Official Niners studs n duds

Poppa San

Levelheaded
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
10,661
Reaction score
1,205
Location
Brown County Wisconsin
I guess in the NFL they've tried to find the middle ground. No challenges = not acceptable. Unlimited challenges = not feasible (the games would be constantly interrupted). 2 calls per team with a TO penalty for an incorrect challenge = the middle ground, sort of.

Technology was the driver behind this. With most plays having video from multiple angles, it's easier to get a call correct. And maybe a little quicker. If I were to change anything it would be to not penalize a team for an incorrect challenge. If they only have two challenges, the coaches will be careful anyway in throwing the red flag.
If they plan to keep the challenge, I'd rather they get unlimited calls, as long as they are correct. 2 strike rule. Miss two and you are done. Should not need to be correct twice to get more. As it stands, what appear to be obvious calls are still incorrectly decided.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,005
Reaction score
492
If they plan to keep the challenge, I'd rather they get unlimited calls, as long as they are correct. 2 strike rule. Miss two and you are done. Should not need to be correct twice to get more. As it stands, what appear to be obvious calls are still incorrectly decided.
I agree but from listening to fans talk about the same play obvious is apparently subjective as well.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,523
Reaction score
250
I agree but from listening to fans talk about the same play obvious is apparently subjective as well.
Given that the officials on the field have to make their calls in real time, it's actually amazing how often they get it right. There are exceptions, and the current rule of two challenges per team is reasonable. The reviews can and are usually very time consuming. It's better to keep the reviews to an acceptable minimum and let the game keep going. I don't see the need to lose a TO for an incorrect challenge. The coach is limited to two challenges. Not a big deal.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
23,450
Reaction score
3,071
Location
Madison, WI
If they plan to keep the challenge, I'd rather they get unlimited calls, as long as they are correct. 2 strike rule. Miss two and you are done. Should not need to be correct twice to get more. As it stands, what appear to be obvious calls are still incorrectly decided.
One thing I don't get about the review process in the NFL, the head ref goes over to this what 5" X 5" monitor to watch the play. Billion dollar business should be able to spring for a "review booth", which would be a small room (on wheels) with a big screen and perfect lighting to watch the play. Plus, isn't it New York making the call now? Why even bother sending a Ref over to pretend to be seeing it with them? The NFL could learn a lot from MLB and College Football, when it comes to the review process.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,523
Reaction score
250
One thing I don't get about the review process in the NFL, the head ref goes over to this what 5" X 5" monitor to watch the play. Billion dollar business should be able to spring for a "review booth", which would be a small room (on wheels) with a big screen and perfect lighting to watch the play. Plus, isn't it New York making the call now? Why even bother sending a Ref over to pretend to be seeing it with them? The NFL could learn a lot from MLB and College Football, when it comes to the review process.
It's ridiculous, right? The calls come from NYC, not the field. I like the way MLB does it as well. And why penalize a team for an incorrect challenge? It makes no sense. I guess the best that can be said is that it's better than no reviews at all (I think.....).
 

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
3,222
Reaction score
300
It's ridiculous, right? The calls come from NYC, not the field. I like the way MLB does it as well. And why penalize a team for an incorrect challenge? It makes no sense. I guess the best that can be said is that it's better than no reviews at all (I think.....).
I don't understand why you say it does not make sense to penalize a team for an incorrect challenge. But I do think a team should be able to keep challenging as long as they don't get one wrong.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
23,450
Reaction score
3,071
Location
Madison, WI
I don't understand why you say it does not make sense to penalize a team for an incorrect challenge. But I do think a team should be able to keep challenging as long as they don't get one wrong.
I agree on the second part. Never understood why you are penalized for being right. If there are 9 bad calls and you guess right on all 9, then you should be able to question #10.

As far as penalizing a team for an incorrect challenge, I think the team is currently being "double penalized" in that situation. They lose a time out and a challenge. Let them pick one or the other, but not both.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,523
Reaction score
250
I don't understand why you say it does not make sense to penalize a team for an incorrect challenge. But I do think a team should be able to keep challenging as long as they don't get one wrong.
Well the challenges interrupt the flow of the game. And maybe that's why they penalize an incorrect challenge with a time out. OK, I get that.

Your idea is interesting. Let a team keep challenging until they get one wrong, then shut them down from future challenges once a call stands. They would be just as cautious in making a challenge, and as long as they're right, let em continue. That works. Either way, there likely wouldn't be so many challenges to significantly affect the flow of the game because of the consequences.

I think you should call the rules committee, and charge them for a large consulting fee!
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,523
Reaction score
250
I agree on the second part. Never understood why you are penalized for being right. If there are 9 bad calls and you guess right on all 9, then you should be able to question #10.

As far as penalizing a team for an incorrect challenge, I think the team is currently being "double penalized" in that situation. They lose a time out and a challenge. Let them pick one or the other, but not both.
Interesting point Poker and one of the reasons I don't like the TO penalty. But gopkrs and you are right - as long as the challenges are successful, let them continue. I still don't think it would have a big impact on game play, and seems more fair.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
23,450
Reaction score
3,071
Location
Madison, WI
Interesting point Poker and one of the reasons I don't like the TO penalty. But gopkrs and you are right - as long as the challenges are successful, let them continue. I still don't think it would have a big impact on game play, and seems more fair.
Yes and I believe the booth is still reviewing all scoring and turnovers. Another reason why refs shouldn't blow a whistle so early, let the damn play run its course and see what happens. Nothing more frustrating then a clear fumble, after the ref blew the play dead too early....unless of course it was the Packers fumbling. :D
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,523
Reaction score
250
Yes and I believe the booth is still reviewing all scoring and turnovers. Another reason why refs shouldn't blow a whistle so early, let the damn play run its course and see what happens. Nothing more frustrating then a clear fumble, after the ref blew the play dead too early....unless of course it was the Packers fumbling. :D
You're right about early whistles on scoring plays and turnovers - they all get reviewed. Officials rush things, and as we all know, nothing happens after the whistle. And yeah, we're very forgiving with any of their mistakes that benefit the Pack!

As much as we gripe about officiating (in all major sports), the refs generally get it right. The hard part is knowing before a game starts if the ref team is going to call it tight or "let them play". Unless it's egregious, I prefer "let them play". The players and coaches can pick up on that early enough in the game. And it seems officiating is a lot looser in the playoffs, where the refs do prefer to let them play.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
23,450
Reaction score
3,071
Location
Madison, WI
I agree, the refs in general do a pretty good job, but that doesn't mean they can't improve. Technology has aided sports with all sorts of ways to get calls correct. Which is why I feel if its done efficiently, why not take human error out of it and do it. Too many times the talk after the game is "this call or that call cost that team the game." I would much rather be talking about the actual game play and not the damn blown calls.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,523
Reaction score
250
I agree, the refs in general do a pretty good job, but that doesn't mean they can't improve. Technology has aided sports with all sorts of ways to get calls correct. Which is why I feel if its done efficiently, why not take human error out of it and do it. Too many times the talk after the game is "this call or that call cost that team the game." I would much rather be talking about the actual game play and not the damn blown calls.
Amen. And if we ever forget, just get out the tape of that non-call of PI against the Rams when they played the Saints a few years ago. I still don't get how that one was missed. You didn't even need to be close to the play. Hell you didn't even need to understand football! And it affected the outcome of the game. That just can't happen again.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
23,450
Reaction score
3,071
Location
Madison, WI
Amen. And if we ever forget, just get out the tape of that non-call of PI against the Rams when they played the Saints a few years ago. I still don't get how that one was missed. You didn't even need to be close to the play. Hell you didn't even need to understand football! And it affected the outcome of the game. That just can't happen again.
Check out the end of the Vikings-Browns game this last week. Browns mugged Thielen in the endzone on the last play, no call.

 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,523
Reaction score
250
Check out the end of the Vikings-Browns game this last week. Browns mugged Thielen in the endzone on the last play, no call.

Yeah as much as I hate to say it the Vikes should have won that game. That game was decided by the refs and that can't happen.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
23,450
Reaction score
3,071
Location
Madison, WI
Yeah as much as I hate to say it the Vikes should have won that game. That game was decided by the refs and that can't happen.

It is a lot like the NBA and the NHL, nobody wants to make a call at the very end of the game, that might change the outcome. When in reality, they ARE changing the outcome, by not MAKING the call. If that play had happened in the first Q, it gets flagged 99% of the time, but for some reason it is different when its the final play or two?
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,005
Reaction score
492
Check out the end of the Vikings-Browns game this last week. Browns mugged Thielen in the endzone on the last play, no call.


I will say that it should have been called but I just can't bring myself to say that I am upset that it wasn't.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,523
Reaction score
250
Nope, me either, it couldn't of happened to a "better team", other than the Bears maybe.
It's been proven. A real Packer fan is incapable of empathy when it comes to the Queens. Any day the Queens lose is a good day. Same with the Bears, but with them, a timely loss or losses is alll but guaranteed.
 

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
3,222
Reaction score
300
Yes and I believe the booth is still reviewing all scoring and turnovers. Another reason why refs shouldn't blow a whistle so early, let the damn play run its course and see what happens. Nothing more frustrating then a clear fumble, after the ref blew the play dead too early....unless of course it was the Packers fumbling. :D
Also, I worry that when there is a TD catch and there was PI; sometimes the ref does not call the PI and then maybe the TD gets reversed. You are right. They refs should definitely play the whole play until the whistle blows. And call everything regardless. And don't blow the whistle too early.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,005
Reaction score
492
It's been proven. A real Packer fan is incapable of empathy when it comes to the Queens. Any day the Queens lose is a good day. Same with the Bears, but with them, a timely loss or losses is alll but guaranteed.
I am a rarity among Packer fans in that I really don't dislike the Bears. Most of their fans are insufferable but I respect the team for their history. I don't have a problem with the Bears winning except where it affects the Packers. Plus there was Walter Payton.

The vikings are a different story. I have hated them for longer than I have been a Packer fan and its a very rare day when I find myself rooting for them. Even then it pretty much has to be the last 1/4 of the season and a viking win has to pretty much guarantee the Packers a playoff spot.

The worst possible football matchup I can imagine is a vikings/ cowboys NFCC game because that means one of those teams get to go to the Super Bowl and I would have to root for the cowboys.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
26,048
Reaction score
1,542
Would have to pay them more with more benefits. Think the owners would buy into it?

The NFL paying for full-time employed referees would be considered peanuts in the grand scheme of things.

The hard part is knowing before a game starts if the ref team is going to call it tight or "let them play".

Teams receive scouting reports on the officiating crew before a game.

I agree, the refs in general do a pretty good job, but that doesn't mean they can't improve. Technology has aided sports with all sorts of ways to get calls correct. Which is why I feel if its done efficiently, why not take human error out of it and do it. Too many times the talk after the game is "this call or that call cost that team the game." I would much rather be talking about the actual game play and not the damn blown calls.

I would be in favor of the booth reviewing plays that can be decided objectively but definitely don't want the league to allow subjective calls to be overturned. Let's remember the pass interference fiasco from some seasons ago, which I might add I predicted in advance.
 

swhitset

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Messages
3,301
Reaction score
352
The NFL paying for full-time employed referees would be considered peanuts in the grand scheme of things.



Teams receive scouting reports on the officiating crew before a game.



I would be in favor of the booth reviewing plays that can be decided objectively but definitely don't want the league to allow subjective calls to be overturned. Let's remember the pass interference fiasco from some seasons ago, which I might add I predicted in advance.
It was only a fiasco because the refs were literally allowed to ignore the fact that pass interference was reviewable. Obvious cases of interference were completely ignored. Frankly, imo the refs made a mockery of themselves and the NFL in that situation.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,523
Reaction score
250
The NFL paying for full-time employed referees would be considered peanuts in the grand scheme of things.



Teams receive scouting reports on the officiating crew before a game.



I would be in favor of the booth reviewing plays that can be decided objectively but definitely don't want the league to allow subjective calls to be overturned. Let's remember the pass interference fiasco from some seasons ago, which I might add I predicted in advance.
Yeah making PI reviewable became a joke and stretched out games and, in about 99% of the cases, is a subjective call. The irony is that there was nothing to question in the call that precipitated the review (Saints/Rams game). Anyone looking at that play objectively (or I suppose subjectively as well) clearly saw PI. It's like any other thing in life, we have to live with some very bad mistakes. I think the current system is probably about as good as it will get for now. Well, until the next meeting of the Rules Committee.
 
Top