time after looking at it multiple times from different angles, it’s not obviously incorrect. (2) Put a time limit – perhaps one minute - on the reviewing official. If he can’t decide after looking at 10 or more replays, the play should stand. (The only exception would be technical problems that delay replays.) It would mitigate the problem of the officials being indecisive that Mondio is talking about and it would speed up the game. Putting these changes in effect may persuade the leauge to allow more kinds of plays – or number of plays - to be reviewed because of the time limit.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

(2) Put a time limit – perhaps one minute - on the reviewing official. If he can’t decide after looking at 10 or more replays, the play should stand. (The only exception would be technical problems that delay replays.) It would mitigate the problem of the officials being indecisive that Mondio is talking about and it would speed up the game. Putting these changes in effect may persuade the leauge to allow more kinds of plays – or number of plays - to be reviewed because of the time limit.

There already is a time limit of 60 seconds for the replay official to review the play. Not sure how well that limit is enforced, but it is already in place. But I don't see how that mitigates the problem of officials being indecisive, as you suggest. They are still going to be indecisive merely because of the fact they have instant replay to rely on. A faster review process wouldn't make them any less indecisive.

 

[TJV]

There already is a time limit of 60 seconds for the replay official to review the play. Not sure how well that limit is enforced, but it is already in place. But I don't see how that mitigates the problem of officials being indecisive, as you suggest. They are still going to be indecisive merely because of the fact they have instant replay to rely on. A faster review process wouldn't make them any less indecisive.

If there is a time limit it needs to be enforced better IMO. Also the combination of the time limit and eliminating slow motion reviews would result in fewer overturned calls which IMO would make officials more decisive.

 

[sschind]

What part of obvious don't you understand? If a play is controversial (in other words there is no visual evidence to prove one way or the other) then you let the play stand as called. But if there is indisputable (obvious) evidence that a call was ruled incorrectly, what's the harm of correcting it? It's no different than the plays that can be reviewed now, if there is indisputable evidence they called it wrong they overturn it. I know some plays like pass interference are judgement calls, but if there is evidence that the judgement was incorrect why can't it be changed? For example, a receiver and db are running side by side going for a pass and the receiver falls down - the ref thinks that he fell because of contact and throws the flag. But looking at the replay there is 'obvious' evidence that the db didn't touch the receiver and he just tripped on his own, they should be able to overturn it. I agree that there are some things like holding that just can't be reviewed, but other penalties can and should be able to be reviewed.

As far as the Fail Mary, if they were able to review that play it was definitely obvious to everyone that Tate pushed the defender down before he caught the pass - so that would have been offensive pass interference and there is no way you are going to say that wasn't obvious.

The thing with the fail mary is that most people argue whether the possession call was right and ignore the the PI. What if a coach challenges a play saying our guy had possession not theirs and the replay shows he was wrong but they notice another infraction. Should that infraction be called? I think that's what happened on the fail mary. They looked at the possession and determined it was the right call. That's why a lot of people think it was the correct call. I agree 100% on the PI but that wasn't the issue and that's not what they were looking for.

 

[sschind]

Amen to this point. Since the other receivers have also looked very uncomfortable and unproductive most of the time, let's hope the coaching brain trust tries to play to their strengths more often, too. And if they have been doing that all along then this team is likely to be going nowhere in the playoffs.

If I see one more pass to Rodgers on a lateral route to the flat I might hurl. You know the one: After the catch the DB puts his shoulder into Rodgers thigh and he goes down immediately with no YAC.

Yeah, I absolutely hate it when our guys catch the ball.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

The thing with the fail mary is that most people argue whether the possession call was right and ignore the the PI. What if a coach challenges a play saying our guy had possession not theirs and the replay shows he was wrong but they notice another infraction. Should that infraction be called? I think that's what happened on the fail mary. They looked at the possession and determined it was the right call. That's why a lot of people think it was the correct call. I agree 100% on the PI but that wasn't the issue and that's not what they were looking for.

They weren't looking for it because it wasn't reviewable. If PI was reviewable then I'm sure they would have called it, especially since the PI had a direct impact on the play. Now if there was another infraction away from the play that had no impact on the play, then I believe they should let that go. Yeah, yeah, I know - now we are adding another judgement as to whether something impacts a play or not. But this is the type of play that I am talking about where Tate definitely pushed the defender down and the ref missed it which allowed him to get his hands on the ball. I don't think there is any doubt in anyone's mind about whether or not that was PI and it had a direct impact on the play. Those are the 'obvious' infractions I am talking about, not the controversial ones (the catch itself was controversial, but not the offensive PI).