ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
As expected, NFL owners have opted to tweak the replay rules to permit possession to be awarded to the defensive team if indisputable visual evidence shows that an incomplete pass actually was a fumble — and if indisputable visual evidence also shows that the defense recovered the fumble.
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Although I like when they fix obvious flaws in the rules. I hate these reactionary rules based on isolated plays. I think they need to fix instant replay, but this fix in the rule might affect one or two replays a season if that. If the league are going to react to these individual plays, why not do a more extensive overhaul of the rules rather than fix a freak problem in the rule?
Although Hochuli made an error, I believe in this case the 'cure is worse than the disease'. The proper fix to the problem, in my opinion, is to train the refs to let the play continue if there is any doubt in there minds. After the play is over they can concur and get another opinion, from another angle. Then, as a last resort, they can go to replay if they need to.
I have a major problem with any rule that bases an outcome of a play on what happens after the ref blows his whistle and signals the play dead. Players are taught from there very first Pop Warner practice to go hard till the play is whistled dead. Now you want possessions to be determined on what happens after the whistle blows? Uh-uh. Exactly when, then, is a player supposed to stop? This would tell the players 'keep going, it might be a live ball'. How would you determine what is a late hit?
Right or wrong, the whistle blows, players should stop and that's it - the play is dead. Anything that happens afterwards is irrelevant - even if the ball was loose.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Although Hochuli made an error, I believe in this case the 'cure is worse than the disease'. The proper fix to the problem, in my opinion, is to train the refs to let the play continue if there is any doubt in there minds. After the play is over they can concur and get another opinion, from another angle. Then, as a last resort, they can go to replay if they need to.
I have a major problem with any rule that bases an outcome of a play on what happens after the ref blows his whistle and signals the play dead. Players are taught from there very first Pop Warner practice to go hard till the play is whistled dead. Now you want possessions to be determined on what happens after the whistle blows? Uh-uh. Exactly when, then, is a player supposed to stop? This would tell the players 'keep going, it might be a live ball'. How would you determine what is a late hit?
Right or wrong, the whistle blows, players should stop and that's it - the play is dead. Anything that happens afterwards is irrelevant - even if the ball was loose.
Good point. Wait til next year when a late hit after the whistle results in a penalty that costs a team a game, we'll have another refinement.....
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
A sarcastic Bill Belichick on Tom Brady's finger injury, "It's not life threatening."
Although Hochuli made an error, I believe in this case the 'cure is worse than the disease'. The proper fix to the problem, in my opinion, is to train the refs to let the play continue if there is any doubt in there minds. After the play is over they can concur and get another opinion, from another angle. Then, as a last resort, they can go to replay if they need to.
I have a major problem with any rule that bases an outcome of a play on what happens after the ref blows his whistle and signals the play dead. Players are taught from there very first Pop Warner practice to go hard till the play is whistled dead. Now you want possessions to be determined on what happens after the whistle blows? Uh-uh. Exactly when, then, is a player supposed to stop? This would tell the players 'keep going, it might be a live ball'. How would you determine what is a late hit?
Right or wrong, the whistle blows, players should stop and that's it - the play is dead. Anything that happens afterwards is irrelevant - even if the ball was loose.
I do agree with this sentiment, although that line was already crossed when they made "down by contact" reviewable a couple of years ago, essentially encouraging players to play through the whistle if a ball came loose.
All of these, "well, the whistle blew, BUT...." scenarios are really primed to open a Pandora's Box and get someone seriously hurt after the whistle blows, which is somewhat ironic given all the new safety rules implemented this year...
You wouldn't need this rule if Refs just didn't blow a play dead until there was an obvious end, ala tackle, out of bounds, TD, etc...
Then if there is a small issue in the play, the replay booth can catch it.
I think the Booth needs to be able to review questionable calls at will, for those type of plays, the second something looks funny, the booth, with no challenge from either player begins to review it, and quickly determines if the ref needs to look at it further...
They could just call it the "4 Million TV Viewers just saw that happen and there ain't no way you can call that a pass" rule - Too long?
Or perhaps The "Freakin' Common Sense Rule".
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Let them all talk - Haters Hate, that's what they do - We have three Lombardi's, how about you?
I have to disagree with the sentiment that refs should err on the side of letting the play continue if there is any doubt. I don't like refs making calls they don't believe in because they have replay backing them up. If the ref sees the play end he should blow his whistle, end of story. Sometimes he will be wrong, but I think that is better than him being tentative and passive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob0729
Although I like when they fix obvious flaws in the rules. I hate these reactionary rules based on isolated plays. I think they need to fix instant replay, but this fix in the rule might affect one or two replays a season if that. If the league are going to react to these individual plays, why not do a more extensive overhaul of the rules rather than fix a freak problem in the rule?
“Hochuli Rule” Approved
Re: “Hochuli Rule” Approved
Linear Mode
