Instant Replay

[bubba9497]

Despite beating the Broncos 26-6 last Sunday, Brian Billick was frustrated after the game. And he was speaking for a lot of coaches, general managers and players around the NFL.

"I quit, I give up," Billick said about instant replay. "I've tried to be an advocate for instant replay. I've tried to do the company line. I've said the right things. Dump the whole f---ing thing. We have spent so much money on this thing, and it doesn't work. I've tried. League, I'm sorry, I've tried to hold up and hold the line. Dump it. Get rid of the whole damn thing because it doesn't work. It doesn't work. Move on."

Billick's frustrations are no different than those of the Indianapolis Colts' less than a month ago. In the Colts loss to the Panthers, defensive end Chad Bratzke made a game-turning, fourth-quarter interception inside the Panthers 10-yard line. As he tried to cradle the ball, Bratzke used all of his strength to back toward the end zone against heavy Panthers resistance. Panthers tight end Kris Mangum was nearby and tried to reach for the ball and yank it from Bratzke's hands.

“ I've come full circle. Replay isn't working. Clearly, the purpose was to remove the egregious error. It's said the officials are right 90 to 91 percent of the time. I believe in them. Get rid of the thing and lets stay with their judgment. ”

— Brian Billick, Ravens coach on instant replay

Though afterward, Mangum admitted he thought Bratzke had possession, he said he knew he could get to the ball quickly for the strip. He did. The ball came out of Bratzke's hand but was recovered by the Colts. The call on the field was Colts possession on the fumble. But after further review by replay, referee Larry Nemmers ruled neither Bratzke nor Mangum had possession and it was ruled an incomplete pass.

Colts officials screamed for days. Their complaints were no different than the Ravens, who watched tight end Todd Heap appear to catch a touchdown pass against heavy contact, land on his back in the end zone and as he landed, the ball juggled in his belly.

The on-field call was touchdown, but after an unnecessarily long replay review, the touchdown call was overturned. The Ravens couldn't find a conclusive replay to merit an overturn.

Regardless of what the league or fans think of whether or not the overturns were right, replay is in trouble after the season. Billick is adamant the Ravens will vote against it in March when it ends its three-year commitment. The Colts will join them in reversing their vote and saying no to replay. With only nine votes needed to kill replay, the proposal is in serious trouble.

Teams like the Cardinals and Bengals have never been replay advocates. A few more dissenters and this thing is dead.

So what happened, and why is replay falling out of favor? No one can blast the technology. Digital television gives referees multiple and slowed down angles to assist in their decisions. The league has more than $10 million invested in machines, communicators, support staff, you name it.

And television technology will only get better. That's why replay should stay.

Here's the biggest beef, and this has nothing to do with the competency of the referees, the replay officials or the communicators. There is a philosophical rift that evolved over the last three years and it centers on the phrase "indisputable visual evidence."

Referees want to get the calls right. That's their job. They can push their faces into the "Peep Show" as Billick calls it and watch and watch and watch. Over the 90 seconds or more of time they have to study the replays, they have full authority to make the call right in their opinion.

But that's not what coaches, general managers and teams believe they voted for. Sure, they want officials to get the play right. After all, replay is a last line of defense to change bad calls. What teams complain about now is that officials are making overturns even though there isn't INDISPUTABLE VISUAL EVIDENCE to make the change.

Those three key words were placed in caps because it's symbolic of the growing fight to continue replay. Indisputable visual evidence sounds as clear as it is. Unless the replay clearly shows a mistake was made, leave the call as is.

The debate between "Get it right" vs. "Indisputable Visual Evidence" is what ultimately could be the death of replay. For replay to stay, referees need to back down and be more cautious in their overturns.

Each week or so, Mike Pereira, the league's director of officials, sends tapes to reporters of interesting plays from previous weeks. It's an open book policy the NFL has that illustrates to reporters how little they really know about the rules. It's great educational material.

Pereira slows the pictures from several angles to catch every act to illustrate the violation. Officials on the field don't have that luxury and in 98 percent of the cases, the viewer will marvel at how the officials make the right calls through all of the speed and confusion.

The technology is so good in breaking down each play that Judge Judy could apply a judicial standard to every call. Still, there are some plays -- and Pereira shows them -- that are simply to close to call. Example. An offensive player can be diving for the pylon of the end zone. As he reaches out, his body can be landing near the sidelines as the ball touches the pylon.

If the body touches down out of bounds before the pylon is touched by the football, it's not a touchdown. You can watch some replays for several minutes and not make the correct call. In those cases, it's best to go with the official in front of the play.

I fear the technology is getting so good that it's creating more debate. Fifty guys in a bar can watch all of the replays and half may come with varied opinions.

"I've come full circle," Billick said. "Replay isn't working. Clearly, the purpose was to remove the egregious error. It's said the officials are right 90 to 91 percent of the time. I believe in them. Get rid of the thing and let's stay with their judgment."

It would be a mistake to lose replay. But for calls on replay to be overturned, the proof in the replays has to be indisputable. It's better to put trust in the officials on the field because if replay keeps heading in the direction it's going, it's up to the officials on the field to make the call without any assistants.

When in doubt, don't change the call. Coaches might throw red flags to challenge calls. Referees need to follow the yellow caution lights when reviewing them. If not, replay is dead. But if it dies, the cries will be back in five years to bring it back.

The referees can get it right now by being a little more cautious.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=1650917

[panel]

There are definetly some changes that need to be made

[Sarge]

The only thing is, as sh!tty as the refs have become in this day and age, do we really want to rely on their judgement alone? Hell, they can't even make the right call after watching it on the screen 10-12 times.

[Tom [Giants fan]]

I still say that teams should not be charged a challenge if they win the challenge. You should have 2 challenges in a game that can be wrong. If you challenge a play and you lose it, you get charged the challenge and the timeout. Otherwise, you keep your challenge if you win.

And what can be challeneged also needs to be changed.

[Leonard Washington]

i hate the "play was blown dead" crap or "down by contact"

i want to see the refs vote (2 upstairs and one on the field).

you can keep challenging rulings if you are winning them.

if there is "replay is inconclusive"or if there's an aggregious penalty (holding, PI, clipping 1player removed from the ball) by the benefiting team within the final two minutes--repeat the down.

[jimster]

Originally posted by Tom [Giants fan]

I still say that teams should not be charged a challenge if they win the challenge. You should have 2 challenges in a game that can be wrong. If you challenge a play and you lose it, you get charged the challenge and the timeout. Otherwise, you keep your challenge if you win.

And what can be challeneged also needs to be changed.

I agree with this, but also somebody upstairs needs to make the call, someone detached from the field and the game. That way a ref's ego won't get in the way if he's the one that made the intial call or just got called a name by somebody on the field.

[Tommy-the-Greek]

I think the refs should be full time employees of the league. They should have to work in the offseason. Make them all take extensive training courses year round. Let the best of the best actually get the honor of working the games. If these people were full time employees instead of weekend warriors the league would be better for it. You can't tell me the league couldn't afford to keep a few hundred on the payroll year round and train them to be an elite group. I believe that's where they should start.