Vikings Message Board.Com

I didn't read the article yet, but I agree with the headline at least. Mainly on an offsides or false start. And facemask penalties. Objective stuff, not like holding or pass interference.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

In theory its good and idea it has too clear issues, that can be proven.

The other big issue is game stoppage .. 4 hour games or longer would hurt the game.

The refs need to held to very high standard and dumped, if they can't almost everything right.

I think that's a terrible idea so I hope it doesn't go anywhere. It's just going to slow down games even more and we've already seen that replay calls can be just as subjective and/or misguided as calls on the field. As long as humans are involved, calls will be missed and there will be controversy. They need to speed the game up and make it less complicated, not slow it down and find reasons to take even more TV commercial breaks.

Is it more important to have a quick game or a well called game? I understand that calls will never be perfect, but they are more likely to better if the officials can look at them again at different angles.

Honestly, I haven't even read the article, so I'm not sure what my stance is yet. I'm just throwing ideas out there.

Mothman wrote:I think that's a terrible idea so I hope it doesn't go anywhere. It's just going to slow down games even more and we've already seen that replay calls can be just as subjective and/or misguided as calls on the field. As long as humans are involved, calls will be missed and there will be controversy. They need to speed the game up and make it less complicated, not slow it down and find reasons to take even more TV commercial breaks.

I agree, Jim. I understand scoring plays and turnovers to an extent but this seems like a slippery slope. Of course, if the NFL frames it under the guise of "improving the accuracy of the game" as a way to sell more ads during commercials I could see it absolutely happening. And, depending on how it is enacted, it could be very limited (one or two additional coaching challenges per game?) and not an automatic replay (I hope). As sad as I am to say it, it's not like it'll probably start dissuading a lot of fans from watching. The NFL would really have to start doing something dramatic to start losing viewership/money from the beast it has created. As much as fans might complain about it, it could be a small change that probably won't cause too much of a kerfuffle if kept limited (and sped up). Wasn't that one of the things they were trying to do this year, that being speeding up replays? Any articles out there that has shown replay duration or overall game length compared to previous seasons? Just curious.

I don't think the games are that much slower because of replay. The commercial breaks for every change of possesion are what irritates me.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

DKSweets wrote:Is it more important to have a quick game or a well called game? I understand that calls will never be perfect, but they are more likely to better if the officials can look at them again at different angles.

I'm not sure that's true. I think the officials on the field might just be more likely to second guess themselves on those subjective calls if they know that basically everything they do can be subject to review. I remember a lot of that going on back when replay was first employed by the league (in the late 1980s). Overall, I think the games are pretty well officiated. There have always been bad or frustrating calls and there will always be bad or frustrating calls. Replay hasn't put an end to that even on currently reviewable plays and, as you said, they'll never achieve perfection.

So, is it more important to have a quick game or a well-called game? That's a good question. I think it's best to strike a balance and I feel like it's already a bit imbalanced (ie: slow). Then again, I'm not a big advocate of replay. I think the current, challenge-oriented system is a more of an attempt to placate fans (and gamblers!) than a sincere effort to make sure games are actually called correctly and I don't think adding more reviewable plays will help much. Frankly, I'd much rather see the NFL greatly simplify it's rulebook and take a lot of the technicalities out of officiating.

dead_poet wrote:I agree, Jim. I understand scoring plays and turnovers to an extent but this seems like a slippery slope. Of course, if the NFL frames it under the guise of "improving the accuracy of the game" as a way to sell more ads during commercials I could see it absolutely happening. And, depending on how it is enacted, it could be very limited (one or two additional coaching challenges per game?) and not an automatic replay (I hope). As sad as I am to say it, it's not like it'll probably start dissuading a lot of fans from watching. The NFL would really have to start doing something dramatic to start losing viewership/money from the beast it has created. As much as fans might complain about it, it could be a small change that probably won't cause too much of a kerfuffle if kept limited (and sped up). Wasn't that one of the things they were trying to do this year, that being speeding up replays? Any articles out there that has shown replay duration or overall game length compared to previous seasons? Just curious.

I'm not aware of any but there's probably something. It's the NFL! Everything gets explored.

By the way, I agree with your entire take above. Good post.

No. Way.

Games would be over 4 hours! That's just too much replay. It would end up like basketball, which there's a timeout and a replay every other possession. Totally kills the flow of the game and it's a pain in the #### to watch.

What they need to do is make these refs full-time. Make them better at their craft.

Eliminate the first two change of possession commercials in a game. Give each coach one penalty challenge flag.

I'm not sure I like challenging for a penalty, however, I'm in favor of the entire play being under review including a penalty. If you go to review a turnover and the guy got his facemask yanked before fumbling, take that into account. This includes regular challenges like scoring plays. It's also something that bugs me about the NBA reviews. If you're going to review if the guy made the basket in time, review the whole play, not just the clock. You're already stopping and checking the tape.

This may let the coaches challenge a completed pass or something along those lines to encourage the ref to check for a penalty, but they wouldn't get any more challenges or anything else.

Crax wrote:I'm not sure I like challenging for a penalty, however, I'm in favor of the entire play being under review including a penalty. If you go to review a turnover and the guy got his facemask yanked before fumbling, take that into account. This includes regular challenges like scoring plays. It's also something that bugs me about the NBA reviews. If you're going to review if the guy made the basket in time, review the whole play, not just the clock. You're already stopping and checking the tape.

This may let the coaches challenge a completed pass or something along those lines to encourage the ref to check for a penalty, but they wouldn't get any more challenges or anything else.

That seems like a perfect solution