Do you like the current challenge/replay process?

[brdmaverick]

I have thought and continue to think that video replay is a great idea. Any game could come down to a blown referee call.......and while that's not completely eliminated at least some of those blown calls are eliminated with replay.

I have heard people complain about replay.....not so much that the proess isn't fair but that it slows down the game too much. There are enough time outs and commercial delays that the replay process is 'killing' the viewers experience.

What do you guys think? Do you think the negative aspect of 'slowing down the game' outweighs the positives of 'correcting bad calls'?

So basically I'm just trying to gauge how the masses feel on this topic.

If you like replay in general but don't like how it's applied now ...... well, by all means tell us your ideal replay scenario.

 

[Tuck]

I like it and I don't mind the extra time it takes because it's more important that they get the calls right. What annoys the he'll out of me is all of the touchbacks. It's seems like there is ten minutes of dead time between scores.

 

[luuked]

I don't see how the game is really slowed down at all by the replay. In fact I'd say that the league should give each team 2 reviews in every half because quite frankly given the amount of evidence that's necessary to overturn something you might lose a review early on just because of the lack of an angle.

I still remember how the Panthers where out of challenges in the SB in like the first quarter (?): one challenge was damn close but the refs had to keep the ruling on the field and then the Panthers won the second one. But they were without any recourse to do anything for the rest of the game. It's insane..

 

[woolster22]

More needs to be review able, and you should keep any challenge you win. The "hands to face" last week, for instance? I also think a system with a remote committee in charge of reviews rather than the sideline phone booth shenanigans could dramatically expedite the process.

 

[oldrover]

Every play should be challenge-able.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

1. No communication with Blandino or anyone in NFL HQ.
2. Stop tying them to available timeouts. There should be no linkage.
3. No maximum number of challenges allowed.
4. However, you can only have, say, 3 incorrect challenges in a game. Once you've been wrong 3 times, no more challenges for you.
5. Keep the existing rule where there's an automatic review of all scores and turnovers.
6. However, change it so that if the booth doesn't have the ref go under the hood a coach can make a challenge and force the ref under the hood.
7. Keep the existing rule where the booth can initiate reviews in the last two minutes of a half.
8. Again, change it so that if the booth doesn't have the ref go under the hood a coach can force the ref under the hood.
9. Everything should be challengeable.
10. There should be sideline and goal-line cameras in all stadiums.

 

[jmt57]

I keep hearing from many media/fans that any change (i.e., being able to challenge any play) would lengthen the game.

That is simply not true.

The NFL and the networks have agreed to a specific number of commercials per game. (The networks, contrary to popular opinion, actually want the games to end on time. They don't get to air or profit from any more commercials. They would prefer that the news and prime time shows air on schedule,)

There are already a specific number of challenges per team.

How is being able to challenge a different type of play going to lengthen the game?

 

[Gronk]

Firstly, I wish it had never been introduced. I think it's important to get calls correct, of course, but once you dip your feet in there's just too many variables to apply them equitably, so the fact that replay exists only focuses interest on particular plays instead of the gameplay and official calls at large. It doesn't eliminate those problems, it just extends them in often arbitrary circumstances.

That being said, I think that it's about what it should be. I would agree with BB that everything should be reviewable - give the coaches X number of challenges and let those chips fall where they may as an additional layer of strategy...understanding that there may very well be uncalled penalties/violations/reversals on every single play of every single game. I also like the idea of not tying this to timeouts.

I think reviewing every scoring play is great...but what about every first-down play? I think every game I watch there's 4-5 debatable first down conversions that are just taken for granted. The scoring play is the end of the drive, but it's not the only contribution to said drive. If the legitimate scoring play is brought about by a ******** (but unreviewable) penalty and 2 questionable first-down spots then what good is the process?

 

[Schmo]

Should be able to challenge everything.... at least pass interference.

 

[NewFeep]

yes, It's great. everybody says so. At least that's what I've heard. It's really really great. what do you think? I've heard it's an incredible system. It's really great, trust me!!!!

 

[pazrul72]

Refs are human and make mistakes, I care more about getting it right then how long it takes or how often it needs to be done. That said you can't have every play reviewed or what's the point of having refs? I would remove the challenges from the coaches all together. Have a panel of 3 neutral observers watching replay and if 2/3 think a mistake was made they buzz it into the ref to fix. Make sure they know the rules and have the ability to buzz in anything and everything. It's more about using the technology that is available then sticking to what's not working

 

[JMC00]

I want what Belichick wants, everything to be reviewable. Because it's an absolute fallacy that it would slow down the game. Not asking for more challenges than a coach already gets, just saying expand it.

Clear examples happened just last week

Richard Sherman on Julio Jones at the end of the game and Logan Ryan getting flagged for hands to the face on a 3rd down stop. Both would have been reversed if those were reviewable.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

At this point I've concluded that it simply lets me see the refs be wrong in slow motion.