Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo

When "Indisputable Evidence" should not be the standard...


Do we want the Giants to beat the Eagles?  

119 members have voted

  1. 1. Do we want the Giants to beat the Eagles?

    • No, we need to worry about gaining ground on the Giants not getting ahead of the Eagles
    • You gotta want the Eagles to lose in hopes of really killing their season
    • As long a the skins win it does not matter either way, we just need a big win.

Recommended Posts

I first want to say that in general I am very happy with the review system the NFL currently has in place. I like the idea of trying to keep the game moving by discouraging too many instant replay challenges. Moreover, for most calls I think the standard of finding indisputable evidence to overturn is the right thing in the interest of maintaining the flow of the game and discouraging coaches from using challenges haphazardly.

BUT, sometimes I don't think this standard should be the way the refs review a call, and of course, I believe an example of that is the 2-point conversion call last Sunday. Now before you label me a blind homer, I think this logic ought to appeal to even non-Skins fans. First of all, the challenge came within 2:00 minutes and therefore came from the booth refs not a partisan coach. Second of all and most importantly, it was not like the ref saw what happened and made a call... he did not see what happened, entered the pile many moments after the play was over, pulled bodies away, and then determined that at this point (long after the play was over) the ball was across the goal line. In fact there are many plays where the ref is forced to base his call not on what he sees in the live action of the play, but what he discovers long after the play is over, such as fumble recoveries and any short yardage run. In these cases, if the ref cannot determine the outcome from what happens in live action, I believe the play ought to be reviewed purely from the perspective of getting the call right or at least determining the most probable outcome. So in the case of Alstott's run, it should not have had to be indisputable evidence to overturn, because the original call was based on nothing of any value. In a sense the replay call should have been made as though the ref had all those slow motion replays from all those angles as his original evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What ref is going to say, "I just guessed at the call. I got nothin."

Despite my instincts as a Redskins fan to think all refs are evil... I think if it became NFL policy, a ref would have no problem saying "I simply could not determine the outcome of that play during live action" and give way to the booth replay evidence. Refs step aside for other on-field refs all the time when they admit the other ref probably had a better view, so I don't think ego would be too much of a problem... that is of course only if the suggested method were made policy by the NFL.

The short-yardage and fumble recovery plays that are determined long after the play is over are in general crucial, game-changing plays. There really ought to be a emphasis in getting those particular calls right as much as humanly and technologically possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i stated on another tread that if this was not turned because of "lack" of evidence then why was the safety in Denver turned after the replay..What additional evidence was there? In addition if the push out of bounds can't be reviewed because it was a judgment call then why once again they didn't give us the safety in Denver when it ALSO was a judgement call. I mean how did the refs know that Plummer was tucking the ball back in, especially when the fumble was cause by his thigh. I don't know about you guys but if I am tucking a football back after trying to throw it it will not be "tucked" anywhere near my thigh.

Its BS calls and replays like these that make the game "much less" than it should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I posted recently in another thread, in the final two minutes, on scoring plays, replay should be used to substantiate the score, not overrule it.

Look, if the runner/receiver runs into the endzone untouched, it's not difficult for replay to substantiate the score. Why should a score be accepted as valid when there is absolutely no visual evidence that it's so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the system matters... rules are not going to out-ref the bad ref'ing. There was bad ref'ing before instant replay, there is bad ref'ing now. Once I thought instant replay would improve that. One of the few things I have ever gone 180-degrees on - instant replay has done nothing to improve ref'ing. If anything it has only made it even more outrageous & unforgivable to get it wrong just as much as they use to.

Got to get better officials. I think it is laughable a multi-billion$ entity like the NFL doesn't use full-time refs. Riggins has been riding this one for about a decade too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...