Replay - just get rid of it

Yeah, I am now for that too.

Just get rid of it because in the end the game itself has become compromised by way more than Replay, so just get rid of it.

The NFL has become the Tax Code, 70% could be stripped away from either and everyone would benfit from that fact.

But the human element ... egos, power and control sits smack dab at the forefront of both.

I could handle that too. nothing is more galling than watching the replay on TV and having a frickin zebra announce that he's come to the exact opposite conclusion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...nPUU&feature=related

...and then I think of this game (7min in)
The Fumble that wasn't a Fumble

I like replay, I think they should get the call right, but they need to improve on the process.

1) Move it upstairs, speed it up, no more officials running up and down the sideline.

2) Make the reviewer an actual official, meaning don't limit as much what he can or can't review. Some things like holding etc might still need to be off limits as they can find that on every play.

3) Move it to NYC, especially for end of game plays like that. Why doesn't the head of officials in NY have a say at that time, the technology is their. Instead the guy is reviewing it the next day, what good is that.

4) They could even go as far as a committee to review end of game plays. 3 refs isolated on each other voting on whether to let stand or overrule. This would be the fairest way as even among the most highly trained guys their is often disagreement.

These are all very easy to implement but cost $$$, which how the owners already are fighting the officials over money, I imagine they are a non-starter.

Why have it if that farce can stand?

I would bet all of us loved the replay that gave the Pack a first down on the 1......

Getting rid of replay is just dumb. They just need to keep refining it. We were all screaming for it to come back in '99 after that Rice fumble, and I think we can be sure that real NFL officials will get a play like that one or what we saw last night right 99%+ of the time. It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to take it away from these replacement doofuses, though. They already delay the game enough as it is, no need to give them another toy to screw up with. That Rice disaster alone is why I will never oppose the use of replay. That '98 team was peaking at just the right time (Levens was back, and in top form), and I have no doubt they would have beaten the Falcons the next week and then blown the Vikings off the field in the Metrodome. Basically, it was a version the 2010 team that just wasn't meant to be.

quote:

Originally posted by LarseeBear:
Why have it if that farce can stand?

Because 9 out of 10 times it gets overturned. Without it there is even more mistakes. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Make it better.

If they can't get that travesty right, the bath water has already been thrown.

quote:

Originally posted by LarseeBear:
Why have it if that farce can stand?

It was the right call/correction, not sure of your point.

I say keep replay but I like the idea of independent crews doing the review, like college.

quote:

Originally posted by GratefulPack:
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Make it better.

Babies are overrated.

Did replay serve any useful purpose in the Saints game?

quote:

Originally posted by GratefulPack:
1) Move it upstairs, speed it up, no more officials running up and down the sideline.

I agree with this. Maybe just have an experienced ex-official sit up there and just make an executive decision. Take all responsibility from the guys on the field. Two things happen:

1. Guys on the field don't ever feel the need to search for evidence as to why they made the initial call.

2. Will speed up the game. This is the biggest reason, IMO...

like the KO fumble, I am in favor of letting the booth buzz down to correct obviously screwed up on the field calls. quit letting the wrong thing happen on the field. ya got the technology - use it.

You dont really believe that the refs concur with the bad calls on the field after reviewing replays that show they are wrong when they are officiating games not including the Packers do you,its like the Packers President was banging the wives of the referees and the team is paying for his fun.

The thing that dooms replay to failure is the phrase "indisputable visual evidence." The replay official is forced to concentrate so hard on making sure the call on the field was 100% wrong that it means calls that were 85% wrong get upheld.

It's ridiculous that a call made hastily in real time on the field can't be trumped by a call made with deliberation and reasonable (but not absolute) certainty in the booth.

I'm an opponent to replay. It takes the spontaneity out of the game, especially with every touchdown being reviewed. We have put up with terrible officiating for years and more games are blown on non-reviewable judgements calls than the crazy stuff that happened this past two weeks.(Arizona playoff game comes to mind--or even the opener last year vs. the Saints--which luckily didn't end in disaster) The game has become so plodding-that for several years I taped and now DVR the games and watch them fast forwarding thru the mess. On the occasions where this is not possible and watch in 'real time'...I feel like killing myself. Obviously it is a hard game to officiate, but officials of the league have not been up to the task for years. My hope with the lock out was that greater accountability would come about.It was palpable irony that it ended due to the screws put to the Pack---we'll keep the '89 instant replay game against the Bears---otherwise get rid of it.

Half an avatar is better than none!

quote:

Originally posted by Johnson:
It takes the spontaneity out of the game, especially with every touchdown being reviewed.

Concur. Huge scoring play, the fans go wild and then the Big Brother says:

" Wait...you'll celebrate when we tell you to celebrate"

Eff U NFL, we deserve better.

I like replay. The problem is it doesn't always work, and frankly, it pisses me off. I don't understand how you can F up a call when it's reviewed from 789 different angles in slow motion on high definition monitors.

I think in some cases it's the rules/language in which the replay process works under. CitizenDan made a good point about "indisputable visual evidence" and "making sure the call on the field was 100% wrong that it means calls that were 85% wrong get upheld".

What does indisputable even mean? People say the moon landings were faked because they think they saw a flag flapping in the breeze. Scott Kascur says Golden Tate had control of the ball before MD Jennings. There is always going to be some idiotic way to dispute something.

The justice system has a better phrase that could apply. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" rather than "Beyond any doubt at all".

Well, the thread title makes no sense. The game is faster than the officials can keep up with, and you want to eliminate the one thing that can correct the mistakes? Why on earth would you want to do that? It's not perfect, but it's the best we got.

Replay is not the problem. If the Packers had a challenge left, we'd have gotten the fumble recovery at the end. Be serious. Obviously you would have wanted that.

Triplette and his crew are what needs to go. They almost screwed up another game for us, which would have been a real disaster.

Without replay, ZERO incorrect calls get overturned.

With replay, PLENTY of incorrect calls get overturned.



It's not 100%, and there are plenty of ways to make it better. The NFL needs to do that, and I think they will. It's already been a changing process since it's inception.

Fixing replay is easy and impossible.

The NFL just needs to adopt the Big Ten/ college rules on replay. The guy upstairs initiates the replays, meaning the guys on the field just make their calls and don't have to worry about it. No nonsense about how many challenges are allowed. He can over-rule the call, instead of requiring an on-field official to over-rule himself. A game would have 10-15 quick replays, centered in a booth, with all the video angles, away from the crowd and certainly not under a hood, seeing less detail than most fans see on the video board. They still get calls wrong, but the game moves along, most errors get corrected and no BS about. The focus is on getting the call right.

The NFL will not do this. Some idots at the top think that limited challenges add to the suspense. The league office loves the lawyer-like procedures involved, so complex that even officials aren't sure what they can and can't over-rule. The focus is all on process, with little concern for results. Any league concern about the blown call on the KO fumble that could have cost GB the game? None at all, since the refs followed the right procedure. That they blew the call is not relevant.

Half an avatar is better than none!


Yeah---I couldn't figure out what happened to my avatar than it hit me---I got a PBR in my tackle box---which violates X4 advertising---so my photo is censored! I'm really not a hipster and I don't work for Pabst---I'm an old guy! I do see the gear as half full.

Our government has taught us how to solve problems like these - and it is easy. Just add a second tier replay review of the first replay review. It employs more people, adds millions to the cost of doing business, adds hours to the time for one game, and ensures no more accuracy than what we have now.

After all, what good is government if we can't all learn from it?

I don't mind replay (the Bears still suck!) but there has to be a way to make it better. Replays should be initiated by the field crew/head ref, but then taken out of the hands of the on-field ref. The on-field ref would call upstairs to request a replay, and tell the replay dude what the call was and what the question is. The guy in the booth watches all angles, consults a rules guy if needed, then phones down with the decision. If an on-field ref is sure it's a TD or fumble/recovery, etc., there's no need to call upstairs. That takes some of the pressure off the on-field old guy to run over, watch the play numerous times so there's no doubt, and then make a call -- all supposedly within 90 seconds. The fans don't have to sit and wait to celebrate after a sure TD, which is ridiculous and interrupts the flow of the game when the players have to wait for the PAT.

quote:

“It was frustrating,” Rodgers said. “The way that the reviews have gone now with them reviewing all scoring plays and turnovers as well, you would think that would just continue to encourage a late whistle because if it is ruled a turnover, and there wasn’t a whistle for down by contact, you can go back and review that upstairs and make sure it was a turnover.”
....
Rodgers also said he was wearing a microphone for NFL Films during the Saints game, and that microphone picked up some choice comments about the officials. But he declined to repeat those comments, saying he’d let NFL Films decide if those comments should ever become public. Whatever he said, it probably wasn’t as bad as what the Packers were saying during the last game with the replacement refs.

http://profootballtalk.nbcspor...ar-refs-frustrating/

As mentioned previously, use the NHL model. Have a Reply Headquarters in some city and have ALL replays go through center. Takes the decision making away from the on field refs who may be leery to overturn another official's call.