Discussion in 'NFL Football Forum' started by JMC00, Dec 3, 2013.
Bill Belichick: Why not let coaches challenge everything? | ProFootballTalk
I love our coach. It sounds like a really good idea...as if the NFL would implement it.
I am in complete, 100% agreement. Everything - E V E R Y T H I N G - should be challengeable.
Well, it'd be 30 yards a game more for the opposition to overcome just from holding FINALLY being called on the LT for mauling Chandler Jones!
It should cut out on some of the other BS you see in every game every week.
Would it affect league policy to give Peyton some defensive pass interference or would those just be ruled inconclusive automatically. :bricks:
I don't entirely agree with Belichick here. Challenging a holding call or pass interference is asking for a 2nd opinion. I don't like that idea.
However, challenging something like fair-catch interference where it's black and white whether you contacted the punt returner. I think you should be able to challenge that.
I agree. I feel like part of the cat and mouse game between corners and wide receivers is the grey line between legal and holding/illegal contact. Every good corner TECHNICALLY breaks the rules by giving a tiny tug with every contact. They'll get away with it for 99% of the game, but then a coach can come along on a pivotal play at the end, knowing he can technically win a challenge to extend a drive.
Leave judgment calls out of it, unless you can find a way to make them more black and white.
If you allow non-calls to be challenged (e.g., PI, holding) things get weird, but heck why not...
I've thought this for a million years. It's a complete joke that coaches get two challenges a game. The refs hate smarter coaches that should be allowed to challenge whenever they want without penalty. They don't want their authority challenged. The Refs Union won't like that.
I think they should be permitted more than 2 challenges per half but I think if they were allowed to challenge everything the games would be extended dramatically. Human error is also one of the components of pro sports that make the games interesting and entertaining, they could easily replace every home plate baseball umpire with a strike zone machine but that would pull from the human element.
I hate how everything in the last 2 minutes and in OT goes "upstairs".
Belichick is the only real one left in the new NFL musical chairs of coaching, so when he feels the need to express a controversial opinion that doesn't jive with Goodell, we should all listen.
I'm with you, especially since slo-mo can actually be a little deceiving on some of those judgement calls. Football is played in real time.
Plus, wasn't the nearly penalty-free game Sunday a rare pleasure to watch? The more pauses to review, the more the game loses its rhythm. As fans, maybe we should accept the tradeoff of a little more human error for a game that gets into a groove and stays there.
I think BB is right on the money. The key to making it work is the limit of 2 challenges per game. So a smart HC wouldn't challenge a miss offside early in the first quarter for example.
However I would add 2 additions or proviso's to his rule.
1. The ref should no longer make the replays. It simply takes too long. Add a replay ref to sits in the TV truck to makes all replay calls. Those challenged and those by rule.
2. HC's should be aware that not no-call of a holding call, offensively or defensively, or PI (the judgement calls) is going to be changed unless the infraction was BLATANT and significantly affect the play. That would eliminate the real marginal calls or plays far away from the action. The coaching staffs would know not to throw the flag unless it was a clear foul. That would eliminate the issue of there being "a holding call on every play"
So as long as the HC only gets 2 it shouldn't slow down the game as there would only be 4 reviews per game and teams would save them like TO's until the 2nd half
BTW- Ever wonder why the smartest, most knowledgeable, and experience HC has never been asked to be on the competition committee?? Over the years guys like Shula and Pulian have used their power to shape the rules to constantly benefit THEIR teams.
BB knows its a joke and has poked his finger in their eyes for years. There no question that the entire "spygate" sage was sweet revenge for those jealous and envious losers.
A major FU to the refs and NFL brass from BB. Gotta luv it!
Now watch us get 30 holding calls vs the Browns.
You say that because the Panthers game is so fresh in everybodyâ€™s head but when the games start lasting from 1pm to 630pm with 50% of that time with a ref under the hood youâ€™d have a different outlook. Human error is part of sports, you make everything challengeable and before long youâ€™re playing a video game.
I like his reasoning. This makes it a bit more simpler and fairer. The NFL probably will not do it though as they like complexity and confusion.
Correct officiating always makes the game better, never worse. I don't understand what you are saying.
There are just too many rules in football though that are entirely subjective so that even replays will not be able to remove controversy.
did you read the article? Coaches would still only have 2 (3 if the prior 2 are successful) challenges per game. they can't challenge every play, that would (indeed) be ridiculous.
I wonder how specific the challenge would have to be? A wide-open challenge system could end up with a lot of gamesmanship.
Let's say that you're on defense, and in one slow-developing play the QB stays in the pocket for quite a while then throws a pass that turns into an 80-yard TD. Wouldn't you be tempted to challenge based on "offensive holding," even if you saw nothing, hoping and trusting that a careful review of every blocker would end up revealing at least a moment of holding?
Separate names with a comma.