Replay--Gun to your head rule.

[supersmartbrunell5]

Is anyone else tired of the instant replay system being treated like the American legal system? This whole indisputable evidence/burden of proof thing sucks in my opinion. Of course when a play initially happens the ref must make a call on the field, I understand this. How many times are those calls flat out guesses though? What else can a man do when players are flying around the field tip-toing around precise lines and they are asked to make a judgment in real time. If you are going to waste the time of millions of people involved with watching and playing this game then have the replay mean something. I propose the “gun-to-your-head-rule.” If there was a gun to your head by someone who knew for whatever reason what the correct call was, what choice would you make. Now, if it is simply too close to tell, you go with the ruling on the field. But, if you are 60% sure the call should be overturned, but indisputable evidence classifies as maybe 90%, then overturn the call. Simple as that. Get the game right, don’t be loyal to a call that you made in real time because you had to, when really you had no idea if that call was right, its stupid. There are only a certain number of challenges a game so this won’t take away the human element, only add to accuracy. It would’ve given us the Bucs game. Thoughts?

[NOVA2Tampa]

Is anyone else tired of the instant replay system being treated like the American legal system? This whole indisputable evidence/burden of proof thing sucks in my opinion. Of course when a play initially happens the ref must make a call on the field, I understand this. How many times are those calls flat out guesses though? What else can a man do when players are flying around the field tip-toing around precise lines and they are asked to make a judgment in real time. If you are going to waste the time of millions of people involved with watching and playing this game then have the replay mean something. I propose the “gun-to-your-head-rule.” If there was a gun to your head by someone who knew for whatever reason what the correct call was, what choice would you make. Now, if it is simply too close to tell, you go with the ruling on the field. But, if you are 60% sure the call should be overturned, but indisputable evidence classifies as maybe 90%, then overturn the call. Simple as that. Get the game right, don’t be loyal to a call that you made in real time because you had to, when really you had no idea if that call was right, its stupid. There are only a certain number of challenges a game so this won’t take away the human element, only add to accuracy. It would’ve given us the Bucs game. Thoughts?

When you get to the point that the refs are scared to make the wrong call, they will actually make MORE bad calls, not less.

[LaVarIsDaMan]

wait.... what?

[Mooka]

Indisputable evidence classifies as 100%, hence indisputable.

There is no 60% sure, that means your not sure. If the ref isn't sure, he shouldn't be able to change a call.

[supersmartbrunell5]

Indisputable evidence classifies as 100%, hence indisputable.

There is no 60% sure, that means your not sure. If the ref isn't sure, he shouldn't be able to change a call.

Yeah but what I'm saying is that if you are 60% sure that a guy is out of bounds when you watch the replay, but you called him in bounds in real time because you had to make a call and it was too fast to tell, then overturn it. These things come down to inches, it is sometimes too fast in realtime, you shouldn't need blatancy in the replay to overturn a call on the field that was made about a 1 inch difference called from 20ft. away from the play.

[PCRoughrider]

Actually, I was going to start a thread like this but I was going to call it the "Bigfoot Rule".

For a score (touchdown or two-point conversion) to be confirmed by replay, there has to be, at least, one clear, unobstructed video image of the ball, crossing the plane. I don't think actually seeing the ball cross the plane of the goal is too much to ask!

[Mooka]

Yeah but what I'm saying is that if you are 60% sure that a guy is out of bounds when you watch the replay, but you called him in bounds in real time because you had to make a call and it was too fast to tell, then overturn it. These things come down to inches, it is sometimes too fast in realtime, you shouldn't need blatancy in the replay to overturn a call on the field that was made about a 1 inch difference called from 20ft. away from the play.

heh, theres no 60% sure. Your either sure or not.

I think your point is if the ref is sure that a call was wrong, but there isn't indisputable visual evidence. Like a guy is clearly down, a fumble is called on the field, but there isn't a camera angle that can clearly see the guy touching the ground. Is that what you mean?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yeah but what I'm saying is that if you are 60% sure that a guy is out of bounds when you watch the replay, but you called him in bounds in real time because you had to make a call and it was too fast to tell, then overturn it.

60% how in the world do you measure 60% certainty? What gauge will be used to determine this 60%, is it a tickle in your tummy or something a little more vague? How can you determine whether you're 60% sure he was inbounds or if you are only 35%, 45%, or even 59% sure? This is so arbitrary and would eventually lead to more and more arguments and more bad calls being made or overturned. If you want real chaos in the league have a ref stand out on the 50 yard line and have him tell 80,000 Super Bowl fans that he's 60% sure that Rothlesburger broke the plane with the ball and thus the ruling stands. Percentages are useful in predicting the weather, and this isn't the weather.

[supersmartbrunell5]

heh, theres no 60% sure. Your either sure or not.

I think your point is if the ref is sure that a call was wrong, but there isn't indisputable visual evidence. Like a guy is clearly down, a fumble is called on the field, but there isn't a camera angle that can clearly see the guy touching the ground. Is that what you mean?

Yeah that's pretty much what I'm saying.

[supersmartbrunell5]

60% how in the world do you measure 60% certainty? What gauge will be used to determine this 60%, is it a tickle in your tummy or something a little more vague? How can you determine whether you're 60% sure he was inbounds or if you are only 35%, 45%, or even 59% sure? This is so arbitrary and would eventually lead to more and more arguments and more bad calls being made or overturned. If you want real chaos in the league have a ref stand out on the 50 yard line and have him tell 80,000 Super Bowl fans that he's 60% sure that Rothlesburger broke the plane with the ball and thus the ruling stands. Percentages are useful in predicting the weather, and this isn't the weather.

The 60% was just a number I used(in other words you think 6 out of 10, or the majority of people would agree with you if they were to look) to emulate this point: Regardless of what was called on the field, if you go in that booth, you call what you think is right , without indisputable evidence, you call what you think is right, the call on the field is only used if it there is pretty much no way at all of being able to tell (i.e. kentucky vs. Michigan state NCAA tournament basketball last year, Patrick Sparks foot on the line, there was no way to tell whether his foot was on the line or not)

[AsburySkinsFan]

The 60% was just a number I used(in other words you think 6 out of 10, or the majority of people would agree with you if they were to look) to emulate this point: Regardless of what was called on the field, if you go in that booth, you call what you think is right , without indisputable evidence, you call what you think is right, the call on the field is only used if it there is pretty much no way at all of being able to tell (i.e. kentucky vs. Michigan state NCAA tournament basketball last year, Patrick Sparks foot on the line, there was no way to tell whether his foot was on the line or not)

I understand that the 60% was just a number you were using, but at some point the ref must make the decision to let the play stand or overturn. He can't go around asking everyone in the both and taking an informal poll. I've been watching football for 20 years and I like the instant replay rule as it is now more than I have at any other time in the replay's history. If there is not indisputable evidence then you have to rely upon the referee's initial decision. Will mistakes happen, sure they do all the time, but have they been cut down on with the way things are? Oh yeah. If refs think that there will always be a video to back them up they will become lazy and really if that were the case what would be the need of having refs to begin with? Let the refs make the calls, and overturn only on indisputable evidence. Rely on the refs, and challenge them to do better when they mess up.

[Jimbo]

I believe, especially in the Super Bowl, that it's better to not make any call at all than to make a call and get it wrong or have it scrutinized by the entire nation.

When we end up seeing calls you don't see very often (Offensive PI and the low block thing on Hasselback) while normal calls like illegal contact, defensive PI or offsides get ignored, you wonder if there's an attitude of "We're the creme of the crop referee crew and we see what others don't"? Would football fans in general have been more accepting and said the refs did a good job had the Offensive PI and Holding penalties not been called?

I don't have a problem with the Burger TD call although I wish they'd just come out and say "There's no indisputible evidence to overturn the call on the field". It would certainly be easier to accept than to think this guy under the hood saw something most of us didn't see. I, for one, wouldn't consider that a copout. I also would not have had a problem with calling Steven's "drop" a fumble just like I didn't have a problem with them saying Hasselback fumbled even though it was overturned.

While possession-type calls can often be overruled by review, except the idiotic down-by-contact-because-the-whistle-blew call, it's the controversial judgement calls that gall most of us. Holding, pass interference, low block by a tackler (a stupid rule no matter how you slice it) and illegal contact should probably be somewhat overlooked, unless totally obvious, in a game of this magnitude. When in doubt, leave the flag in your pocket and let the players play.

[DjTj]

So instead of basing NFL rules on the American legal system, with its stupid ideas like innocent until proven guilty, trial by jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc. you want to base your NFL rules on the Soviet legal system, where a KGB agent stands next to the referee with a shotgun, and if Madden says he's wrong, he pulls the trigger ...it would definitely make the games more interesting...

:paranoid:

[supersmartbrunell5]

So instead of basing NFL rules on the American legal system, with its stupid ideas like innocent until proven guilty, trial by jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc. you want to base your NFL rules on the Soviet legal system, where a KGB agent stands next to the referee with a shotgun, and if Madden says he's wrong, he pulls the trigger ...it would definitely make the games more interesting...

:paranoid:

haha...i mean, my basic point is the in our legal system you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which every person deserves. But in football, every call on the field is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, only I don't think those calls deserve that protection when it comes to things like having a ref decide from the pilon whether the nose of a football crossed at least one centimeter of the goal line. Make sense?

[Redskins Diehard]

Maintaining the American legal system analogy. Make it more like a civil trial where the burden of proof is "more likely than not" vs criminal trial where the burden is "beyond a reasonable doubt"...but actually the NFL doesn't even allow for a reasonable doubt.

[fight_on_til_you_have_won]

When you get to the point that the refs are scared to make the wrong call, they will actually make MORE bad calls, not less.

:1stplace:

That's my biggest complaint about the instant replay system.

[supersmartbrunell5]

I understand that the 60% was just a number you were using, but at some point the ref must make the decision to let the play stand or overturn. He can't go around asking everyone in the both and taking an informal poll. I've been watching football for 20 years and I like the instant replay rule as it is now more than I have at any other time in the replay's history. If there is not indisputable evidence then you have to rely upon the referee's initial decision. Will mistakes happen, sure they do all the time, but have they been cut down on with the way things are? Oh yeah. If refs think that there will always be a video to back them up they will become lazy and really if that were the case what would be the need of having refs to begin with? Let the refs make the calls, and overturn only on indisputable evidence. Rely on the refs, and challenge them to do better when they mess up.

Obviously you don't see a problem with the talk of the 2005-06 NFL season, namely the playoffs and Superbowl being about the referees. We've given them chance after chance, besides this would not have anything to with the number of challenges, and they do always have video to back them up, this changes none of that. All this does is fails to lend creedance to idiotic calls on the field like the Polamolu interception or calls on the field like Big Bens td dive where there is no possible way when it happens in real time for you to know if the nose of the ball cross one centimeter of the one foot line. The informal poll thing you mentioned is again you taking things literally when im speaking hypothetically and metaphorically. Im giving suggestions to change something that is obviously wrong since everyone in the country has been complaining about it and your suggestion is to keep trusting the refs when everyone at home and in the broadcast booth thinks the call is different (Polamalu, Mike Alstott vs skins) than the referree.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The informal poll thing you mentioned is again you taking things literally when im speaking hypothetically and metaphorically. Im giving suggestions to change something that is obviously wrong since everyone in the country has been complaining about it and your suggestion is to keep trusting the refs when everyone at home and in the broadcast booth thinks the call is different (Polamalu, Mike Alstott vs skins) than the referree.

Ok, then speak literally, because you are calling for literal changes but everything you are suggesting is supposedly done in the metaphorical sense. Give real solutions. You mentioned 60%, gun to the head, consensus on particular calls, from what you have said these are metaphorical, so what are you calling for?

The problem is that there are no real solutions that will be perfect all the time outside of a video replay on each and every play with a mini committee to examine each play, and even then there are going to be plays like the Rothlesberger TD on which people will still complain about. The reality is that as long as we rely on refs there will be mistakes made. Just think of it as job security for those at PTI, Around the Horn, and SportsCenter.

[thelarkascend1ng]

because you can definitely quantify 60% "sureness".

every year this kind of stuff comes up and every year there are some bad calls. every year people think that it's a new crisis, but i guarantee you that nothing will be done.

you can't just assume that the refs "guess", just because that's the way their reaction appears on tv. ever watch Game of the Week and hear the mic feed they get from the ref when he is conferencing with coaches, other refs, etc? they are really into it, they are very active, and for the most part they are very good. we had some stupid calls this season, but so did everyone else.

[Seabee1973]

I believe, especially in the Super Bowl, that it's better to not make any call at all than to make a call and get it wrong or have it scrutinized by the entire nation.

When we end up seeing calls you don't see very often (Offensive PI and the low block thing on Hasselback) while normal calls like illegal contact, defensive PI or offsides get ignored, you wonder if there's an attitude of "We're the creme of the crop referee crew and we see what others don't"? Would football fans in general have been more accepting and said the refs did a good job had the Offensive PI and Holding penalties not been called?

I don't have a problem with the Burger TD call although I wish they'd just come out and say "There's no indisputible evidence to overturn the call on the field". It would certainly be easier to accept than to think this guy under the hood saw something most of us didn't see. I, for one, wouldn't consider that a copout. I also would not have had a problem with calling Steven's "drop" a fumble just like I didn't have a problem with them saying Hasselback fumbled even though it was overturned.

While possession-type calls can often be overruled by review, except the idiotic down-by-contact-because-the-whistle-blew call, it's the controversial judgement calls that gall most of us. Holding, pass interference, low block by a tackler (a stupid rule no matter how you slice it) and illegal contact should probably be somewhat overlooked, unless totally obvious, in a game of this magnitude. When in doubt, leave the flag in your pocket and let the players play.

usually when they say the call stands that is what implies to is that there was no justification to overturn it

[Heavy Jumbo]

I thought the whole point of the Instant Replay system was to prevent bad calls from being made, not create more bad calls :whoknows:

[Tarhog]

I said after the TB botched TD call, the game would benefit from allowing the refs to rule a play inconclusive and THEN go to instant replay. You saw it again in the SB - theres enormous pressure for that referee to make a call, TD, or no TD. You can always tell by the body language when they run in and don't immediately make the call that they're not sure. Once you make the call, you've created a false reality that then has to be disproved. Why is it wrong to simply say 'we're calling a replay timeout' to determine the correct call without making an initial call. I think you'd find the accuracy of many calls going way up.

[Josh90286]

Why is it wrong to simply say 'we're calling a replay timeout' to determine the correct call without making an initial call. I think you'd find the accuracy of many calls going way up.

While that is the best way in my opinion, i dont see it happening. I could never see the NFL allowing the refs to not make a call until after a review. But I see your point, and it would definately raise accuracy because the whole "indisputable to overturn" concept is thrown out.

Could you imagine Ben's run then the referee's running down the goal line making no signal at all, standing around talking for a minute then going to the replay without ever making a signal? IMO, it would make them look incompetent or stupid even though they are doing what should be done if they couldn't tell in real time.

[supersmartbrunell5]

I said after the TB botched TD call, the game would benefit from allowing the refs to rule a play inconclusive and THEN go to instant replay. You saw it again in the SB - theres enormous pressure for that referee to make a call, TD, or no TD. You can always tell by the body language when they run in and don't immediately make the call that they're not sure. Once you make the call, you've created a false reality that then has to be disproved. Why is it wrong to simply say 'we're calling a replay timeout' to determine the correct call without making an initial call. I think you'd find the accuracy of many calls going way up.

My thoughts exactly...

[RLeVan]

This will fix all replay problems.

All plays are reviewable, even non-calls. Timeouts and number of challenges remain the same. If you challenge a call and lose because of a lack of indisputable evidence, you may use one of your Rock-Paper-Scissor challenges.

Each team is allowed one Rock-Paper-Scissor challenge per half. If a team loses a challenge, they lose a timeout. If they lose a Rock-Paper-Scissor challenge, they lose an additional timeout. If no timeouts are available, then the Rock-Paper-Scissor challenge cannot be used.

A Rock-Paper-Scissor challenge is initiated as follows. The red challenge flag is thrown on the field. Both coaches then meet at the 50yd line along with the head referee. All players and coaches must return to their respective sidelines during this challenge. On the count of three, each coach must display, using his/her right hand, their choice of Rock, Paper or Scissor. If both coaches choose the same thing, another round begins. If either coach fails to show a choice at the count of three, all timeouts are lost for that coaches team.

If a coach loses a Rock-Paper-Scissor challenge, his team loses an additional timeout. If he wins, the call is reversed in his teams favor, timeouts are restored to what they were prior to the initial challenge and the losing coach loses one timeout.

Rock-Paper-Scissor challenges are not reviewable by instant replay.