The NFL and Ball Placement

[Grizzled]

An interesting article on why the NFL does not rely totally on technology to spot a ball. Not sure if they ever will. It's not just the spotting of the ball, it's melding that with the question(s) of if a certain body part is down:

https://sports.yahoo.com/why-the-nfl-st ... 02648.html

[Arkansasbear]

I've not been a huge fan of using to to spot the ball, but in reading that, I think it should be used when it clearly can resolve the issue. On that play the one issue was what was his forward progress. At the time he is clearly down doesn't effect the outcome. Use the tech, with the built in margin of error, and review it.

When being down is a factor, I'm pretty sure they would be able to say, he is down in this frame, where does the chip say the ball is.

Use it only if the spot decides if it's a first down or a score. If the issue is would be it 4th a yard or 4th and a half yard, too bad.

[dplank]

When being down is a factor, I'm pretty sure they would be able to say, he is down in this frame, where does the chip say the ball is.

Yes, this is the correct answer. It's not rocket science if they want to address the issue.

[southdakbearfan]

At this point, just get rid of all replay, eliminate the networks from replaying on tv and just go with the calls as they happen.

Eliminate 30-45 minutes of BS and there are no controversies because there is no replay to agonize over.

[Arkansasbear]

At this point, just get rid of all replay, eliminate the networks from replaying on tv and just go with the calls as they happen.

Eliminate 30-45 minutes of BS and there are no controversies because there is no replay to agonize over.

I"m actually kind of okay with getting rid of it all together. Whatever the call is what the call is. Bad calls live on forever. You have Don Denkinger robbing St. Louis of the World Series in '85 by not calling a runner out at first in the ninth. You have Bartman reaching into the field of play on a ball and the umps not calling an out.

[dplank]

It’s a fast paced “game of inches”, there’s too much missed to go without replay. That would be an absolute disaster. The games don’t need to be shortened either, that’s not a thing, they only play 17.

They need to expand replay and make more use of realtime corrections with the sky judge. They’ve been trending that way the last few years to very good effect IMO.

[southdakbearfan]

It’s a fast paced “game of inches”, there’s too much missed to go without replay. That would be an absolute disaster. The games don’t need to be shortened either, that’s not a thing, they only play 17.

They need to expand replay and make more use of realtime corrections with the sky judge. They’ve been trending that way the last few years to very good effect IMO.

But weren’t you one who was saying even the replayed calls in the chiefs bills game were jacked up a bit, like the dual catch/interception. If the replay can’t get it right, what’s the point of delaying the game.

I’m mostly joshing but part of me feels like the flow of the game is more important a lot of the time and the super close calls, well they won’t overturn it unless it’s definitive. It wouldn’t be a close call if it was definitive a lot of the time.

In actuality I am good with the sky judge and anything quick, but more endless replays I am not. The trend towards endless replays is a bad idea.

[dplank]

No I actually I never said anything of the sort. It’s an oddly touchy subject, don’t really understand why, but I laid out my issues quite clearly as did the data study that was posted.

[Grizzled]

The sky judge needs to be implemented stat. It becomes how much delay will people tolerate reviewing plays? Hard and fast list of reviewable offenses?

[dplank]

The sky judge needs to be implemented stat. It becomes how much delay will people tolerate reviewing plays? Hard and fast list of reviewable offenses?

I’m on board with quick reviews, that go essentially unnoticed unless they catch something, on every play without any restrictions - including penalties called (and in very specific cases like roughing you can even review a non call). And the criteria for making a change is it has to be immediately obvious. I agree that spending 5 minutes checking if a toe is inbounds or whatever is wasteful and for those it wouldn’t be “immediately obvious” so play on.

[dplank]

The sky judge needs to be implemented stat. It becomes how much delay will people tolerate reviewing plays? Hard and fast list of reviewable offenses?

I’m on board with quick reviews, that go essentially unnoticed unless they catch something, on every play without any restrictions - including penalties called (and in very specific cases like roughing and PU you can even review a non call). BUT… the criteria for making a change is it has to be immediately obvious. I agree that spending 5 minutes checking if a toe is inbounds or whatever is wasteful and for those it wouldn’t be “immediately obvious” so play on.

[Arkansasbear]

It’s a fast paced “game of inches”, there’s too much missed to go without replay. That would be an absolute disaster. The games don’t need to be shortened either, that’s not a thing, they only play 17.

They need to expand replay and make more use of realtime corrections with the sky judge. They’ve been trending that way the last few years to very good effect IMO.

It needs to either be nothing at all, or fix the problems that still exist that can be fixed. This half-assed approach they use is the worst outcome IMO. "Oh, if the rules were different we could address it." Either be able to fix stuff or just say it ruled on by what they refs see and they see what they see.

[HisRoyalSweetness]

Just make every play reviewable, calls or non-calls, but only with a coach's challenge.

The most ridiculous situations are those where the rules say a coach can't challenge. Why can some calls be challenged and not others? Why can non-calls not be challenged?

PI is a prime example. The outcome is usually huge and it's all subject to an official's split-second judgement. If he throws a flag erroneously there's nothing a coach can do about it. Equally if he doesn't throw a flag when he should then the coach still can't do anything about it. The same goes for other major penalties that result in big yardage, a first down or a score.

Give coaches 2 challenges per half and be done with it or maybe also continue to include scoring plays and turnovers automatically due to their significance.

[dplank]

Just make every play reviewable, calls or non-calls, but only with a coach's challenge.

The most ridiculous situations are those where the rules say a coach can't challenge. Why can some calls be challenged and not others? Why can non-calls not be challenged?

PI is a prime example. The outcome is usually huge and it's all subject to an official's split-second judgement. If he throws a flag erroneously there's nothing a coach can do about it. Equally if he doesn't throw a flag when he should then the coach still can't do anything about it. The same goes for other major penalties that result in big yardage, a first down or a score.

Give coaches 2 challenges per half and be done with it or maybe also continue to include scoring plays and turnovers automatically due to their significance.

I’m cool with this but it should still be augmented by the sky judge in the way it’s being used now - a realtime, no game delay review to correct obvious human errors.

It’s just adding one extra ref to the crew who has a better vantage point and tech at his/her fingertips. There to assist the ones on the field who are dealing with a lot of noise and obstruction