Why not just go ahead and make everything up for challenge under the same rules? Why some calls are reviewable and some are not doesn’t make any sense. If the HC wants to challenge let him challenge. He still only gets 2.
- - - Updated - - -
Dammit Sue you beat me to it. I found this article that also explains how the Saints benefited from the Steelers game. https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...rference-call/
To bad they don't look at the Steelers vs LA Chargers game to see other times the officiating cost us a game. Funny that the league doesn't want to shed a negative light on LA.
IMO opening up PI to replay review will not end well given who will be setting up the standard of review.
Amid jubilation from coaches and notable relief from owners, the man who must convert this overdue and complicated change into a credible reality stood quietly to the side. Al Riveron, the league's senior vice president of officiating, faces months of difficult work before teams head to training camp in July.
Atop his list: establishing a consistent standard for overturning the judgment of officials on the field.Replay isn't intended to re-officiate calls on the field, but instead to correct clear and obvious mistakes. It's one thing to decide whether a player clearly fumbled or crossed the goal line, the kind of objective decisions replay has been assisting for years. But it's quite another to judge whether one player materially restricted another from catching the ball. A number of coaches who supported some level of officiating intervention this week appeared fearful that a "clear and obvious" standard would be difficult to find.
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2...w-rule-changes
Since there's contact on almost every play, I can't wait for teams to dial up the 50-yard moonball, deliberately underthrow it to make contact inevitable, then throw the challenge flag. Patriots will do this with 2:10 to go in every half, adding one more tool to their bag of scummy cheating tricks.
And Joe Flacco's value just went through the roof! Guy may finally have that "elite" status he's been grabbing at for over a decade.
AFCCG: Broncos vs. Patriots, calling it now.
See you Space Cowboy ...
And they'll STILL manage to get it wrong half the time...
And this will be the biggest issue. The 'booth' reviews the facts... did the ball come out before down, did the ball cross the goal line/line to gain prior, was he out of bounds... all areas of "clear" recognition. The booth guys are not officials. Not sure any of them actually know the rule book, let alone could interpret it with what is almost always a judgement call. Coincidental contact... hand fighting... those are some of the gray areas "judgement" usually lets go. So, yeah, I think they could only really overturn something "clear and obvious" as stated above. The problem is going to be when the coaches challenge expecting more of what they may think is egregious. So, if they are going to do this, they should have added in PI as a 15 yard penalty, not the current spot foul, imo.
They should have done that long ago anyway. Spot foul is a joke. First-and-goal from the 1 for a free touchdown is a joke as well.
"But omg defenders would just mug receivers any time they're beaten!"
No they wouldn't. 15 yards and a first down is a BIG deal, and things move too fast for the defender to go "I have no chance AND the receiver is definitely going to catch it AND the tradeoff is worth it AND I am in range to tackle him but not in range to make the play, so it's worth it - ah shit, the ball already went past and the guy ran into the end zone 15 seconds ago while I was thinking about that instead of reacting."
No, they just try to make a play like always.
Is there an epidemic of college DBs mugging the receiver on every long pass play? No? Then 15 yards is not an issue.
See you Space Cowboy ...
Too bad they didn't have this when Gronk was still playing. He got mugged on every play.
These rule changes happen a year too late, unless you're the Patriots******, they then make up a rule on the spot like that Raider game