Why referees should not err on the side of touchdowns

[Wolfpack]

Recently a lot of people in here were saying that on a close touchdown play, the refs should err on the side of ruling on the field that it was a TD so then the play can be automatically reviewed. My belief is that the ruling on the field is too important to deliberately err in one direction over the other.

Yesterday's TD pass to Torrey Smith is exactly the type of play I had in mind. I honestly think he stepped out of bounds but the refs decided it wasn't conclusive enough to overturn. And that's why I don't want the refs to deliberately err in one direction over the other.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Exactly.

If the call on the field had no weight in the review outcome I might consider going with the "err on the side of touchdown" position.

But since the rules say there has to be "indisputable evidence" to overturn, that means the call on the field is presumptively true. Which means, to me, that the refs have to call it as they see it and not favor TDs.

 

[NSPF]

You do have a good point, as it would clearly tilt the table more in favor of more touchdowns standing. However, I also think it is worse for a call to be clearly wrong and a team unable to challenge it (or forced to use a valuable challenge) than it is for an occasional play that could have gone either way. Honestly, the replay system gets it right most of the time, and is definitely far more accurate than the referees on the field (hi Jeff Triplette).

 

[Sydney]

We talking about this touch down?

Not sure how this didn't get overturned IMO

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Agree. Refs should call them as they see them.

The culprit here is the rule that says you automatically review plays that are called touchdowns but not ones that aren't. That substantially helps the defense, and also encourages refs to make a reviewable instead of non-reviewable call. Because Brady was called in the end zone on the sneak, he got an automatic review, but if they had called the 4th down play not a touchdown, it wouldn't have been automatically reviewed no matter how obviously wrong the call. That's not appropriate.

Since there's no effective way to define which "almost" touchdowns should be reviewed automatically, it's unbalanced, and unblanced is bad. Give coaches a third challenge, and go back to the rule that it's up to the coach to challenge except in the last 2 minutes or OT.

There was a game this year -- Arizona versus someone -- where the replay equipment malfunctioned and they could not review. That right there is reason enough for refs never to make a benefit of the doubt call.

 

[Ron Sellers]

I agree, if scoring plays are going to automatically be reviewed then the 'almost' touchdowns should as well.

In my opinion another aspect that should be changed is how teams are limited to two challenges, and then a third only if the coach was correct in his first two challenges. Instead I think a coach should instead only be limited to two incorrect challenges; after that he gets no more. Why should a coach be essentially penalized by not being allowed to challenge a call if he was previously correct that the refs made a mistake on three previous occasions?

I realize some will say that's a bad idea because it would slow down the game but realistically how many times is this going to happen? Not very many, but the one time that situation does happen the coach should still have the option of challenging a bad call.

 

[Wolfpack]

I agree, if scoring plays are going to automatically be reviewed then the 'almost' touchdowns should as well.

In my opinion another aspect that should be changed is how teams are limited to two challenges, and then a third only if the coach was correct in his first two challenges. Instead I think a coach should instead only be limited to two incorrect challenges; after that he gets no more. Why should a coach be essentially penalized by not being allowed to challenge a call if he was previously correct that the refs made a mistake on three previous occasions?

I agree 100% and have said that in the past.

Coaches should get unlimited challenges until they've made 2 incorrect ones.

 

[The Scrizz]

here's the one area that I would disagree and that is on fumbles. They blow the whistle way too early on some of these and even if the fumble is reviewable it doesn't matter because they can't judge who clearly recovered. I wouldn't mind every fumble being reviewed just like scoring plays. If the ball was down by contact reverse it and nobody is charged a challenge or a timeout.

In general I don't think the Refs err on the side of anything. They just err.

 

[brdmaverick]

I think it's all about determining the lesser of two evils....

If instant replay can not conclusively show that it was a bad call, then is it really a bad call?

Imagine the opposite, imagine the receiver/runner is a Patriots player. Imagine they blow the play dead because they rule he stepped out. Not even instant replay could give the Pats a TD in this scenario (even if he clearly didn't step out) because the whistle would have made the play dead.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

With respect to challenges, I don't like the current numerical limits. I'd change the rule to something like this: as long as you have at least one timeout left, you can challenge. If the challenge is successful you don't lose a timeout. If the challenge fails you do lose a timeout.

Losing a timeout for an unsuccessful challenge will keep coaches honest about not challenging things out of spite or doing no-hope challenges.

 

[Wolfpack]

I think it's all about determining the lesser of two evils....

If instant replay can not conclusively show that it was a bad call, then is it really a bad call?

Well the problem is that not everyone agrees on what "conclusively" means. Take last week's Packers-Giants game with the fumble that wasn't ruled a fumble. According to the referee, replay did not conclusively determine that the ruling on the field was a bad call, so it stood. But everyone else with eyes and a TV could see it was a horrible call.

 

[Patspsycho]

I agree 100% and have said that in the past.

Coaches should get unlimited challenges until they've made 2 incorrect ones.

That would slow the game down.

What's to prevent a coach calling a challenge in lieu of a timeout, or to slow down a no-huddle?

 

[captain stone]

We talking about this touch down?

Not sure how this didn't get overturned IMO

How in the world did that feckin idiot zebra not see the blatant Facemask against McCourty?

And that's another thing that should change:
If in the course of reviewing a play, a missed penalty - esp. a PF penalty - is discovered,
then the Ref should have the authority to impose that penalty on the guilty party.

 

[brdmaverick]

How in the world did that feckin idiot zebra not see the blatant Facemask against McCourty?

And that's another thing that should change:
If in the course of reviewing a play, a missed penalty - esp. a PF penalty - is discovered,
then the Ref should have the authority to impose that penalty on the guilty party.

They can impose some penalties on review, as we found out on Gronk's "running out of bounds" before catching the TD against the Jets.

 

[Wolfpack]

That would slow the game down.

What's to prevent a coach calling a challenge in lieu of a timeout, or to slow down a no-huddle?

Because:

1) They would lose one of their valuable "incorrect challenges" and
2) If the lost the challenge, they would lose the timeout anyway, so it's not like they're saving the timeout.

 

[captain stone]

They can impose some penalties on review, as we found out on Gronk's "running out of bounds" before catching the TD against the Jets.

Then that makes the refusal to call the Facemask penalty even more outrageous.

BTW, has anyone heard what the ruling would have been (down/distance/LOS)
if the zebras did do the right thing?