Instant Replay Has Ruined The NFL.

[TonyB0D]

and the lack of replay has ruined baseball

[Cathal]

^^^^ So true. I don't even care about baseball but I saw the replay of the team the Yankees were playing where the Yankee guy tagged out the base runner WAY before he even touched the base but was ruled safe. That kind of stuff just ruins a game, IMO. I know baseball purists like to say, well, there will always be the human element in there that makes bad calls. I don't buy it. Just like in soccer.

[Brian Fein]

Instant replay takes the opinions out of the equation and introduces facts.  In a day where people bet on games, and NBA officials are accused of rigging games, you MUST have instant replay.  Who cares if it takes 15 minutes longer, as long as the call is correct.

[Phishfan]

Pappy stands alone on this one.

I do have one question for him though. If you do not care about the length of the game, why did you ever use it as a complaining point in your original post? It seems to me you do have some sort of issue with the length of games, otherwise you would not even mention it. In fact, you made it your starting point of complaints and then switched to something else (the intent of instant replay).

[Brian Fein]

^^ Pappy wasn't the original poster.

[Phishfan]

Wow. I'm still fuzzy headed this morning. Now it makes a bit more sense to me.

[suck for luck]

Still recovering from that Taco Tech beatdown?   

[Spider-Dan]

I'm not going to argue with you. Calls WERE being made that were CLEARLY wrong on replay. One look at a replay and it was OBVIOUS.

But the call was not CLEARLY wrong when it was originally called, or the officials would have huddled together and fixed it.  Furthermore, every call that is overturned on replay today is CLEARLY wrong (by rule, clear visual evidence is required).  If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm listening.

That's the policy, but I don't believe it's called that way.

It sounds like your real objection is that instant replay is not being enforced as the rules state it should be.  If so, provide examples.

They don't even explain it the same way that they use to. When they didn't reverse a call they used to simply say "after further review the call stands". Now they say "After further review the call is confirmed". Why did they make that change?

That is nothing more than PR.  Are you really complaining about the way the referee explains the result?

edit: I didn't see the STL@MIA game and I hear that there were two questionable overturned calls that went against the Dolphins, which explains both the existence of this thread and the unusual positions being taken.

[Fins4ever]

Pappy stands alone on this one.

I do have one question for him though. If you do not care about the length of the game, why did you ever use it as a complaining point in your original post? It seems to me you do have some sort of issue with the length of games, otherwise you would not even mention it. In fact, you made it your starting point of complaints and then switched to something else (the intent of instant replay).

Hey,

I was the original poster and just threw the topic out there for debate, but yes, I do feel the games have no continuity and are too long. It is 1 or 2 plays and either a flag or a review. I do think it has hurt the game. The NFL has become so afraid of making a mistake, the game has suffered.

How did the NFL survive before all the technology? Uh, very well thank you. Were there bad calls during the Lombardi, Shula, Laundry eras. Yes. But heck, there are bad calls today, it just takes longer. lol

BTW, I expected to be in the minority, but not 20 to 1. lol

[Spider-Dan]

How did the NFL survive before all the technology? Uh, very well thank you. Were there bad calls during the Lombardi, Shula, Laundry eras. Yes.

However, in those days the TV networks didn't have 50 cameras placed at virtually every angle, and you didn't have 24-hour sports networks (and the internet) obsessing over a blown call (particularly if it affected the outcome of a game).

I still remember the call that resulted in instant replay coming back: the Phantom Touchdown by Testaverde against the Seahawks.  Even back then, ESPN showed it over and over:



There is simply no way that we could go back to a non-instant-replay NFL without DRASTICALLY cutting back on the number of cameras covering the game.  It would be a complete debacle.

[bsfins]

I'm all for Instant replay,this isn't baseball (Where I also think it should implemented more,and Where my point in the Best officials thread about how much NFL officials have to cover versus Baseball hold true) Football officials have to make calls in the middle of multiple large people in scrums,and have to make lots of different calls,from a a distance...They can't always be in the perfect spot to see all the angles of what's happening...

To the original posters point,this year with checking with replay every turnover,and every touch down has slowed the game,but I feel By the end of the year,even that will be faster with all the regular officials back on the job....I still think it's a good thing...

A bad call costing a game in the NFL,Is HUGE versus the other sports.You have to get it right....16 games schedule,difference is in the playoffs,out of the playoffs...

[Pappy13]

I do have one question for him though. If you do not care about the length of the game, why did you ever use it as a complaining point in your original post?

Wrong guy. I wasn't the OP. Thanks to those that pointed that out already.

[Pappy13]

But the call was not CLEARLY wrong when it was originally called, or the officials would have huddled together and fixed it.

Is it your stance that officials on the field have NEVER made a CLEARLY wrong call? I disagree with this premise.

Furthermore, every call that is overturned on replay today is CLEARLY wrong (by rule, clear visual evidence is required).

Is it your stance that every call that has been overturned was CLEARLY wrong? I disagree with this premise as well.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm listening.

I don't have evidence I only have my opinion.

It sounds like your real objection is that instant replay is not being enforced as the rules state it should be.  If so, provide examples.

The fumble call in the Miami game works for me. Not the QB sack which was more a rules interpretation, but the one against the receiver. In my opinion there was not clear visual evidence that his knee was down prior to losing control of the football. It was very close and it's possible that it was, but the angles that I saw you couldn't really tell when the knee touched down as opposed to when the football started coming loose. It was too close to make a definative call. In my opinion that was not clear visual evidence it was a judgement call from the referee that reviewed the play. In my opinion he should have let that call stand since there wasn't clear visual evidence. He apparently disagreed with me.

That is nothing more than PR.  Are you really complaining about the way the referee explains the result?

I'm not complaining about it, I'm saying it's indicative of the way the NFL is using the replay system today. They want every call to be RIGHT which is a very lofty goal and admirable, but I'm not sure is theoretically possible at least not now and at least not during the course of the game. Maybe perhaps one day video replay will be so exact that it will be possible to determine the exact moment that a fumble occurs or the exact moment that a knee touches the ground, but I don't think we are to that point yet. Until that point I think the officials on the field shouldn't be second guessed unless there's good reason to do that. A judgement call is not good enough reason since the official on the field made a judgement call himself.

edit: I didn't see the STL@MIA game and I hear that there were two questionable overturned calls that went against the Dolphins, which explains both the existence of this thread and the unusual positions being taken.

I stated my position prior to the STL@MIA game. I stated it on September 24th when the replacement refs were being discussed. http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=20444.msg268081#msg268081

"I'm not so sure about that call either. It's very close, but I thought that the defensive back knocked the ball out of Fasano's hands well after he was on the ground with the ball secured. He didn't drop the ball as part of completing the catch, the defensive back knocked it out of his hands well after he hit the ground. I think that could be ruled a catch. Again they replayed it and didn't reverse it. I think the replay officials are doing an OUTSTANDING job. The whole purpose of instant replay was to overturn CLEARLY wrong calls. If it's not CLEAR the call was wrong then the call on the field should stand. That's how instant replay was originally drawn up. Now I know things have changed a little since then and it's more about the replay officials making whatever they THINK is the right call, but I don't think they should be doing that. I think they should be reviewing and if it's CLEARLY wrong they should overturn it, but if it's NOT conclusive evidence than they should let the call on the field stand. They seem to be doing that this year and I personally like it. That's the way it SHOULD be in my opinion."

[Pappy13]

I still remember the call that resulted in instant replay coming back: the Phantom Touchdown by Testaverde against the Seahawks.  Even back then, ESPN showed it over and over:

Wasn't this an example of a play where the refs clearly got the call wrong? This is the type of play that I was referring to. This is what got instant replay back into the game after being taken out. I don't recall the plays that got it into the NFL in the first place. That was a while ago.

[fyo]

In my opinion there was not clear visual evidence that his knee was down prior to losing control of the football. It was very close and it's possible that it was, but the angles that I saw you couldn't really tell when the knee touched down as opposed to when the football started coming loose. It was too close to make a definative call. In my opinion that was not clear visual evidence it was a judgement call from the referee that reviewed the play. In my opinion he should have let that call stand since there wasn't clear visual evidence. He apparently disagreed with me.

You're mistaken about the call. The refs determined that the ball was never CAUGHT, not that the knee was down prior to the ball coming out. If you want to argue that no one seems to understand when a ball is actually caught, then that's certainly reasonable!