Right now defenses struggle to guard 5 eligible receivers. Imagine if they had to guard 10.
NFL Officiating: Zebras gone wild
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
That's partly because defenses aren't allowed to touch receivers. And because offensive lines can basically tackle defensive players rushing the QB. You let defenses hit offensive players and really grapple with receivers and you don't let the OL hold at will....that stuff will be neutralized. Maybe there will still be more scoring, but...ok, so what?
If the downside is a review of a botched punt play once every few weeks, I'm down with it.
Isn‘t just one kerfuffle a year when a team blatantly tries to game the system even better?
I’m sure the competition committee will legislate this out of the game in the off season. Probably some rule where only one player with an ineligible number can approach the ref before the play or maybe just a more clear signal to declare eligibility. Any attempt at deception will be declared unsportsmanlike.
This to me is where criticism of Detroit is quite fair: they had to hear the announcement of 70. And they could have gone to someone and complain. I assume they didn’t because they didn’t want to give away there was something going on with the play - and I get for them it sucks to be in that situation…but they also probably made the wrong choice once the ref blew the eligible declaration. It’s not a great, or totally fair, choice but they contributed to the confusion and to me betting on the refs allowing 68 to catch it when not declared eligible was a bad bet
Sure. But I'm talking more the larger picture. Why do we need to worry about who's covered on the line and all that. 5 OL, QB, everyone else eligible. Simple.
That said, I don't care all that much. Just think it's simple. Easy to teach and would eliminate a few illegal formation penalties every week.
Just spitballing on this idea…what if the ineligible players wore an armband or something else to make it easily identifiable who is ineligible vs eligible. This would eliminate the confusion on the punt scenario above.
And make receivers wear numbers that start with 8, and have backs start with 2, 3, or 4.
Couldn't the Head Coach tell the Down Judge or Line Judge who the eligible receiver is and then they would relay that information via headset to the Referee who declares it to the defense and the stadium?
And stop teams from fucking retiring numbers so they don't run out of numbers for eligible players. Retiring numbers is one of the dumbest things in sports.
During the Bills v. Steelers game, there seemed to be a couple of plays where the on-field ref was getting communications from somewhere. TV showed him standing there listening and pressing his hand against his earpiece (he had a hat on so it was not possible to tell).
I don't know who he was listening to. I would think it would be New York, but there's no way to know. In both cases it was a judgment call and in both cases the communication appeared to be happening before they made the call. In one case, there was an uncatchable ball and they threw a flag on the field. The ball was headed in the direction of the player that was grabbed. They called holding, which seemed pretty close -- it certainly did look as though the foul occurred while the ball was in the air but I guess it could have gone either way. I don't remember what the second call was. But it was also a judgment call kind of thing.
The rules, as I understand them, are set up very formally. They require a call on the field. If the play is reviewable, then a review is conducted, either initiated by the booth or by a coach depending on the time in the game. The play on the field gets deference, with various levels of proof articulated depending on who says it. Separate from that, there are eye-in-the-sky procedures, where there can be an abbreviated review to check for certain objective measurement kinds of things. Again, my understanding is this is set out by rule -- usually catch no catch or line to gain.
Having New York provide information to refs on judgment calls before they announce the call on the field, if that's what is happening, strikes me as highly problematic. Yes, we want to get the calls right. But that's simply officiating by booth. Most important, they are not being at all transparent about it. We should understand what is being said. For example, if New York was giving input on whether the ball was thrown before contact to permit the refs to call holding instead of PI on an uncatchable ball, that's not consistent with what I understand the rules to be. The temptation is to say that if they got it right, who cares, but the problem is consistency. The rules -- including the reply rules -- need to be clear before the game starts, or else you just have a league that is making it up as it goes.
I don't know who he was listening to. I would think it would be New York, but there's no way to know. In both cases it was a judgment call and in both cases the communication appeared to be happening before they made the call. In one case, there was an uncatchable ball and they threw a flag on the field. The ball was headed in the direction of the player that was grabbed. They called holding, which seemed pretty close -- it certainly did look as though the foul occurred while the ball was in the air but I guess it could have gone either way. I don't remember what the second call was. But it was also a judgment call kind of thing.
The rules, as I understand them, are set up very formally. They require a call on the field. If the play is reviewable, then a review is conducted, either initiated by the booth or by a coach depending on the time in the game. The play on the field gets deference, with various levels of proof articulated depending on who says it. Separate from that, there are eye-in-the-sky procedures, where there can be an abbreviated review to check for certain objective measurement kinds of things. Again, my understanding is this is set out by rule -- usually catch no catch or line to gain.
Having New York provide information to refs on judgment calls before they announce the call on the field, if that's what is happening, strikes me as highly problematic. Yes, we want to get the calls right. But that's simply officiating by booth. Most important, they are not being at all transparent about it. We should understand what is being said. For example, if New York was giving input on whether the ball was thrown before contact to permit the refs to call holding instead of PI on an uncatchable ball, that's not consistent with what I understand the rules to be. The temptation is to say that if they got it right, who cares, but the problem is consistency. The rules -- including the reply rules -- need to be clear before the game starts, or else you just have a league that is making it up as it goes.
The NFL has been using the replay assist or whatever they call it for a couple years now. See all the illegal man downfield calls overturned. If NY sees something they can call in and overturn it proactively without a challenge flag regardless of time. And yes it is problematic. I know they have certain criteria but seems to me to be very random. Overall they get more calls correct but that lack of consistency is an issue. Just have an extra ref (or 2, 3 whatever) assigned to each game whose watching on monitors and can communicate at any time with officials on the field.
Replay assist is coming from the replay official who is on site. There’s no real way to know who the Referee is getting info from on the radio: Another official on the field, the replay official on site, or New York. NY does have a direct line though.
Thanks @CFB_Rules. Didn't realize they had a replay official on site.
In theory a step in the right direction even if sometimes it seems inconsistent.
In theory a step in the right direction even if sometimes it seems inconsistent.
And potentially misused absent transparency. As Patriot fans, I think we are understandably a little paranoid about league agendas interfering with getting calls right. I’ve said elsewhere that the NFL should make PF like late hits and helmet to helmet hits reviewable to ensure they get those calls right.
But … it already sounds like they are doing that kind of thing, albeit with no protocol we know about. And not for those calls for some reason (I’ve never seen a late hit penalty that wasn’t actually late or a helmet to helmet that wasn’t a helmet hit overturned).
Why wouldn’t they do this for those game-changing calls? IIRC, the Chiefs had multiple questionable calls go their way in last year’s playoffs.
But … it already sounds like they are doing that kind of thing, albeit with no protocol we know about. And not for those calls for some reason (I’ve never seen a late hit penalty that wasn’t actually late or a helmet to helmet that wasn’t a helmet hit overturned).
Why wouldn’t they do this for those game-changing calls? IIRC, the Chiefs had multiple questionable calls go their way in last year’s playoffs.
"Replay assist" is generally reviewing things that are already reviewable, just in an expedited fashion and without a challenge flag being thrown.
They generally aren't giving input on foul decisions
It seemed to me as though whatever assistance the ref was getting in the Buffalo Pittsburgh game, it was not in any sense "review."
Review implies that a call is made and then someone with perhaps better information takes a look and determines whether the call was correct. We are not looped into the comms, but it certainly appeared to me that on at least two occasions the refs were getting assistance with what to call. Maybe not -- just because they haven't announced what their call is to the crowd doesn't mean they haven't made it. Maybe he was saying "we have uncatchable, ball in the air," and reply assist said "ball not in the air yet." Or whatever. But even that seems like booth referring, not booth review.
I'm all for getting it right. But the entire premise of NFL review is that the officials call the game, and then replay can review what they call. Once it departs from that model, it starts to feel a bit like a danger zone to me.
Review implies that a call is made and then someone with perhaps better information takes a look and determines whether the call was correct. We are not looped into the comms, but it certainly appeared to me that on at least two occasions the refs were getting assistance with what to call. Maybe not -- just because they haven't announced what their call is to the crowd doesn't mean they haven't made it. Maybe he was saying "we have uncatchable, ball in the air," and reply assist said "ball not in the air yet." Or whatever. But even that seems like booth referring, not booth review.
I'm all for getting it right. But the entire premise of NFL review is that the officials call the game, and then replay can review what they call. Once it departs from that model, it starts to feel a bit like a danger zone to me.
No question. It’s a shame NBC made McAulay delete his Twitter account, he went hard after the NFL about this at length. Lots of video clips as evidence too.
Yah. I honestly feel that was one of the things the XFL got right. And i am kind of surprised they did not copy the idea.
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s_JPxlEwiYk
View: https://youtu.be/VHa92qWUP9g?si=Fz-ASj5lzrV50xkm
You would think officials would want something like this. Because as it currently stands we have no damn clue what’s being discussed during replay. I also feel having something like the above would severely cut down on the pool reports that happen multiple times a week
I knew Roger would say this shit during his pre game super bowl press conference. He may as well just piss on us whilst telling us it's raining.
View: https://twitter.com/awfulannouncing/status/1754648998789648628?s=46
Not gaslight us when it’s clearly obvious to anyone with eyes that officiating is not “superior”.
Oh. And “embrace” technology?
you mean like that one year in which PI calls were reviewable? But after it did not go as the nfl hoped it would they just threw their hands up and said forget it and stopped allowing PI reviews. You know what would have been a better idea? Work with the officials to fix the review process for the following season.
For all the shit MLB gets they were literally the last professional sports league to implement any type of replay. And may end up being the first to have replay/technology assist umpires in all aspects of the game.
To be fair to the NFL, baseball is a series of discrete calls that essentially occur one at a time. Ball/strike; safe/out; fair/foul. There are roughly 20 calls happening simultaneously on every play in the NFL, many of which rely on useless (objectively speaking) standards such as "impeded." The NFL has miles to go, but I dont think comparing its use of tech to MLB is effective.
While true, the easiest way the NFL can show it "embraces" technology, is to no longer measure down and distance with a damn chain and a note card
The fact they continue to use that as measurement, is telling
I am of the opinion that NFL reffing is horrendous. Incompetent and maybe even crooked.
But I still have no idea what you think the commissioner should be saying in this instance. He is a protector of the shield. That is what he does.
The issue at hand was that an egregious PI call was missed, one which cost ateam a trip to the Super Bowl (my daughter is still bitter about that).
The NFL tried to correct that and when it did not go as desired right away they abandoned it.
I think they are indeed running a system where someone tells the referees on the field about certain things they missed and I have nothing against it but be open about it. Having an "eye in the sky" looking out for holding or for personal fouls is not a bad thing.
Then again, we can make everything reviewable with today's technology like BB wants.
I'm pretty critical of NFL refereeing, and I think it's embarassing they way they whitewash bad calls, including their PR mouthpieces on TV these days.
That all said,we also should acknolwedge that part of why it seems so bad today is that the number of angles and quality of replay is so amazing we see 'mistakes' far more than we used to because we couldn't see them in the past.
The other part, imo, is that the rules are simply too technical and complicated and that results in insane ('what's a catch') and the appearance of arbitrariness (when holding is or isn't called).
I am not sure 'the refs are worse' is even true - I do think the quality of calls may be, and also that our satisfaction with the calls being right is hugely impacted by access to so many high-quality replays
That all said,we also should acknolwedge that part of why it seems so bad today is that the number of angles and quality of replay is so amazing we see 'mistakes' far more than we used to because we couldn't see them in the past.
The other part, imo, is that the rules are simply too technical and complicated and that results in insane ('what's a catch') and the appearance of arbitrariness (when holding is or isn't called).
I am not sure 'the refs are worse' is even true - I do think the quality of calls may be, and also that our satisfaction with the calls being right is hugely impacted by access to so many high-quality replays
Am I the only one that thinks the non-PI calls on DB's has gotten much better in the last couple years? It's not 2004 anymore but there's a number of non-calls that are replayed on TV (not by the NFL) where there's obvious contact on both sides. In 2007-2014 everyone of those would have been called DPI. (Faceguarding anyone?)
I think the NFL Reffing is extremely bad but I want to give them some credit, they let way way more DPI's go than they did before from what I've watched.
I think the NFL Reffing is extremely bad but I want to give them some credit, they let way way more DPI's go than they did before from what I've watched.
I'm almost always in the let them play camp, and I agree with this to an extent. I still find the "impeded the receiver" criteria to be inconsistently applied, and depend almost entirely on the receiver's skill in demonstrating that he was impeded. Pop Douglas can get mauled downfield but because he doesn't come back to the ball quite enough, they let it go. This is much more apparently in the regular season games with worse refs. Which makes me wonder whether we could have playoff level officiating all year if the League invested in full time officials.
Part of it is the weird insistence of “well this is a rule but for game management purposes we are not calling it this time” stuff.”
Hockey is the worst for this but football still has some of those. Particularly the “holding” call where there is a definitive “don’t call it if it doesn’t have a material effect on the play” that seems to exist. And their judgement on “material effect” is pretty inconsistent.
Similar to a baseball umpire and his strike zone? And pitchers have to adjust to them.
Then all of a sudden it changes (like they let go of 100 holds but call one with the game on the line).
It would be great if officials were perfect, but there are some fouls that officials simply aren’t going to see 100% of the time. Offensive holding is one of those; so are blocking in the back and hands to the face. The latter two are safety calls, so officials flag those whenever they see them and we live with the inconsistency. Holding isn’t, so officials only call it when it’s blatant or clearly affects the play. It’s somewhat arbitrary, but throwing a flag every time an official sees a hold would be more so.
Wasn't there a point of emphasis a few years back on calling holding penalties on the backside of plays? To your point, I think that lasted all of 3 weeks.