I like all of the potential changes, especially the IR one, i've never agreed with it. You have no choice with guys having lengthy injuries.
Maybe I read it wrong but would challernges basically disappear?
Quote:
Other committee proposals include: automatically reviewing turnovers; allowing players on injured reserve to return (currently the injured reserve list ends a player's season); having all replays be viewed by the booth rather than a referee on the field; and making the too many men on the field penalty a dead- ball infraction.
Could be reaading into this wrong but would that make the challenges worthless? Or would it mean this would be the new way to handle challenges?
It would be like reviews in the NHL, handled by officials off the ice/field.
It would make more sense to me.
__________________
“The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile, but that it is indifferent. If we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death, our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.” - Stanley Kubrick
If they're going to automatically review turnovers and scoring plays, that'll eliminate the need for the majority of the challenges, so coaches can save them for ticky-tack things like yardage lines and 4 yard in/out of bounds plays. Lovely, let's extend the game even longer.
Other committee proposals include: automatically reviewing turnovers; allowing players on injured reserve to return (currently the injured reserve list ends a player's season); having all replays be viewed by the booth rather than a referee on the field; and making the too many men on the field penalty a dead- ball infraction.
If that rule doesn't get changed, I hope BB sends every god damned defensive player on the field every time they're in a situation that the Giants were in with less than 15 seconds to go in the Super Bowl.
If that rule doesn't get changed, I hope BB sends every god damned defensive player on the field every time they're in a situation that the Giants were in with less than 15 seconds to go in the Super Bowl.
Bull****ing****.
To be fair it wasn't done on purpose. The 12th guy was running off the field.
However it does have potential to be used that way.
So basically coaches don't challenge anymore? Because the TD thing is automatically reviewed, and now turnovers are autoreviewed. Saves coaches challenges for such things as first downs and yardage situations.
So basically coaches don't challenge anymore? Because the TD thing is automatically reviewed, and now turnovers are autoreviewed. Saves coaches challenges for such things as first downs and yardage situations.
What a stupid idea
Gonna slow game down and take strategy out of game ,, No longer will teams run to line to snap ball off forcing a coach to decide if to throw flag or not
Gonna slow game down and take strategy out of game ,, No longer will teams run to line to snap ball off forcing a coach to decide if to throw flag or not
I don't mind a game going 10 minutes longer if it means the right calls are going to be made.
Gonna slow game down and take strategy out of game ,, No longer will teams run to line to snap ball off forcing a coach to decide if to throw flag or not
It's stupid. So is reviewing scoring plays.
Either make everything booth review and get rid of challenges, or go back to the way it was.
Either make everything booth review and get rid of challenges, or go back to the way it was.
Agreed. They got rid of replay to begin with because every play was getting reviewed and slowing the game down. Now we're slowly going back to that same setup.
Having the booth review all replays, and not the officials, is the right way to do. Removes any bias a ref might have of overturning their own call.
Also,
But what's left to be challenged?
--too many men on the field
--catch vs incomplete
--spot of the ball (including TD if the ruling on the field was no score, as those aren't automatically reviewed)
I guess fumbles are now like that? If the ruling on the field is no turnover, it wouldn't be automatically reviewed?
As long as it doesn't slow down the game that much, I'm cool with it.
Challenges are going to skyrocket. You don't have to save them for a game-defining play anymore. Sure it can come down to in/out and line markings, but how often does that happen? Another stupid rule change.
Challenges are going to skyrocket. You don't have to save them for a game-defining play anymore. Sure it can come down to in/out and line markings, but how often does that happen? Another stupid rule change.
I'd rather there be a delay for those less-defining plays than not be able to challenge a turnover late in the game because the ref blew the call.
Games are going to take longer though. They need to enforce the 90-second rule that doesn't exist that is supposed to.
Having the booth review all replays, and not the officials, is the right way to do. Removes any bias a ref might have of overturning their own call.
Also,
But what's left to be challenged?
--too many men on the field
--catch vs incomplete
--spot of the ball (including TD if the ruling on the field was no score, as those aren't automatically reviewed)
I guess fumbles are now like that? If the ruling on the field is no turnover, it wouldn't be automatically reviewed?
As long as it doesn't slow down the game that much, I'm cool with it.
Agreed. I wonder that about fumbles too. One would think you would still be able to challenge if a guy were down or not.
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told FOXSports.com on Wednesday that, according to the rules of the CBA, the NFLPA had to approve both changes.
"There was no agreement on it with the union," Aiello said in an email to FOXSports.com. "The old rules apply."
The proposed rule changes were linked to changes to in-season practice rules, a source told FOXSports.com. Under that scenario, the NFLPA refused to accept.
"The changes would have meant one step forward and one step back," NFL executive George Atallah said in an email to FOXSports.com.
Two rules that should have been ratified aren't, yet we're stuck with the stupid review changes that I already complained about in this thread months ago. Though if I understood that blurb correctly, they were trying to tack on in-season practice changes to this addendum? What is this, congress? Can we not consider each rule change individually?
