- Joined
- Jan 11, 2010
- Messages
- 3,209
- Reaction score
- 4,195
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.I don’t like that because the ruling on the field is very important if replay is inconclusive.I don’t think you really need that, you need the refs to call it a touchdown if it’s close.
Maybe automatically review touchdowns that weren't called touchdowns as well?
I don't how they would do this, but if a bad officiating call can be shown on the jumbotron to all 60,000 fans as its happening, go ahead and take a few seconds to consider changing it.
Kinda surprised you thought of this but it's a good idea Cap. I know a few guys I've talked with have mentioned this and others have brought it up as well. I think some prospects have trouble with spacing entering the league. At least at first it causes some trouble. I still like though.4 suggestions off the top of my head I have not heard mentioned:
Stop the clock after every first down made while the chain gang advances then re-spots the sticks...same as college.
Widen the hash marks on the field to their original distance apart, i.e. the same as college still is & the NFL used to be. The obvious advantage here is that there would be fewer opportunities for the incompetent zebras to mis-spot the ball placement.
Lengthen the legal chuck distance from a minimum of 5 yards to a maximum of 10, depending on the yards needed for a first down: if between 0-5 yards, the legal chuck distance remains at 5; if between 5-10 yards, the legal distance becomes the same as the YTG; and if > 10 yards the distance is capped at 10.
And regarding coaches' challenges, they should be determined by the number of timeouts a team has remaining: e.g., if you still have all 3 timeouts, then you should have At Least 3 challenges to use if you so choose; and while a team should Not lose a challenge opportunity (or a timeout) if their preceding challenge was successful, they would lose a timeout (and thus have one fewer challenge opportunity) if a subsequent challenge is unsuccessful.
The players would have less control over their bodies under your proposal. Hell, players are being run into the ground by malicious front offices under the existing rules.
If there is no hard coded incentive for teams to let players rest and heal, then teams will absolutely employ pressure and deception to get guys back on the field. Do you think Trent Williams and Kelechi Osemele got into their situations by exercising their bodily agency?
Maybe automatically review touchdowns that weren't called touchdowns as well?
I don't how they would do this, but if a bad officiating call can be shown on the jumbotron to all 60,000 fans as its happening, go ahead and take a few seconds to consider changing it.
Unfortunately, we all know that we can't rely on the incompetent zebras to do that.I don’t think you really need that, you need the refs to call it a touchdown if it’s close.
But that's wrong, too, because the call on the field is assumed to be correct and there has to be found evidence to overturn it.I don’t think you really need that, you need the refs to call it a touchdown if it’s close.
I think a better way to go would be "Any play that is a score or turnover or if called the other way would have been a score or a turnover shall be automatically reviewed, with the call on the field needing indisputable evidence to be reversed"
My proposal would expand rosters so that there would be less pressure on the player to return until ready due to depth of the team..
But don't most refs blow the play dead when they think they see a player step out of bounds? If that's the case, this rule couldn't overturn a bad call like the one on the Harry TD because the refs would still rule that it was ineligible for review because of that whistle.
I was actually thinking that while it was happening. "Vrabel might regret this if we kick a field goal with like 20 seconds left, and he could have had two more minutes to get one of his own." Like you said, didn't work out that way, but it absolutely could have backfired on him.
Here's the change I'd like to see:
Currently if you fumble it out of bounds at the opposing team's 1 yard line, you get the ball back. But if you fumble it out of their end zone, they get the ball as a touchback.
I don't understand the logic behind that. It seems incredibly punitive to me and can when it happens it generally changes the whole course of the game, up to a 14 point swing. It also makes players less likely to dive for the pilon which is an exciting play. Why not just say if you fumble it out the end zone you either get it at the 1 or if you want to impose a light penalty then you get it at the 10 or something.
Incidentally I stated this opinion before on here and people disagreed for some reason, so have at it
Right, in a one point game it was really iffy on who was benefitting from this move.
Now in a situation where a team is up multiple scores and is trying to milk clock it's a no-brainer to be the right move. But a one point game? Could have gone either way.