The Touchdown Replay Rule..

[YearbookCurfew]

I agree. I think it kind of slowed the game down.

 

[Husse]

In stark contrast to most of the people here I liked it. Obviously the execution wasn't all there yet, but come on, it was the first game of the first year the rule was implemented, there are bound to be some child diseases.

I'm willing to overlook all 1-2 min delays if it means that a potential Jets TD gets reviewed and ruled as and incomplete pass or that the runner didn't cross the line to the endzone. Regardless if it is against the Pats or not.

On the other hand, I thought both of Pats first two TDs were questionable. To be perfectly honest, if I was in charge I would probably not have ruled either play as a touchdown.

 

[jmt57]

It seems to me that when the NFL wants to make a rule change such as this one or the change regarding kickoffs, they should first test out those rules in the 64 preseason games they have each year. Then while it is still fresh in their minds, immediately following those preseason games the 32 coaches can give an assessment of those proposed rule changes: what they like and dislike, suggestions on how it could work better, and opinions on whether or not it should be implemented or scrapped. Then when the competition committee reconvenes they can look at those opinions and then vote on whether or not to put the rule into effect on a full-time basis the following year.

In other words, use the preseason as a testing period for rule changes before implementing those alterations.

 

[DarrylS]

In stark contrast to most of the people here I liked it. Obviously the execution wasn't all there yet, but come on, it was the first game of the first year the rule was implemented, there are bound to be some child diseases.

I'm willing to overlook all 1-2 min delays if it means that a potential Jets TD gets reviewed and ruled as and incomplete pass or that the runner didn't cross the line to the endzone. Regardless if it is against the Pats or not.

On the other hand, I thought both of Pats first two TDs were questionable. To be perfectly honest, if I was in charge I would probably not have ruled either play as a touchdown.

That is why you are not "in charge", it takes clear, convincing evidence to overturn a call on the field.

 

[DaBruinz]

So a coach can still challenge a score if the booth doesn't think it was close enough? I can see some controversy brewing.

No. The rule clearly states that only the BOOTH can call for the Official to review a scoring play..

 

[DaBruinz]

On the other hand, I thought both of Pats first two TDs were questionable. To be perfectly honest, if I was in charge I would probably not have ruled either play as a touchdown.

If that is the case, one would have to question whether or not you actually understand the rules..

 

[spacecrime]

Stupid rule. Why can't they have a guy in the booth review it real quick and if there's any question buzz down. No reason for the referee to run over to the booth everytime.

That's how they did it. They didn't use the booth on all TDs. Only the ones where there was a question.

 

[spacecrime]

On the other hand, I thought both of Pats first two TDs were questionable. To be perfectly honest, if I was in charge I would probably not have ruled either play as a touchdown.

The first two WERE questionable. That's why they reviewed them. They ruled them good because there wasn't evidence to overturn them.

 

[spacecrime]

Yeah, then the ref has to feel like an a--hole being reversed. I like the idea of strong on-field officials, meaning they have final say over the game - it helps them maintain control.

How would tey lose control of the game? Players refused to move the ball back five yards after a false start is called? Refuse to accept a PI call and go back en masse to original line of scrimmage?

I think the refs can maintain control fine even it overturned.

My worry is the opposite of yours. I'm afraid the referees want first and foremost for the right call to be made. I think, far from feeling like Aholes, they would PREFER to be overturned when they are wrong about a TD. My fear is that if it is real close, and they really can't tell, they will rule a TD because they know it will generate a booth review and the call will be made via slo-mo tape. Then you get into the indesputable evidence needed to overturn.

 

[pdangle]

THIS RULE IS TERRIBLE.

The NHL already tried this when they reviewed every goal for a toe or two in the blue crease, pre-lockout. For those of you who may not recall let me tell you how this ends up...

1. Fans, initially confused, begin to realize every touchdown needs a review to be final.
2. After numerous lengthy delays and overturns, the once huge emotional boost and satisfaction of a touchdown begins to evaporate as fans are no longer sure that any touchdown is truly a score.
3. You begin to hear things like, "Touchdown? Well let's first wait for the review", followed by endless argument of any contention.
4. Time elapses.
5. Eventually rule overturned.

It's rare the NFL makes a mistake. But this is a huge one. Please minimize our suffering and complain like hell. We'll thank ourselves for it.

 

[DaBruinz]

THIS RULE IS TERRIBLE.

The NHL already tried this when they reviewed every goal for a toe or two in the blue crease, pre-lockout. For those of you who may not recall let me tell you how this ends up...

1. Fans, initially confused, begin to realize every touchdown needs a review to be final.
2. After numerous lengthy delays and overturns, the once huge emotional boost and satisfaction of a touchdown begins to evaporate as fans are no longer sure that any touchdown is truly a score.
3. You begin to hear things like, "Touchdown? Well let's first wait for the review", followed by endless argument of any contention.
4. Time elapses.
5. Eventually rule overturned.

It's rare the NFL makes a mistake. But this is a huge one. Please minimize our suffering and complain like hell. We'll thank ourselves for it.

Clearly you don't understand the rule..

It's not going to be over-turned. There isn't a need. The ref does not need to go under the hood for every TD scored. Only the ones that are questionable and in which the Booth buzzes down to the ref. Much like in the last 2 minutes of a half.

 

[pdangle]

Clearly you don't understand the rule..

It's not going to be over-turned. There isn't a need. The ref does not need to go under the hood for every TD scored. Only the ones that are questionable and in which the Booth buzzes down to the ref. Much like in the last 2 minutes of a half.

I'm sorry, but you can alter the mechanics however you want.

Once the finality of every score can be questioned by an official ruling post event, you will inevitably lose the immediate emotional impact of such an event.

You know what I'm saying, emotional = why we like it.

This will hurt our enjoyment of the game. How can it not? For example, after every 1/2 yd scramble TD, we need a call down from the booth to confirm the TD? Do we really?

This crap has already been explored. Even the master rule tinkerering NHL dropped this one.

 

[Husse]

That is why you are not "in charge", it takes clear, convincing evidence to overturn a call on the field.

Yes, I'm well aware that there wasn't enough evidence to overturn either touchdown. Call me contradictory if you will, because I'm pretty sure that what I sound like right now. Call it poor wording in my previous post. Either way, once they made the call on the field it was pretty much a done deal.

But if the ruling on the field had been the other way on either TD, would there have been enough evidence to overturn and give Pats the TD? I'm still hesitant.

Granted, I didn't see everything in the greatest detail because i watched a stream but I still stand firm in my opinion.

If that is the case, one would have to question whether or not you actually understand the rules..

I might even agree with you there, I'm not clear on all the rules. But in this case I'm pretty sure I understand.

I'm sorry, but you can alter the mechanics however you want.

Once the finality of every score can be questioned by an official ruling post event, you will inevitably lose the immediate emotional impact of such an event.

You know what I'm saying, emotional = why we like it.

This will hurt our enjoyment of the game. How can it not? For example, after every 1/2 yd scramble TD, we need a call down from the booth to confirm the TD? Do we really?

This crap has already been explored. Even the master rule tinkerering NHL dropped this one.

I don't think it will hurt too much. Some people will probably be sore about it though.
But it's not like every TD will be scrutinized and the reviewing process will not take that much time.

On the other hand, the questionable TDs could just as likely have been challenged by one of the HCs and take time that way.

 

[SpiderFox53]

Both of those early calls merited a second look. The new rule saved the opposing HC a wasted challenge.

This.

I actually thought they would overturn the Price TD catch.

 

[SpiderFox53]

I dont see how its any different than reversing their own call. If anything, it ensures an impartial review of a call, not a review by the guy who made the bad call in the first place.

You do realize that the ref is very rarely in a position to be the one that called a TD? No actual numbers researched but I'm pretty sure the % of TD's called by the ref is very low. Most TD's are called by the Line Judges aren't they?

EDIT: Line judges and whatever they call the guys in the defensive backfield.

 

[lurker1965]

I agree. I think it kind of slowed the game down.

Slowed the game down? Spoken like someone who has not seen a game live.

Lots of the game is watching them stand around for TV timeouts.

 

[lurker1965]

...

My worry is the opposite of yours. I'm afraid the referees want first and foremost for the right call to be made. I think, far from feeling like Aholes, they would PREFER to be overturned when they are wrong about a TD. My fear is that if it is real close, and they really can't tell, they will rule a TD because they know it will generate a booth review and the call will be made via slo-mo tape. Then you get into the indesputable evidence needed to overturn.

Bingo! He has Bingo!

I'm sorry, but you can alter the mechanics however you want.

Once the finality of every score can be questioned by an official ruling post event, you will inevitably lose the immediate emotional impact of such an event.

You know what I'm saying, emotional = why we like it.

This will hurt our enjoyment of the game. How can it not? For example, after every 1/2 yd scramble TD, we need a call down from the booth to confirm the TD? Do we really?

This crap has already been explored. Even the master rule tinkerering NHL dropped this one.

So whenever there is a TD on a Kick Return, your enjoyment is ruined by seeing if there is a flag on the play?

 

[Pujo]

This will hurt our enjoyment of the game.

Speak for yourself. Part of my enjoyment of the game comes from knowing that the outcome was correct.

 

[RayClay]

mYbe they should let them play, then review every score at once while everybody get's something to eat and come back and see who won.

I know it sounds kind of stupid, but it's got to be better than watching some guy duck behind a curtain for ten minutes after every score.

What's wrong with the coaches challenge? I think it's a perfect compromise of making the coach decide if the play is crucial or questionable, while maintaining some kind of pace and rhythm for the players and for the fans.

 

[Joker]

My emotional enjoyment is falling!!!!!..