shk75 Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 Man after another ref taking away a TD from an opposing team (fumble recovery by Seattle in last nights game) it has gotten to the point where the NFL has to say look if the ball is on the ground or if someone is running free do not blow the whistle! I mean last night the guy from Seattle picked up the fumble, ran 40 yards and then they blow the whistle. What is the point there? If you let him run that far without blowing it why blow it at all. The same with the Randle El play a couple of weeks ago. I mean how hard is it to just let the play go and then review it??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 i agree and they can always call it back if there is no whistle. but you cant say "well he would have scored so we should give it to them". just let them play and sort it out afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TL8583 Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 Oh, I agree with you. It seems rather selective, though (IMO). What was the final score for the Seahawks v. Bucs? I fell asleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoney26 Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 I cant believe the owners havent tried to change that rule. It happens at least once a week and its been happening for years. The whole situation needs to be overhauled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 Agreed. This off-season, the policy needs to be changed where they keep the whistles out of their mouths unless they are 100% sure of something. You can always add time back on the clock and correct the play if it was truly incomplete, down by contact, out of bounds, etc. Since you cannot correct it once the whistle blows, they should do whatever they can NOT to blow them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shk75 Posted October 20, 2008 Author Share Posted October 20, 2008 Oh, I agree with you. It seems rather selective, though (IMO).What was the final score for the Seahawks v. Bucs? I fell asleep. I think it was Bucs 20-10. The thing I do not like is, fine if they would have blown the whistle right when he picked it up ok. But why wait until he runs 40 yards???? It makes no sense to wait that long and then blow it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamshatterer Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 This is why the NFL needs to adopt what College football does. 3 guys watching every single play up in a booth and making all of the decisions with state of the art replay equipment. The main ref on the field just put head phones on and is told what to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TL8583 Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 I think it was Bucs 20-10. The thing I do not like is, fine if they would have blown the whistle right when he picked it up ok. But why wait until he runs 40 yards???? It makes no sense to wait that long and then blow it. Thanks : ) I do agree. When I say it's selective, I mean that they'll blow the whistle late sometimes, but then they won't blow it at all - depending on who has the ball. It's probably the way that I'm seeing it, but sometimes it feels like it's not happening across the board. (as I'm sure you know.) I agree with everyone that has said that they should just not blow the whistle (late), let the play continue and sort it out after if there questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointyfootball Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 I'm a contrarian wrt to this issue. I actually think instant replay should only be used in issues of scoring (TDs & FGs) and turnovers. Bad calls are part of the game and we all hate them, but no matter what they will always exist. Having every play potentially reviewable takes away from the flow of the game and makes it almost unwatchable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shk75 Posted October 20, 2008 Author Share Posted October 20, 2008 I'm a contrarian wrt to this issue. I actually think instant replay should only be used in issues of scoring (TDs & FGs) and turnovers. Bad calls are part of the game and we all hate them, but no matter what they will always exist. Having every play potentially reviewable takes away from the flow of the game and makes it almost unwatchable. Ok so you do not like replay that is fine. I can understand that point of view...you are old school. But I am saying why do you wait soooo long to blow the whistle. That is the part that really has me baffled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muzzah Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 Refs are ruining games left and right. They are dictating who can win and lose games like in the San Diego v Denver game earlier this season. They are so oblivious and clueless, and when they miss something they just blow the whistle for no reason. I understand that they are just human, but they sorely need to practice and freshen up their officiating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointyfootball Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 Ok so you do not like replay that is fine. I can understand that point of view...you are old school. But I am saying why do you wait soooo long to blow the whistle. That is the part that really has me baffled. *streaking in the quad!* I'm not 100% against instant replay - just don't think it should be used excessively. I didn't see the play in question, but are we certain that it wasn't blown earlier and the players/other refs just didn't hear it? Only other reasons I can think of are: 1) Refs are "scared" to blow to early, and 2) confusion over who was responsible to blow it dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.