Random NFL news

Status
Not open for further replies.
pdxKingsFan said:
I don't understand how if a ref blows a whistle you can overturn what happens afterwards. That's stupid, especially with the way unnecessary roughness/roughing the passer gets called. What I would not mind is if on these plays the refs were instructed to not blow the whistle and then auto-review instead. Maybe they could throw their own flag when they knew something was too close to call like they throw a beanie on a loose ball. Nothing drives me more crazy when refs force coaches to use their challenges early because they make the "reviewable call" rather than the correct call which would result in an automatic dead ball. That is the real problem with the rules.
Click to expand...

That's the perfect solution. Throw your hat down on a play that should be automatically reviewed because you feel it's too close to call, then the booth stops and automatically reviews the call. You can't change any rule to say that anything that happens after the whistle blows matters.
 
pdxKingsFan said:
I don't understand how if a ref blows a whistle you can overturn what happens afterwards. That's stupid, especially with the way unnecessary roughness/roughing the passer gets called. What I would not mind is if on these plays the refs were instructed to not blow the whistle and then auto-review instead. Maybe they could throw their own flag when they knew something was too close to call like they throw a beanie on a loose ball. Nothing drives me more crazy when refs force coaches to use their challenges early because they make the "reviewable call" rather than the correct call which would result in an automatic dead ball. That is the real problem with the rules.
Click to expand...
I think at one point the refs were instructed to not blow the whistle, but maybe that got changed back.

Regardless, I like the idea of throwing a hat/beanbag/whatever to indicate where you want the play to end. It shouldn't go directly to replay, you should just call it as you wanted to and if it is overturned the rest of the play is used.

The problem with this is that it will happen way too often and the officials will always be hesitant to blow their whistles (which I've noticed is already happening). That leads to a lot of extra curricular activity even after plays where no fumble came close to occurring. Still, I think it would be worth it.
 
uolj said:
I think at one point the refs were instructed to not blow the whistle, but maybe that got changed back.

Regardless, I like the idea of throwing a hat/beanbag/whatever to indicate where you want the play to end. It shouldn't go directly to replay, you should just call it as you wanted to and if it is overturned the rest of the play is used.
Click to expand...
But when they have the officials make a call so that it plays all the way out and then that is the default standard for "indisputable" it is totally unfair when teams have a limited number of challenges. What if the ref is 75% certain the play is dead but doesn't want to kill the play just so it can be reviewed and the other team doesn't have a challenge? Or when its the first quarter and you have to blow a challenge early. I've seen it happen far too many times.
 
pdxKingsFan said:
But when they have the officials make a call so that it plays all the way out and then that is the default standard for "indisputable" it is totally unfair when teams have a limited number of challenges. What if the ref is 75% certain the play is dead but doesn't want to kill the play just so it can be reviewed and the other team doesn't have a challenge? Or when its the first quarter and you have to blow a challenge early. I've seen it happen far too many times.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.

Right now, if a ref is 75% certain it's not a fumble, he'll blow the whistle and the play is dead.

With the change we're talking about, if a ref is 75% certain it's not a fumble, he throws the bean bag and lets the play continue. When the play is over, the call is "not a fumble" just as it would have been before. The ball still goes back to the bean bag as if it was blown dead right there.

The only difference is in the second scenario if the opposing team challenges the call and gets it overturned, the rest of the play counts.
 
uolj said:
Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.

Right now, if a ref is 75% certain it's not a fumble, he'll blow the whistle and the play is dead.

With the change we're talking about, if a ref is 75% certain it's not a fumble, he throws the bean bag and lets the play continue. When the play is over, the call is "not a fumble" just as it would have been before. The ball still goes back to the bean bag as if it was blown dead right there.

The only difference is in the second scenario if the opposing team challenges the call and gets it overturned, the rest of the play counts.
Click to expand...

Not to speak for anyone else, but I'm not talking about doing this on all fumbles. Typically, the ref will call the play dead if he thinks there was no fumble.

I think that, specifically on these "inadvertent whistle" plays, like the Hochuli play (and something similar happened when the Colts and Chargers played in '07, and a play got called dead when it shouldn't have), instead of the ref blowing his whistle, he throws down his hat and the play the continues, just in case he got it wrong. It doesn't happen very often, which is why such a big deal is being made of this one call. But when it does happen, neither team should have to use a challenge; it should be automatically reviewed.

It's just such a momentum changing event, when it does happen, that the NFL should do something to make sure that they get it right.
 
uolj said:
Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.
Click to expand...
What I want is for refs to be able to initiate their own reviews when they know they missed a call. I don't like it when a coach is forced to choose between letting a blatantly bad but potentially meaningless call stand and saving the challenge for a scoring play or turnover.
 
An inadvertent whistle is almost always on a play that is a fumble, that's why I use that example. The only other scenario I see is if a player is down or out of bounds. But the same argument applies to all those situations.

I don't understand why it would need to be reviewed automatically. That would really slow the game down and for no benefit. The point here is not that there are calls that the refs are completely unsure about, the point is that blowing the whistle stops the play. So making the review automatic doesn't make any more sense for these plays than any other close play. Still, it's a minor point.
pdxKingsFan said:
What I want is for refs to be able to initiate their own reviews when they know they missed a call. I don't like it when a coach is forced to choose between letting a blatantly bad but potentially meaningless call stand and saving the challenge for a scoring play or turnover.
Click to expand...
Oh, ok. Sorry, I thought you were talking about the inadvertent whistle rule change.
 
uolj said:
An inadvertent whistle is almost always on a play that is a fumble, that's why I use that example. The only other scenario I see is if a player is down or out of bounds. But the same argument applies to all those situations.

I don't understand why it would need to be reviewed automatically. That would really slow the game down and for no benefit. The point here is not that there are calls that the refs are completely unsure about, the point is that blowing the whistle stops the play. So making the review automatic doesn't make any more sense for these plays than any other close play. Still, it's a minor point.
Click to expand...

I don't think these things happen very often. Once a game, if that. Probably less. So if the ref sees the ball come out of the quarterback's hand while he's winding up, but he's not sure whether it's a fumble or an incompletion, then either he throws down his hat, or he just swallows his whistle. Then you have either the booth review it automatically and call down to the field.

All I'm saying is that, when there's an egregious mistake made that potentially affects the outcome of the game (like the Denver call), there should be a way to fix it right then and there.
 
You realize I agree with that premise and think it's a great idea, right? :)

I just don't see the need for the automatic review. You get the same benefit without it.
 
uolj said:
You realize I agree with that premise and think it's a great idea, right? :)

I just don't see the need for the automatic review. You get the same benefit without it.
Click to expand...

It's like pdx said: Why make a coach burn a challenge when the booth could get it right?

I think I'm on record as a pro-college football review system guy. If the call was questionable, take a look at it. Get rid of the whole challenge system, and just look at every play in the booth. If the play should be reviewed, then signal to the referee to stop play, send him to the hood, and let's get it right.

But when it comes to fumbles that are whistled dead, you still have to do something about the whistle.
 
I believe that the Browns workouts are optional, still with a new coach you would expect your leaders to step up. However this seems to be Mangini's MO - ruffle the feathers of the vets and get all his own people in place. Expected it to be different when he takes over for a fellow ex-Pat who ran the same scheme.
 
kingsnation said:
ESPN: Elway saddened by Cutler/Bronco relationship
Click to expand...
I'd care more about what Elway thought if he had shown much interest in helping mentor Cutler, I mean most QBs retire into the sunset, Elway still hangs around Denver, is possibly working some kind of future Senate run angle and just looms large over anyone that tries to establish himself as a QB in Denver. Not all his fault but I think there have been overtures made to get him involved and he hasn't really seemed interested.

Then again maybe if that had gone down this would be even worse.
 
More Scheduling info..

ESPN: NFL tweaks West travel

East Coast and West Coast teams have complained about their cross-country trips. Under the proposed changed -- which does not require a committee vote -- the NFL will alter its AFC West scheduling formula so that no team would have to play at Oakland and at San Diego in the same season.
Click to expand...
 
Warhawk said:
This was really a concern? I mean, really, you play one game a week. Deal with a 5-6 hour charter plane flight......
Click to expand...

Yeah really, I think its stupid. You're getting paid millions to play 1 game a week, whats the big deal if you have to make 1 extra cross-country flight per season?? And don't division teams play each other twice per season?? How is that gonna work?
 
Broncos decided to grant Cutler his trade. Man i hope the seahawks trade their first pick and hasselbeck for him. that would be the greatest.
 
What a d-bag. I hope he gets traded to a Texas team and encounters officer Powell on a desolate highway and mouths off to him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Vinny Basketballerino
Something Sp3cial is Br3wing
Replies
1
Views
712
Jc121
J
Tetsujin
[Game] Kings vs. Nuggets, 2/6/21, 2pm PST, 5pm EST
10 11 12
Replies
342
Views
13K
kingsboi
kingsboi
venom_7
Venom_7 Doxxes | A Ghost of Christmas Past
Replies
2
Views
567
venom_7
venom_7
R
Reuters Sports News Summary
Replies
0
Views
282
Reuters
R
Tetsujin
[Game] Kings vs. Celtics, 2/3/21, 7pm PST, 10pm EST
13 14 15
Replies
445
Views
15K
LPKingsFan
LPKingsFan
Back
Top