Instant Replay and Its Many Rules

[PlayerRep]

While I understand that instant replay is here to stay, I have felt for some time that instant replay really doesn't belong in the game of football. Sure, refs make mistakes, and sometimes huge mistakes, but, in my view, those mistakes are part of the game--and instant replay doesn't correct all of the mistakes that refs make. Mistakes tend to even themselves out, I would think, and why emphasize some mistakes so much over others.

Leaving aside the seeming mistakes made by the instant replay officials, instant replay doesn't cover all situations and doesn't cover much of what occurs during every play in football. It doesn't seem right to me that instant replay focuses only on certain situations and certain types of plays--and ignores many other important situations. Sure, whether a TD has been scored or whether a player has fumbled is very important, but what about critical holding (a lack of holding) calls. What about pass interference? PI is one of the critical calls in football, especially in the NFL (because the ball is put at the spot of the foul)?

Can you imagine the results of a full game that has been analyzed on video (say 10 cameras) on every play for every potential foul? The written analysis would be very long and complex. Every hold or potential hold. Every defensive holding or potential holding. Every PI or potential PI.

I submit that missing a critical holding call that results in the qb getting off a long pass or a runner getting a long run, or missing (or calling) PI, is more important than whether the ball touched/crossed the goal line, or is 1 inch short.

Instant replay has also caused rules to be developed that are unnatural. What constitutes a catch? 2 feet down, a few steps, a football move, did ball hit the ground, holding onto the ball after hitting the ground and ball touching the ground. Huh? What's constitutes a fumble? Is player's knee, elbow, forearm down? Is ball coming out or secure? Ground can't cause a fumble. BS, I think the player ought to have hold of the ball when he is down, completely down. I think the ground should be able to cause a fumble. The rule ought to be that you have to hold onto the damn ball until you are completely down.

I admit that I like watching instant replay on tv, when I'm home or at a bar. However, the long delays while at games is irritating and boring. Totally takes away from the flow of the game. I suspect the delays do the same thing for players in the game, who want to keep playing and keep momentum going.

 

[Umista]

Yes.
Another issue I have is the Big Sky refs are sub par but who thinks the replay officials will be any better? With that said I think we keep on playing with our refs and like P mentioned bad calls tend to even out.

Instant Replay should stay in Big G's bar......No one will miss it.

 

[MrTitleist]

I like instant replay, because it does good things when determining if a ball hit the ground during a catch or turnover.. it can be monotonous from time to time, and does take too long sometimes, but in general it's a good aid for the officials.. because really, there's a lot of terrible officiating out there. Every play should be reviewable, but has to be done in moderation.. like stopping to review EVERY score can be dumb. The challenge flags NFL coaches have keep the # of replays down.

 

[grizindabox]

Penalties should never be reviewable...ever

 

[dupuyer griz]

You know what's interesting? The fact that it takes less than a minute usually in NCAA for the review to happen and often over 5 minutes in the NFL... Keeps them honest, kind of like the first down mark in the Cowboys Packers game that was easily 5 feet past the actual location it should have been spotted. It seems more and more every year that the NFL is becoming professional wrestling. Yes, there are amazing feats of athleticism in both, but it just seems odd that the important calls always go for certain teams and against other certain teams. Is it keeping my team down? No, the Raiders could get the benefit of the doubt on every play and still not have a winning record. However, it's getting really hard to watch a guy smoke a quarterback in the knees and not get flagged and 5 minutes later land "close" to the legs of Tom Brady and get flagged for going too low at the quarterbacks legs.

 

[ordigger]

I'm not a big fan either....and for years the human element has been part of the game. Still leads to questions, and not everyone is satisfied. And people will always be biased in the way they view them.

 

[Grisly Fan]

I think "indisputable video evidence" is a good and easy metric. The answer is to get rid of slow motion as a review tool. Let the review officials see the play from as many angles as are available at full speed. An obvious mistake will be seen. Otherwise the play stands as called.

 

[get'em_griz]

I look forward to instant replay in 2015. It's been a long time coming. :clap:

 

[Ursa Major]

While I understand that instant replay is here to stay, I have felt for some time that instant replay really doesn't belong in the game of football. Sure, refs make mistakes, and sometimes huge mistakes, but, in my view, those mistakes are part of the game--and instant replay doesn't correct all of the mistakes that refs make. Mistakes tend to even themselves out, I would think, and why emphasize some mistakes so much over others.

Leaving aside the seeming mistakes made by the instant replay officials, instant replay doesn't cover all situations and doesn't cover much of what occurs during every play in football. It doesn't seem right to me that instant replay focuses only on certain situations and certain types of plays--and ignores many other important situations. Sure, whether a TD has been scored or whether a player has fumbled is very important, but what about critical holding (a lack of holding) calls. What about pass interference? PI is one of the critical calls in football, especially in the NFL (because the ball is put at the spot of the foul)?

Can you imagine the results of a full game that has been analyzed on video (say 10 cameras) on every play for every potential foul? The written analysis would be very long and complex. Every hold or potential hold. Every defensive holding or potential holding. Every PI or potential PI.

I submit that missing a critical holding call that results in the qb getting off a long pass or a runner getting a long run, or missing (or calling) PI, is more important than whether the ball touched/crossed the goal line, or is 1 inch short.

Instant replay has also caused rules to be developed that are unnatural. What constitutes a catch? 2 feet down, a few steps, a football move, did ball hit the ground, holding onto the ball after hitting the ground and ball touching the ground. Huh? What's constitutes a fumble? Is player's knee, elbow, forearm down? Is ball coming out or secure? Ground can't cause a fumble. BS, I think the player ought to have hold of the ball when he is down, completely down. I think the ground should be able to cause a fumble. The rule ought to be that you have to hold onto the damn ball until you are completely down.

I admit that I like watching instant replay on tv, when I'm home or at a bar. However, the long delays while at games is irritating and boring. Totally takes away from the flow of the game. I suspect the delays do the same thing for players in the game, who want to keep playing and keep momentum going.

Good Post, PR! I thoroughly agree with you. My only doubts of this point of view come when I watch a Big Sky game.

 

[Big G]

Instant replay is a great idea. Why not use the tools to get calls right instead of wrong that is wrong to think that way. It takes human error out and makes the calls right no matter what. Anything less is pure poppycock plain and simple.

 

[stilwtrgrizz]

I think "indisputable video evidence" is a good and easy metric. The answer is to get rid of slow motion as a review tool. Let the review officials see the play from as many angles as are available at full speed. An obvious mistake will be seen. Otherwise the play stands as called.

I love this idea. Makes all kinds of sense to me. :thumb:

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I think "indisputable video evidence" is a good and easy metric. The answer is to get rid of slow motion as a review tool. Let the review officials see the play from as many angles as are available at full speed. An obvious mistake will be seen. Otherwise the play stands as called.

I love this idea. Makes all kinds of sense to me. :thumb:

It does sound good, I agree. The only problem is that the TV people will still have the slow motion available. That could breed some weird outcomes.

 

[PlayerRep]

I like instant replay, because it does good things when determining if a ball hit the ground during a catch or turnover.. it can be monotonous from time to time, and does take too long sometimes, but in general it's a good aid for the officials.. because really, there's a lot of terrible officiating out there. Every play should be reviewable, but has to be done in moderation.. like stopping to review EVERY score can be dumb. The challenge flags NFL coaches have keep the # of replays down.

The NFL's rules on what supposedly constitutes a catch, do you think Bryant caught the ball or not? I think he probably did. He had several steps before he hit the ground and the ball touched the ground.

Again, why is the importance of the ball hitting the ground during a catch or turnover, or whether the runner/ball crossed the line or was a few inches or a foot short, so much higher than whether there was a missed and material holding call by a lineman, a missed defensive facemask issue on the pass rush, or a missed defensive holding call on a receiver who might have otherwise been open? It makes no sense to me to emphasize one part of a play, whether important or not important, over multiple other important parts of the play.

Again, I think judgment calls and even mistakes are part of the game of football, and all sports. It's the way it was and the way it should be. They will tend to even out over time, even during a game. The 2 exceptions I can think of, are having a camera on hockey and soccer goals. There is so little scoring, and whether the puck/ball is actually in the goal or not, is critically important. The puck/ball is either in or not, and I actually like replay for situations like that.