NFL Rules Discussion: Too Much Booth Review??

[drt7891]

I have not seen this brought up (I've been away from my computer), but watching some of the NFL Preseason games, this has been nagging for me. There is simply too much review and it is becoming obnoxious. 2 years ago, there were simply 2 coaches challenges. Last year, officials introduced reviewing every scoring play, and now, every turnover is reviewed in the booth, as well. I think this cheapens the challenges for coaches. Soon, all close plays will be reviewed in the booth. <div>
</div><div>I love the way baseball works, even though it is imperfect, it provides a human effect because all calls are based on real time information (the same way the game is played). I hope this amount of review doesn't bleed over into college football. </div><div>
</div><div>What are your thoughts?</div>

 

[Mullenation]

They review every single touchdown and turnover. Dumb. Longer games.. more commercials. Can they not justdifferentiate between close calls andblatantlyobvious. Dumb

 

[tenureplan]

We get screwed so much by on the field officiating...

 

[thf24]

How many times at our games have we seen a horrendous call, then thought, "Oh, what a relief, the refs actually want to look at if for once. It'll be overturned for sure," only to be hit by further disbelief when the call stands? But you're right that a little more review couldn't hurt us; there seem to be a lot of close plays in our games that the refs have no interest in reviewing, for whatever reason, and Dan has always seemed a little gun-shy with his challenges.<div>
</div><div>But that's college and specifically us. In the NFL... it's really getting old seeing a back run 40 yards and walk into the end zone untouched, then have to sit through a review.</div>

 

[tenureplan]

We get screwed on reveiws and well, but not nearly as often as plays that don't go to review. Don't get me started on measurements.</p>

 

[Optimus Prime 4]

they have even gotten multiple COIN FLIPS wrong.

 

[patdog]

Don't review any play unless a coach challenges a call. A lot of time is wasted reviewing plays that are really fairly meaningless. If it's a meaningful play and it's worth looking at, a coach will challenge it. Coaches get unlimited challenges. They lose a time out for any challenge where the play is upheld. If they're out of time outs, it's a delay of game penalty.

And someone mentioned measurements. What a lot of people don't consider about that is the placement of the chain is never based on any kind of measurement. The official on the sideline just eyeballs where the ball is and that's where the chains are placed. Kind of makes the measurement pretty meaningless. I mean sure, they are very accurate at measuring if the ball is 10 yards past where the initial marker was set. But where the initial marker is set is just a rough approximation.

 

[drt7891]

but my point is that I don't want college football to go through this "every big play is reviewed in the booth" mess. I do think that there is a place for review in football,more-sothan in any other sport, but it shouldn't be relied on so much that it takes that much away from the game. I enjoyed the 2 challenges where it allows coaches the opportunity to challenge plays they feel are ruled wrong while not taking away from the pace of the game. If the challenge results in an overturned call, you get the challenge back... if the call stands, you lose a timeout and you lose the challenge (while all close calls in the final 2 minutes of the half are reviewed). That creates a game within the game that I really liked. I think college should become more structured like that, too, where coaches get 2 challenges a game instead of sometimes relying on the officials to pull the trigger on a close call.

 

[drt7891]

And someone mentioned measurements. What a lot of people don't consider about that is the placement of the chain is never based on any kind of measurement. The official on the sideline just eyeballs where the ball is and that's where the chains are placed. Kind of makes the measurement pretty meaningless. I mean sure, they are very accurate at measuring if the ball is 10 yards past where the initial marker was set. But where the initial marker is set is just a rough approximation.

The Down Marker is always placed as close to the front tip of the ball as possible (hash marks and yard line markers help tremendously). This is done because the front tip of the ball is what is needed to score or reach the line to gain. The Down Marker is what is used to mark the spot after the line to gain is reached, then the chains are placed right on that mark. Surprisingly, I imagine most chains are placed within a few inches of the actual spot of the front tip of the ball when a first down is reached. The umpire and head linesman work together along with the chain crew to place the chains where they need to go and play doesn't begin until they are in the right spot. So, you are right in that they don't bring out surveying equipment to make sure the spot is exact, but far more care is taken than simply "eyeballing" where the chains need to go. <div>

</div>

 

[AssEndDawg]

The truly easy answer is to put a ref in the booth and allow him to make a JUDGEMENT call based on what he sees on the film. Then teach the refs on the field to quit being so damn sure of themselves and willing to ask for a review. Drop reviewing every play and let the refs kick it upstairs when in doubt. Give the coaches three challenges a game and they only lose one if they are wrong (for the life of me I never understood why proving the ref was wrong costs you one of your challenges). So now you have the guy in the booth reviewing and able to make a judgement call, not just looking for some crazy level of proof and it only goes to the booth if the refs or the coaches feel it should.

You could also have three people in the booth and do a blind, majority rules vote. But that's getting a little difficult to maintain...

 

[patdog]

But I don't like limiting coaches to a certain number of challenges. If you limit a coach to 2 challenges, he could wind up in a situation where he had a bunch of really close calls that went against him and then gets blatently screwed late in the game and can't challenge. I think as long as he loses a time out for each wrong one (or takes a delay of game penalty), that should be enough that coaches wouldn't abuse it.

 

[patdog]

And it really does come down to an official on the sideline maybe 40 yards away from the ball is determining where to place the chains using just his eyes (of course he uses hash marks too, but the ball may be several yards away from the nearest hash mark). I'm not saying the marks aren't pretty accurate. I'm just pointing out that the go to great pains to be absolutely accurate within fractions of an inch on one end of the chain, and are probably off by a few inches on every set of downs at the other end of the chain.

 

[drt7891]

for wrong challenges would work better. I just would make sure that the system isn't abused and coaches aren't using it to eat up time and buy timeouts or carelessly delay the game.

 

[tenureplan]

Challenge a play and take the 5 yard penalty.