The Game Ball Thread: Week 15 at Pittsburgh

[The Needler]

Well the tweet that followed seems to indicate that the rule of not reaching out applies to during a catch...with good reason as we know based on the lengthy rules discussion here in this thread.

I see what you're saying about Slater's quote not being very clear. I'd assume that "ball control" is going to have different meaning in the run vs. pass scenario though. The exact same reaching move should be judged very differently when done during a run vs. a pass because the risk of hitting the ground and nullifying the play is non-existent in the case of a run.

I can't figure out what fight you're picking here, but the risk is not non-existent. It's huge. How many weeks ago was the Jets game, anyway? Or how many hours ago was the Raiders game?

The point is, reaching for the goal line, whether on a run or a catch is very risky, and it makes sense to prefer ball security when you're that close in all but a few situations.

 

[djbayko]

I can't figure out what fight you're picking here, but the risk is not non-existent. It's huge. How many weeks ago was the Jets game, anyway? Or how many hours ago was the Raiders game?

The point is, reaching for the goal line, whether on a run or a catch is very risky, and it makes sense to prefer ball security when you're that close in all but a few situations.

I never said that there was no risk. Of course that's silly. What I said was:

...the risk of hitting the ground and nullifying the play is non-existent in the case of a run.

The risks are different. The calculus changes. Again, we've seen Edelman and Dola reach for the pylon as a runner, so either they aren't following rules or the team views the cost/benefit impact of those situations as being different.

 

[The Needler]

I never said that there was no risk. Of course that's silly. What I said was:


The risks are different. The calculus changes. Again, we've seen Edelman and Dola reach for the pylon as a runner, so either they aren't following rules or the team views the situations as being slightly different.

You said the risk of hitting the ground and nullifying the play is non-existent. But the risk of fumbling, into, outside, or through the end zone is huge. You jumped on the OP, and you still haven't explained why other than reading words into the quote cited that don't exist.

Asked Slater if Belichick has a rule about players extending the football near the goaline (a la Jesse James). "If it's 4th down or two-pointer, you do what you have to do...but ball security is always the priority."

 

[djbayko]

You said the risk of hitting the ground and nullifying the play is non-existent. But the risk of fumbling, into, outside, or through the end zone is huge. You jumped on the OP, and you still haven't explained why other than reading words into the quote cited that don't exist.

First, I wasn't trying to "pick a fight" as you said in your precious reply. I was responding to a post with an opinion. If it came off as confrontational, that certainly wasn't my intent.

I've explained my rationale. Yes, there are risks. I already agreed with you on that. And Patriots players have been willing to accept that risk in the past. I'm no on the coaching staff so I don't know if they're violating rules or if the rules are different in different goal line situations. All I said was that its likely that the risk assessment is different, and there is evidence that this might be true.

 

[The Needler]

First, I wasn't trying to "pick a fight" as you said in your precious reply. I was responding to a post with an opinion. If it came off as confrontational, that certainly wasn't my intent.

I've explained my rationale. Yes, there are risks. I already agreed with you on that. And Patriots players have been willing to accept that risk in the past. I'm no on the coaching staff so I don't know if they're violating rules or if the rules are different in different goal line situations. All I said was that its likely that the risk assessment is different, and there is evidence that this might be true.

I've seen Pats reach in both scenarios. Obviously with far more frequency as a runner, because the instances where someone will have the opportunity to reach over the goal line while going to the ground with a catch requires the planets to be aligned and probably happens less than a handful of times per team per year. I've seen Edelman do it as both as a runner (frequently) and as a receiver arguably going to the ground with a catch (e.g. at home against Miami two years ago). That he does it of course does not mean that Pats are not taught or even strongly encouraged not to.

 

[CFB_Rules]

An interview with Mike Pereira over the catch/no-catch. I think he makes some excellent points about replay creep, and how it's hurting the product.

 

[BigJimEd]

I think runners across the league are told not to extend. I believe that's something they are told at all levels.
To what extent it is enforced and or how much focus is put on it probably varies quite a bit though.

I don't remember the team but there was a play a couple wks ago where the runner stretched for the end zone and lost the ball. After the game he took responsibility. Stating they are taught not to reach out unless it is 4th down.

I imagine it is the same for a catch. Make sure you secure it first. You may not like the rule but it has been called pretty consistently over the years with some high profile receptions overturned.
As a receiver you certainly should be aware of this. Yet judging by some of the comments, I'm not sure they all do.

 

[lexrageorge]

An interview with Mike Pereira over the catch/no-catch. I think he makes some excellent points about replay creep, and how it's hurting the product.

Pereira is clearly in the "not an idiot" category, and I do think he has a point worth discussing regarding replay.

I'm wondering if replay could be limited to the following situations:

a.) Inbounds or out-of-bounds review of run or catch (or interception).

b.) Fumble or player down before fumble.

c.) Ball breaking plane of goal line or not.

The problem is that once a play call outside the above gets shown to be incorrect on replay and results in the Patriots winning a close game, the world will explode.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

An interview with Mike Pereira over the catch/no-catch. I think he makes some excellent points about replay creep, and how it's hurting the product.

Thanks for posting. Eisen's "solution" is facile. It's easy to throw darts when you don't like the result of a particular play, but it falls apart when you try to write a rule. He's advocating a different catch rule inside your opponent's one yard line where possession need not be maintained through the ground if the receiver makes an extension toward the goal line. That's virtually unwritable and impossible for officials. And even if you were able to write it perfectly, nobody is going to be happy when New York has to use imperfect camera angles to see whether the lunge started at the one yard line or the one yard and one foot line, or whatever you make the criteria.

Pereira is correct. You either need to back certain things out of replay or you need to wrire objective rules. Replay requires absence of gray areas. Wrist means down and can't fumble but hand doesn't is arbitrary, but if we're going to review fumble no fumble with video you have no choice. There is no way to write a catch rule that will comport with the supposed "common sense" view of the game 100 percent of the time and still be amenable to replay review.

 

[lexrageorge]

Thanks for posting. Eisen's "solution" is facile. It's easy to throw darts when you don't like the result of a particular play, but it falls apart when you try to write a rule. He's advocating a different catch rule inside your opponent's one yard line where possession need not be maintained through the ground if the receiver makes an extension toward the goal line. That's virtually unwritable and impossible for officials. And even if you were able to write it perfectly, nobody is going to be happy when New York has to use imperfect camera angles to see whether the lunge started at the one yard line or the one yard and one foot line, or whatever you make the criteria.

Pereira is correct. You either need to back certain things out of replay or you need to wrire objective rules. Replay requires absence of gray areas. Wrist means down and can't fumble but hand doesn't is arbitrary, but if we're going to review fumble no fumble with video you have no choice. There is no way to write a catch rule that will comport with the supposed "common sense" view of the game 100 percent of the time and still be amenable to replay review.

I'm not sure that's exactly what he's advocating. I believe he is saying that if the ball crosses the plane of the goal line, and is in the receiver's hands when it does, then it's a TD, even if he loses it going to the ground. Basically, he wants to treat the receiver as a runner. Not sure the 1 yard line matters; if the receiver can reach the goal line from the 50 yard line by stretch his arms, it would still be a TD. Maybe Eisen mentions the 1 yard line as an example, but other proposals I've heard in the interwebs have proposed this solution.

Still, even without the 1 yard line limitation, the solution just moves the problem, in that officials would have to determine what "in the receiver's hands" means. What happens when the ball is in the receiver's fingertips when it breaks the plane, but then pops out immediately after it crosses the plane? What about a receiver making a diving catch when the receiver is already in the end zone?

 

[simplyeric]

Well the tweet that followed seems to indicate that the rule of not reaching out applies to during a catch...with good reason as we know based on the lengthy rules discussion here in this thread.

I see what you're saying about Slater's quote not being very clear. I'd assume that "ball control" is going to have different meaning in the run vs. pass scenario though. The exact same reaching move should be judged very differently when done during a run vs. a pass because the risk of hitting the ground and nullifying the play is non-existent in the case of a run.

Now you have me trying to think of I've ever seen Patriots players reach toward the goal line when acting as a runner. I'm pretty sure Edelman and Dola have reached for the pylon.

You don't even have to look further than Brady on a sneak.

Runner (WR, TE, RB, QB, or anyone, really (after a fumble or int.)) reaching for the pylon only has to break the plane, and does not have to 'survive' the fall.

Was it edelmans TD in the Super Bowl last year where he never crossed the line and simple reached out and held the ball briefly over the plane? It's a risk, but way less of a risk than during a reception attempt.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Last year fans were complaining that not every rule and play was reviewable (a BB suggestion) because of missed calls and it being stupid that, for example, Obvious PI is not reviewable. Now people are mad there is too much review.

This has more to do with the fans than the NFL. I don’t know why anyone would rather not add 5-10 minutes to each game for replay, but fans complaining about calls is never going to stop, especially with advanced technology. Do whatever you can to get it objectively right, imo. I will take the media and fans getting upset about a call or two each week to getting dozens wrong every Sunday.

 

[DJnVa]

Last year fans were complaining that not every rule and play was reviewable (a BB suggestion) because of missed calls and it being stupid that, for example, Obvious PI is not reviewable. Now people are mad there is too much review.

This is true, but I think that this is because BB thinks the reviewable plays are somewhat arbitrary. Why those and not this? I think he'd prefer very little replay, but if the league is going to have it, be "fair" about it.

 

[jercra]

This is true, but I think that this is because BB thinks the reviewable plays are somewhat arbitrary. Why those and not this? I think he'd prefer very little replay, but if the league is going to have it, be "fair" about it.

PI is a great example of a world where it's entirely up to the ref, there's no objective rule to define what PI is, and there's no replay. Why people would want possession to be evaluated the same was as PI, as some have argued in this thread, is beyond me.

 

[edmunddantes]

Link

In case anyone wanted the actual numbers and not just a gut feel. Here are all 13 of Harmon's interceptions by quarter and time left in game.

PICKS BY QUARTER
First

• Nov. 19, 2017: 33-8 win over Raiders – 1:56 in first on third-and-11

Second

• Dec. 14, 2014: 41-13 win over Dolphins – 8:56 in second on third-and-14
• Sept. 20, 2015: 40-32 win over Bills – 0:16 in second on third-and-13

Third

• None

Fourth

• Oct. 27, 2013: 27-17 win over Dolphins – 0:55 in fourth on fourth-and-24
• Nov. 3, 2013: 55-31 win over Steelers – 3:32 in fourth on first-and-10
• Jan. 10, 2015: 35-31 win over Ravens – 1:46 in fourth on second-and-5
• Sept. 10, 2015: 28-21 win over Steelers – 7:09 in fourth on first-and-10
• Oct. 29, 2015: 36-7 win over Dolphins – 14:31 in fourth on second-and-7
• Sept. 18, 2016: 31-24 win over Dolphins – 0:09 in fourth on fourth-and-5
• Jan. 14, 2017: 34-16 win over Texans – 3:17 in fourth on second-and-5
• Sept. 24, 2017: 36-33 win over Texans – 0:03 in fourth on first-and-10
• Nov. 26, 2017: 35-17 win over Dolphins – 1:54 in fourth on first-and-10
• Dec. 17, 2017: 27-24 win over Steelers – 0:09 in fourth on third-and-7

Five of those fourth-quarter picks have transpired in games decided by a touchdown or less.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

I'm not sure that's exactly what he's advocating. I believe he is saying that if the ball crosses the plane of the goal line, and is in the receiver's hands when it does, then it's a TD, even if he loses it going to the ground. Basically, he wants to treat the receiver as a runner. Not sure the 1 yard line matters; if the receiver can reach the goal line from the 50 yard line by stretch his arms, it would still be a TD. Maybe Eisen mentions the 1 yard line as an example, but other proposals I've heard in the interwebs have proposed this solution.

Still, even without the 1 yard line limitation, the solution just moves the problem, in that officials would have to determine what "in the receiver's hands" means. What happens when the ball is in the receiver's fingertips when it breaks the plane, but then pops out immediately after it crosses the plane? What about a receiver making a diving catch when the receiver is already in the end zone?

I guess I put too much into when he was saying that his rule was only for between the one yard lines that he wasn't being literal. (Which is kind of the problem.)

Right -- it doesn't make sense. Why should it only apply at the goal line and not in the end zone? Receiver is in the back of the end zone. He dives sideways for a ball and has it while in mid air securely in his hands above the end zone, then he hits the ground and it pops loose. TD? Everyone is an expert until they try to put pen to paper and even the really smart ones are going to end up with unintended consequences.

 

[Zincman]

Couldn't agree with DDB more. After 35 years of officiating myself, I am always amazed how the law of unintended consequences has manifested itself over and over, especially as rising technology gives us more and more and answers as well as more and more problems to be solved. The advent of replay was spurred by a nearly fanatical need for exactitude. Where were once willing to trust the judgement of well trained and well intended officials, replay showed that they made occasional mistakes (some less forgiving folks would say frequent). So we decided that the available technology should be used to "get it right" which officials had been trying to do for years. But this technology not only sought out out exactitude but it developed a life of its own as the scrutiny it encouraged made it imperative that the rules reflect the ability of the technology to "get it right" even at the expense of game flow. It made it nearly impossible to write rules that were in tune with the camera's ability to perceive even the slightest imperfection in performance. I'm not sure if this qualifies as one of those "be careful what you ask for" moments but we embraced the technology and now we are likely stuck with it.

 

[DJnVa]

An interview with Mike Pereira over the catch/no-catch. I think he makes some excellent points about replay creep, and how it's hurting the product.

One part I'll disagree with him on--he said what would have happened to that call if there was no replay? Nothing. It's a TD, no complaining.

Well, no. That would be what would happen if you didn't have the catch rule the way it is. Because if you didn't have replay, and the same rule as you have now, people would see that and say "Wait!!! That's wrong!!! We need replay!!!"

The issue, in that case, is the rule, not the replay.

Granted however, that having replay likely made them make the rule more black/white. Which, of course, was the reason for the change--so officials didn't have to figure out things like "Was that a lunge?" "What if he lunges but doesn't make it?" "What if it kinda looks like a lunge?"

 

[lexrageorge]

One part I'll disagree with him on--he said what would have happened to that call if there was no replay? Nothing. It's a TD, no complaining.

Well, no. That would be what would happen if you didn't have the catch rule the way it is. Because if you didn't have replay, and the same rule as you have now, people would see that and say "Wait!!! That's wrong!!! We need replay!!!"

The issue, in that case, is the rule, not the replay.

Granted however, that having replay likely made them make the rule more black/white. Which, of course, was the reason for the change--so officials didn't have to figure out things like "Was that a lunge?" "What if he lunges but doesn't make it?" "What if it kinda looks like a lunge?"

I'll disagree. If the rule was as it is, but no replay, you'd have a couple of folks from the corners of the twitterverse dissecting it and showing how it's possible that the pass should have been called incomplete. A couple of rabid Patriots fans would have been upset. But the more sane folks would have said "Hey, it would have been very difficult for any official to call that correctly. So, hey, we'll give him the catch and move on."

If the situations were reversed (Gronk making the "catch" to beat the Steelers), then, yes, everyone would have been screaming "we need replay", but that's a different issue.

Be interesting to see the reaction if the official called it incomplete. After all, officials are supposed to call it incomplete if they cannot determine if the play was a catch, incompletion, or interception.

There was always a "survive the ground" rule in the NFL. Not much different than a fielder in baseball making a diving catch, hitting the ground, and watching the ball pop out of his glove.

 

[loshjott]

Question: I know turnovers and scoring plays are automatically reviewed. Does that mean there is no "presumption of correct call on the field" in those cases as in other replays? Is it easier to overturn the Jesse James play than it would have been if the exact same thing happened outside the end zone?

 

[mauidano]

A game of inches and a human being is spotting the ball in a hurry by himself how he feels where it should be and where HIS foot is. Every game has moments where the “spot of the ball” is open to interpretation and a dynamic change on the flow of the game. So replay and rules aren’t applicable in every situation. But when it is, they strive to get it right. GJGE.

 

[joe dokes]

Question: I know turnovers and scoring plays are automatically reviewed. Does that mean there is no "presumption of correct call on the field" in those cases as in other replays? Is it easier to overturn the Jesse James play than it would have been if the exact same thing happened outside the end zone?

If I understand the question....I think there's the presumption either way, because even a "scoring play (or turnover) under automatic review" is only a "scoring play or turnover" because the officials made a call on the field. If the James play had been called incomplete on the field, Tomlin would have had to challenge it, and hope for video evidence conclusive enough to overturn it.

 

[ZMart100]

I've felt like spots have gotten more generous for the offense since replay started. However, I'm not sure if they are necessarily connected or if the league office has prioritized offensive flow over correct spots and measurements. It seems like refs are faster to call first downs though.

 

[BigJimEd]

I've felt like spots have gotten more generous for the offense since replay started. However, I'm not sure if they are necessarily connected or if the league office has prioritized offensive flow over correct spots and measurements. It seems like refs are faster to call first downs though.

I've been thinking the same at least for this season . Especially earlier in the game. Seems like there have been multiple instances where the ref looks to be initially marking the ball a little short but then it becomes a first down.

 

[Harry Hooper]

If I understand the question....I think there's the presumption either way, because even a "scoring play (or turnover) under automatic review" is only a "scoring play or turnover" because the officials made a call on the field. If the James play had been called incomplete on the field, Tomlin would have had to challenge it, and hope for video evidence conclusive enough to overturn it.

Inside the last 2 minutes, Tomlin could not have challenged but rather hoped for a review initiated by NFL HQ.

There's an interesting question there about the old tradition of "when in doubt, call it incomplete" colliding with the new practice of "calling it a TD begets compulsory review" How far below 100% metaphysical certitude do NFL officials on the field these days go and still call it a TD? 60/40? 51/49? 40/60?

 

[lexrageorge]

If I understand the question....I think there's the presumption either way, because even a "scoring play (or turnover) under automatic review" is only a "scoring play or turnover" because the officials made a call on the field. If the James play had been called incomplete on the field, Tomlin would have had to challenge it, and hope for video evidence conclusive enough to overturn it.

For either replay review (coaches challenge or scoring play review), the same standard applies:

A decision will be reversed only when there is clear and obvious visual evidence available that warrants the change.

 

[Marciano490]

It really is amazing to me how well this team is coached and prepared, not just relative to every other team in the league, but just in terms of human instinct.

It's one thing in boxing to train yourself to see a jab coming slip a certain way and counter; same with recognizing a curveball in baseball and repositioning the bat head. That's muscle memory and reflex. So much of this stuff is the anti-reflex - don't reach out for the end zone the way you probably did from ages 5-21 with 80,000 people cheering and a head full of adrenaline. It almost seems closer to military training in its ability to reform people.

 

[8slim]

As someone who vividly remembers a time without replay, give me replay. I'd much rather be having a debate about the enforcement of a specific rule than seeing even more egregiously incorrect calls be made week after week. In terms of the additional time replay adds to games, that is a small fraction of what incessant commercial breaks add.

 

[JokersWildJIMED]

I really can't believe that the James play is in the least controversial given the catch rule in the NFL and what we have seen over the past seven years. Gronk had a catch on Sunday night a few weeks back (I believe it was against the Falcons) that was a heck of a lot closer to a catch and was called an incompletion, and even the Dez play was a lot closer to a catch then the James play. James never establishes himself as a runner and a spinning ball hits the turf, with one hand on the side of it. This is about sore Steeler fans (understandable), but mostly about Patriot hate that network talking heads love to gin up.

Even Mad Dog said it was a no brainer call and could not understand what all the commotion was about.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

Belichick on his media conference call was more forthcoming on his views about the catch/no catch rule than I would have expected. He didn't express an opinion, but he noted his understanding of the rules were that they were designed to strike a balance between incompletions and catch/fumble plays. He suggested that current catch rules are designed to err on the side of incomplete passes instead of establishing possession immediately and subjecting a player to a fumble call. He didn't express an opinion, though it seemed clear to me at least that he thinks the balance is right for now.

I think the going to ground catch/no catch rule would only really matter in this regard for a non-touched player. Maybe it's obvious to everyone in this discussion, but I hadn't really thought that the implication of making catches easier or possession faster is that loose balls after catches become fumbles more readily.

 

[joe dokes]

Inside the last 2 minutes, Tomlin could not have challenged but rather hoped for a review initiated by NFL HQ.

There's an interesting question there about the old tradition of "when in doubt, call it incomplete" colliding with the new practice of "calling it a TD begets compulsory review" How far below 100% metaphysical certitude do NFL officials on the field these days go and still call it a TD? 60/40? 51/49? 40/60?

Of course. I would guess that *if* the James play had been called incomplete, there would have been a review.

 

[phenweigh]

Couldn't agree with DDB more. After 35 years of officiating myself, I am always amazed how the law of unintended consequences has manifested itself over and over, especially as rising technology gives us more and more and answers as well as more and more problems to be solved. The advent of replay was spurred by a nearly fanatical need for exactitude. Where were once willing to trust the judgement of well trained and well intended officials, replay showed that they made occasional mistakes (some less forgiving folks would say frequent). So we decided that the available technology should be used to "get it right" which officials had been trying to do for years. But this technology not only sought out out exactitude but it developed a life of its own as the scrutiny it encouraged made it imperative that the rules reflect the ability of the technology to "get it right" even at the expense of game flow. It made it nearly impossible to write rules that were in tune with the camera's ability to perceive even the slightest imperfection in performance. I'm not sure if this qualifies as one of those "be careful what you ask for" moments but we embraced the technology and now we are likely stuck with it.

For either replay review (coaches challenge or scoring play review), the same standard applies:
A decision will be reversed only when there is clear and obvious visual evidence available that warrants the change.

Although I appreciate Zincman's perspective as an official, I disagree that the advent of replay was spurred by a need for exactitude. My recollection is that replay was spurred by a need to correct obvious errors, which is supported by the standard quoted by lexrageorge.

It seems to me that the excellence of the replay technology has changed what was intended to be a correction of obvious errors into a drive for exactitude. Once the replay official has the slow motion replay from multiple angles, he/she is going to use that tool to get the call exactly correct. Personally I hate what has become a frame-by-frame analysis of close calls disrupting the flow of the game. I'd prefer a system where if the replay official cannot determine that the call was incorrect within 10 seconds (or some form of cutoff), then the call stands.

I don't watch much college football, but it seems the NCAA does replay better, only reviewing plays that are clearly questionable and doing the review quickly. Am I right about that?

 

[jercra]

Although I appreciate Zincman's perspective as an official, I disagree that the advent of replay was spurred by a need for exactitude. My recollection is that replay was spurred by a need to correct obvious errors, which is supported by the standard quoted by lexrageorge.

It seems to me that the excellence of the replay technology has changed what was intended to be a correction of obvious errors into a drive for exactitude. Once the replay official has the slow motion replay from multiple angles, he/she is going to use that tool to get the call exactly correct. Personally I hate what has become a frame-by-frame analysis of close calls disrupting the flow of the game. I'd prefer a system where if the replay official cannot determine that the call was incorrect within 10 seconds (or some form of cutoff), then the call stands.

I don't watch much college football, but it seems the NCAA does replay better, only reviewing plays that are clearly questionable and doing the review quickly. Am I right about that?

Replay was spurred by the capability to have replay. I don't believe anyone ever did, or does now, want calls to be wrong. Refs are humans and everyone gets that mistakes will be made so it's tolerated, but if technology could quickly and reliably get every call correct, would anyone pine for the good 'ole days of getting things wrong? Does a Red Sox game thread ever happen without someone calling for robot umpires? We've always wanted it to be right, we've just never had the means. We're getting closer, which to me is a positive.

Replay has a limit of 60 seconds (reduced from 90 in 2015) and, according to 538, it hasn't materially effect game lengths.

 

[phenweigh]

Replay was spurred by the capability to have replay. I don't believe anyone ever did, or does now, want calls to be wrong. Refs are humans and everyone gets that mistakes will be made so it's tolerated, but if technology could quickly and reliably get every call correct, would anyone pine for the good 'ole days of getting things wrong? Does a Red Sox game thread ever happen without someone calling for robot umpires? We've always wanted it to be right, we've just never had the means. We're getting closer, which to me is a positive.

Replay has a limit of 60 seconds (reduced from 90 in 2015) and, according to 538, it hasn't materially effect game lengths.

I'm discussing NFL replays. I think MLB replays work pretty well. Many probably take less time than the manager arguing with the umpire.

 

[jercra]

I'm discussing NFL replays. I think MLB replays work pretty well. Many probably take less time than the manager arguing with the umpire.

I know. I was using game threads to illustrate my point that it's nothing to do with football or the love of mistakes or the "human element". People call for "robot umpires" in nearly every game thread. There's also lots of complaining about MLB replays as well, but baseball plays are a lot more black and white than football. Of course, in baseball no one freaks out when a player hits the ground and drops the ball and it's not called an out.

My point was that, to me, right is better than not right and the more technology we can add to make that happen, the better. It was a counter argument to the several folks pining for the days of yore with no replay or looking to implement some restrictions on replay because not getting it right at full speed is better than getting it right in slow motion, or something.

 

[CFB_Rules]

I don't watch much college football, but it seems the NCAA does replay better, only reviewing plays that are clearly questionable and doing the review quickly. Am I right about that?

Oh god no. It's way worse in college. Every play is reviewed (if not stopped), and replay from the booth can happen anytime and are common.

My opinion: replay is meant to address OBVIOUS errors. The guy in the booth/NY get 5 replays, at game speed, from various angles. If you can't determine an error was made then the error is not obvious

 

[jercra]

Oh god no. It's way worse in college. Every play is reviewed (if not stopped), and replay from the booth can happen anytime and are common.

My opinion: replay is meant to address OBVIOUS errors. The guy in the booth/NY get 5 replays, at game speed, from various angles. If you can't determine an error was made then the error is not obvious

Ok, why? What's the distinction between obvious and right for you? Meaning, why is it better to only fix problems that can be seen in real time vs slowed down? I'll reiterate that the broadcasts will still show the slowed down versions so you're just asking for more objectively wrong calls and more controversy. How is that better?

 

[snowmanny]

Some of those inbounds/out of bounds plays can only be seen in slo mo/zoom mode

 

[CFB_Rules]

Ok, why? What's the distinction between obvious and right for you? Meaning, why is it better to only fix problems that can be seen in real time vs slowed down? I'll reiterate that the broadcasts will still show the slowed down versions so you're just asking for more objectively wrong calls and more controversy. How is that better?

That's supposed to be the replay standard. "Clear and obvious" errors. I just don't think that's what replay is actually fixing anymore.

To address your last points: In my officiating experience, the accuracy of the call is almost immaterial to the amount of controversy generated, and there are very few actually objective calls in football.

 

[CFB_Rules]

Some of those inbounds/out of bounds plays can only be seen in slo mo/zoom mode

If it needs to be zoomed in and slowed down, it's not OBVIOUSLY wrong. That's the standard.

 

[DJnVa]

NFL Replay starting NOW.

 

[NortheasternPJ]

NFL Replay starting NOW.

Thank you! Didn't realize this was on today.

Fake Edit: Shit, Tony Romo is still doing color.

 

[DJnVa]

My Google-Fu is weak--anyone find Patriots radio highlights from this game?

Here's the locker room video: http://www.patriots.com/video/2017/12/18/patriots-locker-room-celebration-following-win-over-steelers

They had to hustle to get the hats and t-shirts there.

 

[jercra]

That's supposed to be the replay standard. "Clear and obvious" errors. I just don't think that's what replay is actually fixing anymore.

To address your last points: In my officiating experience, the accuracy of the call is almost immaterial to the amount of controversy generated, and there are very few actually objective calls in football.

Doesn't that only increase the need for straightforward rules and better replay? The catch rule when going to the ground is very straightforward and pretty easy to make clear judgements on. The more of those rules the better. Sidelines, goal lines, etc. are all objective and no one bitches. Step out, you're out (usually on replay in slow-mo).

 

[54thMA]

NFL Replay starting NOW.

Watching it again you pick up on so many things the second time around.

So far; what was Flowers doing covering Bell on that third down after the terrific sack by Guy? Guy was being mugged on the play and grabbed that big doofus with one hand and yanked him down.

Bryant holding Gillmore's hand/arm on the TD to finish the drive, no call.

How do you miss that?

 

[NortheasternPJ]

Brady's throw to Gronk and the catch by Gronk in the start of the 3Q was fantastic. 3 defenders and Gronk extending between them all.

 

[NortheasternPJ]

Watching it again you pick up on so many things the second time around.

So far; what was Flowers doing covering Bell on that third down after the terrific sack by Guy? Guy was being mugged on the play and grabbed that big doofus with one hand and yanked him down.

Bryant holding Gillmore's hand/arm on the TD to finish the drive, no call.

How do you miss that?

Flowers was on Bell at least twice, maybe 3 or more times. Can't blame Flowers on that one.

 

[DJnVa]

Still no clue why that flag was picked up on Steelers TD for ineligible man downfield. It's one thing to miss a call. It's another to call it correctly then change your mind.

 

[DJnVa]

Those first 2 throws by Brady on that drive were RIDICULOUS.

 

[DJnVa]

Oh, damn, NFL Replay had Side Judge telling Steelers sideline during the replay wait that if the ball moved, it was gonna be overturned. LOL