Report: NFL might revise rules to allow challenging pass interference calls.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

Exactly.  OTIH, we have top be mindful how to go about it.  Letting coaches toss out a red flag whenever they feel wronged (call made or not made) just may not be it.

 

 

This may have unintended consequences, so let me know what I'm missing:

 

During playoff games, since there's only one game on at a time, it should be possible to have the NY office monitoring the game in real time. A play like the no-PI in the Saints game should prompt a stoppage by NY -- just like an automatic review does within two minutes; teams are rarely able to quick-snap and beat an automatic review -- and the penalty should be assessed. 

 

If a personal foul is called, it should be reviewed by NY right away, and if a play stoppage is necessary, that's fine. 

 

But when you have a mechanism that can be used to correct wrong calls, or make calls that were missed, you shouldn't decline to do so because of an arbitrary decision about what can and can't be reviewed. The primary concern should be with getting it right.

 

And the bigger issue is with the quality and consistency of the officiating, throughout the season. The NFL has a lot of work to do in this regard.

[Gramz]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

During playoff games, since there's only one game on at a time, it should be possible to have the NY office monitoring the game in real time. A play like the no-PI in the Saints game should prompt a stoppage by NY -- just like an automatic review does within two minutes; teams are rarely able to quick-snap and beat an automatic review -- and the penalty should be assessed. 

 

If a personal foul is called, it should be reviewed by NY right away, and if a play stoppage is necessary, that's fine. 

 

But when you have a mechanism that can be used to correct wrong calls, or make calls that were missed, you shouldn't decline to do so because of an arbitrary decision about what can and can't be reviewed. The primary concern should be with getting it right.

 

 

Perfect!  

[lollygagger8]

Why not just hire refs that aren't trash to begin with? 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, lollygagger8 said:

Why not just hire refs that aren't trash to begin with? 

 

Seriously. I mean, what's this guy looking at?

 

[Gramz]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Seriously. I mean, what's this guy looking at?

 

A Big payoff from someone..??      Seriously, He is looking right at them, so he either needs his eyes checked,  or his morals.    One is definitely off.

[Barry Sears]

This was obviously a serious miss by the ref, and affected the outcome of the game.  I was not watching at the time, but understand that if it had been called, the Saints would have had a 1st down and the ability to run down the clock on kick a FG to win it.

 

However, the refs are part of the game and are human.  How many games are lost by a dropped pass, an interception or fumble?  Players also make huge mistakes that change the outcome of a game...they are human, too and make mistakes.

 

Not defending the "non-call" and it was magnified by the fact that this was the NFC Championship game.  But, the Saints also blew a lead, failed to score touchdowns on their first two possessions and settled for field goals.

 

It's a 60 minute game and there are lots of things that determine the outcome.

[Gramz]

1 minute ago, Barry Sears said:

This was obviously a serious miss by the ref, and affected the outcome of the game.  I was not watching at the time, but understand that if it had been called, the Saints would have had a 1st down and the ability to run down the clock on kick a FG to win it.

 

However, the refs are part of the game and are human.  How many games are lost by a dropped pass, an interception or fumble?  Players also make huge mistakes that change the outcome of a game...they are human, too and make mistakes.

 

Not defending the "non-call" and it was magnified by the fact that this was the NFC Championship game.  But, the Saints also blew a lead, failed to score touchdowns on their first two possessions and settled for field goals.

 

It's a 60 minute game and there are lots of things that determine the outcome.

While the bolded is true...….   To lose a game,   or to have a trip to the SB ripped from you,  by an incompetent officiating crew, is unacceptable,  any way you look at it.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, Barry Sears said:

But, the Saints also blew a lead, failed to score touchdowns on their first two possessions and settled for field goals.

 

It's a 60 minute game and there are lots of things that determine the outcome.

 

None of this is relevant. It's not about the outcome of the game or who deserved to win (and the Rams made just as many mistakes; that's why you don't want bad officiating to be a determining factor), it's about the integrity and quality of the game. 

 

We might as well not have officials if they're going to miss obvious calls like that PI. They're not there to call innocuous holds all day, then miss the most blatant penalty of the game when a ref is standing directly in front of the play. 

[Superman]

13 minutes ago, Gramz said:

A Big payoff from someone..??      Seriously, He is looking right at them, so he either needs his eyes checked,  or his morals.    One is definitely off.

 

And end of the day, everyone watching the game can see that it's an obvious penalty, but because the rules say so, there's no way to get it right.

 

Setting aside the snarkiness of my previous post, I can see a ref missing this call from that angle. It's hard to understand, but he may have thought the receiver touched the ball before the defender made contact, since he is behind the play. But to arbitrarily say this is a play that even the review center can't correct just doesn't make sense. It's not even a judgment call once you see the replay; 100 out of 100 agree that it's a penalty.

[Gramz]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

And end of the day, everyone watching the game can see that it's an obvious penalty, but because the rules say so, there's no way to get it right.

 

Setting aside the snarkiness of my previous post, I can see a ref missing this call from that angle. It's hard to understand, but he may have thought the receiver touched the ball before the defender made contact, since he is behind the play. But to arbitrarily say this is a play that even the review center can't correct just doesn't make sense. It's not even a judgment call once you see the replay; 100 out of 100 agree that it's a penalty.

Yep.   It's just disappointing.   You know I love the game.   

 

This time of year is normally, especially exciting for anyone who loves the game.  

 

Maybe I'll change my mind by the time the big game rolls around, but as of today,  I'm so disappointed in this past weekend's results,  the questionable officiating, etc...  to the point that I seriously have zero interest in the game.     And that is disappointing to me on a personal level, from someone who has always planned her January around planning a SB party.     

[shasta519]

8 hours ago, King Colt said:

It can't be said in the media for fear of the impact but to miss that PI call smells real, real bad to the point I don't believe the play was missed but ignored.

 

Of course they ignored it. I don't think they wanted to see NO kneel twice and then kick a chip shot. That's a boring ending to an exciting game. And if I am being honest...I didn't really want to either. I wanted the LAR to get another chance.

 

And NO still had a chance to win that game by stopping the LAR...who ultimately had to nail nearly a 50 yard FG to send it to OT. And then NO got the ball first in OT...and turned it over. 

 

NO still got jobbed...but I don't buy that the NFL was rigging this game for the LAR. I don't care how large that market is...a bunch of short-term bandwagon LA fans isn't better than a potential Brees/Mahomes or Brees/Brady matchup.  

 

 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

10 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

The only reason I believe it hasn't been leaked already is that there would be a hit on any ref who revealed details on what's going on, so they keep quiet.

 

10 hours ago, Narcosys said:

Powerful NDAs are all you need. Who would want to be on the hook to repay the NFL for billions?

 

Now we're talking about murder-for-hire and billion-dollar lawsuits to keep people from blowing the lid off a conspiracy?!?

 

I just wanna watch football games...

 

[ColtsBlueFL]

On 1/22/2019 at 9:37 AM, Superman said:

 

This may have unintended consequences, so let me know what I'm missing:

 

We all have questions, and want discussion.  Because none of us wants a game having a play like that very possibly affecting the outcome.

 

On 1/22/2019 at 9:37 AM, Superman said:

 

During playoff games, since there's only one game on at a time, it should be possible to have the NY office monitoring the game in real time. A play like the no-PI in the Saints game should prompt a stoppage by NY -- just like an automatic review does within two minutes; teams are rarely able to quick-snap and beat an automatic review -- and the penalty should be assessed. 

 

 

I'll insert below some things I hear rich McKay address concerning this and more.

 

On 1/22/2019 at 9:37 AM, Superman said:

 

If a personal foul is called, it should be reviewed by NY right away, and if a play stoppage is necessary, that's fine. 

 

I think they already do, but just for potential disqualification purposes.  Not to inject their judgment over another.

 

On 1/22/2019 at 9:37 AM, Superman said:

But when you have a mechanism that can be used to correct wrong calls, or make calls that were missed, you shouldn't decline to do so because of an arbitrary decision about what can and can't be reviewed. The primary concern should be with getting it right.

 

Then discussion  about standards and process begins, as Rich McKay explains below. He has stated before replay was not designed to resolve ALL issues.  It was implemented to correct obvious error on a big play. Now that was a big play. And discussion (league and fans) on how to address that must be made. On this we agree.

 

On 1/22/2019 at 9:37 AM, Superman said:

And the bigger issue is with the quality and consistency of the officiating, throughout the season. The NFL has a lot of work to do in this regard.

 

That is all on Sr. VP of officiating Alberto Riveron.   Fans/Media were all over the Pereira and later Blandino refs inconsistent gaffs.  Now many are begging to pay Head Coach salary to try to lure them back!  :-D

 

On 1/22/2019 at 10:33 AM, Superman said:

 

And end of the day, everyone watching the game can see that it's an obvious penalty, but because the rules say so, there's no way to get it right.

 

For the time being, true.  So let me insert some Rich McKay thoughts here:

 

I heard a Rich McKay interview recently. He talks about going to a system that allows fouls to be put on, either with or without a challenge as opposed to reviewing a flag on the field. He says 'who' is going to initiate, and 'when' are they going to initiate. He mentioned about the helmet to helmet on that DPI play.  But then mentions the facemask on Goff earlier in that game (stop play and challenge that foul, and others, too?) He said discussion is merited, but hours and hours to discuss all items and ramifications.

When challenges enter the subjective world, what 'standard' will apply? Will it just move judgement from one person over to another? or apply a standard (open, obvious, and asbsolute) and then what all will be reviewed?  Mckay gave an example-

 

Say a coach challenges a potential key play where he feels a Defensive lineman was lined up in the neutral zone (uncalled).  What will be reviewed, will they watch for offensive holding on the play too? Hands to the face, etc?  Facemask on the QB? What are the limits of the process? Those things (and more) need to be considered on how to implement and not negatively impact the game.

 

McKay says discussion does not mean its impossible to implement either, but needs to be looked at as a holistic program.  He mentions you just can't say - "let them challenge anything", because the question then becomes what does that mean? What's the standard? And then, exactly what are you going to review?

 

I think right now NY reviews all aspects of a play once a challenged in initiated, but not penalty infractions.  Say there is a review if a receiver crossed the goal with the ball for a TD.  When reviewed, we at home just see Broadcast replays of the crossing from all different angles etc.  NY reviews the whole play... did receiver catch and control ball, did receiver remain in bounds through the whole play, etc.  I think involving foul challenges now allows potentially missed fouls earlier in the play to come into focus now as well.  And, let's be honest, sometimes they are judgement calls too IME.

 

So I don't think the league is looking to correct all calls, but correct obvioius and absolute ones.  But with a standard and a process.

 

On 1/22/2019 at 10:33 AM, Superman said:

Setting aside the snarkiness of my previous post, I can see a ref missing this call from that angle. It's hard to understand, but he may have thought the receiver touched the ball before the defender made contact, since he is behind the play. But to arbitrarily say this is a play that even the review center can't correct just doesn't make sense. It's not even a judgment call once you see the replay; 100 out of 100 agree that it's a penalty.

 

OK, Riveron stops the action, then asks the broadcast team to send all 7 (or whatever loos of the play to his 7 (or whatever) monitors he has in NY in an endless loop.  Now they have to see if there was any offsides, false start, holding, hands to the face, etc...

 

How can one challenge a Penalty, yet allow other potential penalties committed in the same play go as well?  What if (purely hypothetical for demonstration only) Riveron had thought there was offensive holding on that play as well as DPI and a helmet to helmet hit on defenseless receiver, and tells the head ref to call all of those infractions?  Point is opening up foul challenges also opens up potential problems that need to be determined and addressed before implementing.

 

I just don't want rules hastily thrown in that aren't well devised and implemented that later proves to negatively impact the game by fixing one area and also introducing problems in other areas.

[ColtsBlueFL]

On 1/22/2019 at 11:51 AM, shastamasta said:

Of course they ignored it. I don't think they wanted to see NO kneel twice and then kick a chip shot. That's a boring ending to an exciting game.

 

Would have been.  But there's no guarantee.  Remember this FG attempt? As easy a chip shot as you can get in the NFL-

 

http://www.nfl.com/videos/dallas-cowboys/09000d5d8208e54a/Cowboys-blunders-Romo-s-botched-snap

 

NO got the shaft and Rams the elevator on the call.  But nobody knows with certainty what would have happened after that. 

[Superman]

26 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

When challenges enter the subjective world, what 'standard' will apply? Will it just move judgement from one person over to another? or apply a standard (open, obvious, and asbsolute) and then what all will be reviewed?  Mckay gave an example-

 

 

Lots of good stuff. I'll pick out a few things. To this above, the same standard that applies to replay now could apply to more subjective calls -- clear and obvious evidence needed to overturn the call on the field.

 

(By the way, fans and media tend to raise the bar for the standard to overturn; the rule doesn't require 'absolute' or 'indisputable' proof, like everyone tends to say. It requires "clear and obvious visual evidence." Still a high standard, but not as concrete as it's made out to be.)

 

And the judgment can be a collaborative, just like it is now, between NY and the head official on the field, but the final decision comes from NY. And that's fine, as long as the standard is 'clear and obvious visual evidence,' just like it is now.

 

Quote

I heard a Rich McKay interview recently. He talks about going to a system that allows fouls to be put on, either with or without a challenge as opposed to reviewing a flag on the field. He says 'who' is going to initiate, and 'when' are they going to initiate. He mentioned about the helmet to helmet on that DPI play.  But then mentions the facemask on Goff earlier in that game (stop play and challenge that foul, and others, too?) He said discussion is merited, but hours and hours to discuss all items and ramifications.

 

So the idea is we don't want to open every reviewed play up to being a witch hunt, where you have to look at every element of the play, from every angle you have, to see if there are any enforceable penalties. That's a reasonable concern.

 

But why can't it be as simple as reviewing only for what we're challenging? The idea of replay, from its inception, was to correct obvious mistakes during the game. If Sean Payton uses one of his limited challenges to have the PI play reviewed, the refs can review the play for PI. If Sean McVay throws his flag at the same time because he thinks there was offensive holding, the refs would review for holding. 

 

And by the way, no one is suggesting increasing the amount of challenges coaches can use, and no one is suggesting that the league office reviews every play for possible penalties. Whatever standard coaches and the league office use now to determine when a play should be reviewed doesn't need to change -- we're looking for obvious mistakes during the game. 

 

Quote

How can one challenge a Penalty, yet allow other potential penalties committed in the same play go as well?  What if (purely hypothetical for demonstration only) Riveron had thought there was offensive holding on that play as well as DPI and a helmet to helmet hit on defenseless receiver, and tells the head ref to call all of those infractions? 

 

We already have a version of this -- coaches can throw the flag to review for 'too many men.' That's not subjective, but the point is that the review process doesn't involve reviewing the offensive formation to determine if the offense was in a legal formation, or to make sure all eligible receivers reported correctly, or for offensive holding during the play. We're reviewing one element of the play, only. 

 

But if you want to have every element of the play reviewed, fine. If there was offensive holding during that PI play, the Saints still come out ahead, because the holding and the PI offset, but most likely the defensive/helmet hit gets flagged for 15 yards and an automatic first down. And even if there's no personal foul called, the Saints would have been better off with offsetting penalties and a replay of the down, than they were with such an obvious PI going uncalled.

 

Quote

I just don't want rules hastily thrown in that aren't well devised and implemented that later proves to negatively impact the game by fixing one area and also introducing problems in other areas.

 

I totally agree. I just have a problem with people who have preconceived notions on this and who aren't willing to spend three minutes thinking it through declaring that there's no way to fix situations like this. The job of the competition committee and those who vote on their proposals is to understand the different elements in question, and make an informed decision, not to just say 'it's too hard and would take too long, let's just keep it the way it is.' 

 

Bad calls affect the integrity of the game, and there's a mechanism to correct them. It should be used. This will become even more of a problem as gambling becomes more prevalent, and that's already in the works.

[shasta519]

2 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Would have been.  But there's no guarantee.  Remember this FG attempt? As easy a chip shot as you can get in the NFL-

 

http://www.nfl.com/videos/dallas-cowboys/09000d5d8208e54a/Cowboys-blunders-Romo-s-botched-snap

 

NO got the shaft and Rams the elevator on the call.  But nobody knows with certainty what would have happened after that. 

 

They did. But like I said...I didn't mind it. I hate it when games end that way...and I wanted to see the LAR get another shot at it. Saints fans and Vegas lost...and everyone else won. I can dig it.

[ColtsBlueFL]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Lots of good stuff. I'll pick out a few things. To this above, the same standard that applies to replay now could apply to more subjective calls -- clear and obvious evidence needed to overturn the call on the field.

 

(By the way, fans and media tend to raise the bar for the standard to overturn; the rule doesn't require 'absolute' or 'indisputable' proof, like everyone tends to say. It requires "clear and obvious visual evidence." Still a high standard, but not as concrete as it's made out to be.)

 

I've always thought it was 'The play as called on the field stands unless there is "clear and convincing" evidence.  It is a high bar, and is to prevent passing someones lousy judgement over to another persons lousy judgement.

 

1 hour ago, Superman said:

And the judgment can be a collaborative, just like it is now, between NY and the head official on the field, but the final decision comes from NY. And that's fine, as long as the standard is 'clear and obvious visual evidence,' just like it is now.

 

 

So the idea is we don't want to open every reviewed play up to being a witch hunt, where you have to look at every element of the play, from every angle you have, to see if there are any enforceable penalties. That's a reasonable concern.

 

But why can't it be as simple as reviewing only for what we're challenging? The idea of replay, from its inception, was to correct obvious mistakes during the game. If Sean Payton uses one of his limited challenges to have the PI play reviewed, the refs can review the play for PI. If Sean McVay throws his flag at the same time because he thinks there was offensive holding, the refs would review for holding. 

 

 

I guess I would wait until the original review and ruling is made.  If that ruling was not in  my favor, I'd then throw the challenge flag and have the O holding reviewed.  Now there are 2 lengthy reviews for that one play.  And since it has to be clear and convincing, it essentially needs to be a tackle/takedown.  What if there is clear and convincing evidence the left tackle was moving slightly before the snap and subsequent potential holding?  Now there is false start and the play completely nullified.  So that gets ignored because it wasn't specifically asked for?  I'm not arguing, just talking, asking questions.

 

What if only the challenged part was reviewed, but issues arise on coaches tape later that would have been caught in full play review rather than just A portion?  And that issue 'somehow' (wink wink) gets leaked out into the media for fans and media heads to peruse?

 

Bill Polian always said his title at the competition committee was Director of Unintended Consequences.  Listening to him and McKay over the years has turned the gearing in my head to try to look in that direction whenever people scream to make immediate and dramatic changes.

 

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

And by the way, no one is suggesting increasing the amount of challenges coaches can use, and no one is suggesting that the league office reviews every play for possible penalties. Whatever standard coaches and the league office use now to determine when a play should be reviewed doesn't need to change -- we're looking for obvious mistakes during the game. 

 

No way do I agree with an increase coaches challenge limits either.

 

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

We already have a version of this -- coaches can throw the flag to review for 'too many men.' That's not subjective, but the point is that the review process doesn't involve reviewing the offensive formation to determine if the offense was in a legal formation, or to make sure all eligible receivers reported correctly, or for offensive holding during the play. We're reviewing one element of the play, only. 

 

But if you want to have every element of the play reviewed, fine. If there was offensive holding during that PI play, the Saints still come out ahead, because the holding and the PI offset, but most likely the defensive/helmet hit gets flagged for 15 yards and an automatic first down. And even if there's no personal foul called, the Saints would have been better off with offsetting penalties and a replay of the down, than they were with such an obvious PI going uncalled.

 

What if there was a missed false start?

 

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

 

I totally agree. I just have a problem with people who have preconceived notions on this and who aren't willing to spend three minutes thinking it through declaring that there's no way to fix situations like this. The job of the competition committee and those who vote on their proposals is to understand the different elements in question, and make an informed decision, not to just say 'it's too hard and would take too long, let's just keep it the way it is.' 

 

There are ways, but require long laborious talks and try to conceive of any/every circumstance, good and bad, that could be generated out the the potential rules changes.

 

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Bad calls affect the integrity of the game, and there's a mechanism to correct them. It should be used. This will become even more of a problem as gambling becomes more prevalent, and that's already in the works.

 

Unfortunately, the league does not want the VP of officiating and refs to look at it this way, if you are speaking of replay review.  There will be bad calls, and better Ref training is the cure.  Polian even said on the New England punt muff, that the replay review appeared to apply the standard of 'Get it Right' onstead of  'Clear and Convincing'. He states that there was not Clear and Convinvincing evidence to overturn the muffed punt call made on the field. So we now even have NY using the replay review mechanism in a way that was not intended by the League/Competition Committee, which is the league rules makers.

 

So I'm sure the competition committee will address this, but not in a hasty haphazard way.

[Superman]

18 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

I've always thought it was 'The play as called on the field stands unless there is "clear and convincing" evidence.  It is a high bar, and is to prevent passing someones lousy judgement over to another persons lousy judgement.

 

 

It's possible the wording has been adjusted, but in the rulebook now, it says "clear and obvious."

 

Quote

 

I guess I would wait until the original review and ruling is made.  If that ruling was not in  my favor, I'd then throw the challenge flag and have the O holding reviewed.  Now there are 2 lengthy reviews for that one play.  And since it has to be clear and convincing, it essentially needs to be a tackle/takedown.  What if there is clear and convincing evidence the left tackle was moving slightly before the snap and subsequent potential holding?  Now there is false start and the play completely nullified.  So that gets ignored because it wasn't specifically asked for?  I'm not arguing, just talking, asking questions.

  

What if only the challenged part was reviewed, but issues arise on coaches tape later that would have been caught in full play review rather than just A portion?  And that issue 'somehow' (wink wink) gets leaked out into the media for fans and media heads to peruse?

 

Bill Polian always said his title at the competition committee was Director of Unintended Consequences.  Listening to him and McKay over the years has turned the gearing in my head to try to look in that direction whenever people scream to make immediate and dramatic changes.

 

 

These are the things that would need to be talked through, but to prevent what you're suggesting might happen, a basic requirement would be that you can't challenge a play that's already been reviewed. If you want to challenge an element of a play that the other coach is already challenging, you have to do so at the same time, and we get one review. And we're looking at only those elements of the play -- along with making sure the play was completed according to the rules, just like they do now.

 

To the bolded, there's nothing preventing that from happening now, and it does. But that's something you and I both mentioned: the officiating needs to be better, top to bottom, and I think everyone agrees. 

 

And I understand the Polian/McKay caution, but I'm not calling for immediate and dramatic changes. I'm saying I think they need to come up with a way to make sure egregious errors can be corrected, and I fully understand that requires a comprehensive review and policy, but to me, it's worth it.

 

Quote

 

What if there was a missed false start?

 

 

End of the day, we're most likely looking at offsetting penalties in these situations, right? That's better, IMO, than letting an egregious non-call affect the outcome of the game. I'd rather see them replay that Saints play -- if there were offsetting penalties -- than just pretend that the defender didn't get away with murder.

 

Quote

 

Unfortunately, the league does not want the VP of officiating and refs to look at it this way, if you are speaking of replay review.  There will be bad calls, and better Ref training is the cure.  Polian even said on the New England punt muff, that the replay review appeared to apply the standard of 'Get it Right' onstead of  'Clear and Convincing'. He states that there was not Clear and Convinvincing evidence to overturn the muffed punt call made on the field. So we now even have NY using the replay review mechanism in a way that was not intended by the League/Competition Committee, which is the league rules makers.

  

So I'm sure the competition committee will address this, but not in a hasty haphazard way.

 

 

I disagree with Polian on the muff. First, the rule requires clear and obvious evidence, and I thought there was plenty of evidence that the ball didn't touch Edelman. That's up to the judgment of the reviewer, but I think that's a 50/50 situation where one person can see it one way, and the other person sees it another way. I personally think they got that one right, but I would understand if they had let that play stand as called. Depends on who's reviewing, I think.

 

To the bolded, I'm sure you know I'm not an advocate for 'hasty and haphazard,' so we agree there.

[ColtsBlueFL]

On 1/24/2019 at 1:19 PM, Superman said:

 

It's possible the wording has been adjusted, but in the rulebook now, it says "clear and obvious."

 

Obvious and convincing seem to both be a high standard, more than the Leagues typical "More likely than not"  or notably more than a 50.1% to 49.9% level anyway. This would indicate to me, a vast majority.

 

Quote

 

These are the things that would need to be talked through, but to prevent what you're suggesting might happen, a basic requirement would be that you can't challenge a play that's already been reviewed.

 

And now I say the on field play went my way.  I'm not calling for a challenge if the play is in my favor, no gain and loss of down (if on defense).  But now a challenge is ruled against me.  Now it is immediately beneficial to counter challenge the play where was not before, but now you can't?   Hmmmm....  Fair and equitable application...

 

Quote

If you want to challenge an element of a play that the other coach is already challenging, you have to do so at the same time, and we get one review. And we're looking at only those elements of the play -- along with making sure the play was completed according to the rules, just like they do now.

 

 

What happens if they both throw a challenge flag, and both challenges fail?  Do both teams lose a challenge and a timeout?  what if both challenges 'fail', but another obvious (but missed) infraction was discovered.  It is now left unaddressed.  Where is the 'getting it right' part involved here?

 

Quote

 

To the bolded, there's nothing preventing that from happening now, and it does. But that's something you and I both mentioned: the officiating needs to be better, top to bottom, and I think everyone agrees. 

 

Yes, because these things we address by more rules are treating just the symptoms of the problem, not the root of the problem.

 

Quote

And I understand the Polian/McKay caution, but I'm not calling for immediate and dramatic changes. I'm saying I think they need to come up with a way to make sure egregious errors can be corrected, and I fully understand that requires a comprehensive review and policy, but to me, it's worth it.

 

Polian is no longer involved there (he's a media head now), but McKay is a very conscientious and reasonable man. He realizes discussions in detail need to be made here.  Sean Payton is on the competition committee.  He will get his concerns heard, no question. He will also listen to all concerns/discussions and the goal is to ultimately create rules that benefit the game. It may not be by next week, but at some point I expect they will have some solution.

 

I've even found numerous unintended consequences to my "extra ref man in the booth' scenario I pitched earlier.

 

Quote

 

End of the day, we're most likely looking at offsetting penalties in these situations, right? That's better, IMO, than letting an egregious non-call affect the outcome of the game. I'd rather see them replay that Saints play -- if there were offsetting penalties -- than just pretend that the defender didn't get away with murder.

 

 

Probably, unless there was a false start found. Then the play never existed. (these are hypotheticals to discuss because it probably didn't happen here, but that doesn't mean it won't in the future.)

 

Quote

I disagree with Polian on the muff. First, the rule requires clear and obvious evidence, and I thought there was plenty of evidence that the ball didn't touch Edelman. That's up to the judgment of the reviewer, but I think that's a 50/50 situation where one person can see it one way, and the other person sees it another way.

 

 

This is why Polian believes he is right and uses the word 'convincing'. (He was on the competition committee when they devised and implemented replay review, and knows the Spirit and Intent). The evidence has to be truly convincing (or Obvious) it did not touch Edelman.  A situation where one sees it one way, and another sees it different is one lousy judgement overruled by another lousy judgement. Most everyone (Outside of Boston) has to be convinced it never touched him to overturn a ruling on the field.

 

Quote

I personally think they got that one right, but I would understand if they had let that play stand as called. Depends on who's reviewing, I think.

 

This is Polians argument, if you understand it not getting overturned, then maybe you really weren't convinced.  It's not about getting it right, it is all about not overruling the on field officials and their call unless they really and truly botched it.  It looked in real time like i was muffed, and called that way.  Video evidence wasn't convincingly high enough enough to reach a level that Polian would support Riveron changing the on field call.  This was not an egregious miss in his opinion.

 

Quote

 

To the bolded, I'm sure you know I'm not an advocate for 'hasty and haphazard,' so we agree there.

 

True, and present good well though out positions too.

 

One other item I heard, supposedly from Andy Reid.  Officials just do not call neutral zone encroachment (non movement) of 3 inches by  D linemen in a playoff game UNLESS, the player was already warned of it once.  (Apparently he was not). That was on the game deciding pick. So wild!  Hmmm...

[Superman]

21 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

And now I say the on field play went my way.  I'm not calling for a challenge if the play is in my favopr, no gain and loss of down.  But now a challenge is ruled against me.  Now it is immediately beneficial to counter challenge the play where was not before, but now you can't?   Hmmmm....  Fair and equitable application...

 

...

 

What happens if they both throw a challenge flag, and both challenges fail?  Do both teams lose a challenge and a timeout?  what if both challenges 'fail', but another obvious (but missed) infraction was discovered.  It is now left unaddressed.  Where is the 'getting it right' part involved here?

 

Fair and equitable is satisfied if both coaches have an opportunity to challenge the play. But it's not fair and equitable if you wait for my challenge to be reviewed, all the while your booth is looking at every angle of the play and trying to find a random holding call somewhere on the field. 

 

Both coaches can throw a flag on the same play, and we'll review them at the same time and sort the play out. Seems like a rare situation that it would happen, even rarer that it would be legitimate.

 

And if both challenges fail, both coaches are penalized.

 

The standard is the same outside of two minutes. The league office doesn't review every play that they think might have been missed, the coaches have to initiate a review. Inside of two minutes is the critical 'get it right' period where game-deciding calls should be free from reproach, to whatever extent is reasonable.

 

Quote

Probably, unless there was a false start found. Then the play never existed. (these are hypotheticals to discuss because it probably didn't happen here, but that doesn't mean it won't in the future.)

 

Maybe this seems two-faced, but I'm okay with false start not being a reviewable penalty. We're looking at mostly a ticky-tack penalty -- especially if it's missed, which somehow false starts seem to never get missed -- vs game-changing plays.

 

Quote

This is why Polian believes he is right and uses the word 'convincing'. (He was on the competition committee when they devised and implemented replay review, and know the Spirit and Intnet). The evidence has to be truly convincing it did not touch Edelman.  A situation where one sees it one way, and another sees it different is one lousy judgement overruled by another lousy judgement. Most everyone (Outside of Boston) has to be convinced it never touched him to overturn a ruling on the field.

 

I don't know why Polian used the word he used, but people in the media use the wrong words about recall all the time. I think the wording was likely chosen carefully, and the meaning of the wording they used speaks for itself. Either way, it leaves room for the judgment of the reviewer.

 

Specific to the Edelman play, I'm convinced and think there was clear evidence the ball didn't touch him. So I don't see it as anyone's lousy judgment, I see it as good use of replay. And you know I'm in now way sympathetic to Boston sports.

 

Quote

This is Polians argument, if you understand it not getting overturned, then maybe you really weren't convinced.  It's not about getting it right, it is all about not overruling the on field officials and their call unless then really and truly botched it.  It looked in real time like i was muffed, and called that way.  Video evidence wasn't convincing high enough enough to a level that Polian would support Riveron changing the on field call.  This was not an egregious miss.

 

I disagree. Just because your judgment differs from mine on a specific play doesn't mean either of us is wrong. I think there will be plays where there's no consensus, even among informed reviewers. The Edelman play is an example.

 

The bolded is not the standard. The standard is 'clear and obvious evidence,' not 'did they botch this, or can we let this one stand?' It doesn't have to be an egregious miss to warrant being overturned, you just need clear and obvious evidence that the call on the field wasn't correct.

 

Of course, this is all more specific, and a problem that exists with replay in general. More replays of more plays/calls would lead to more dissension about whether the officials and replay team got the call right, but it should be used -- IMO -- to get more calls right than they do now.

 

Quote

One other item I heard, supposedly from Andy Reid.  Officials just do not call neutral zone encroachment (non movement) of 3 inches by  D linemen in a playoff game UNLESS, the player was already warned of it once.  (Apparently he was not). That was on the game deciding pick. So wild!  Hmmm...

 

I heard that also, but that's an unwritten courtesy. If you line up offsides, you're subject to be penalized. I don't understand offering any sympathy for an unforced procedural penalty.

[ColtsBlueFL]

53 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Fair and equitable is satisfied if both coaches have an opportunity to challenge the play. But it's not fair and equitable if you wait for my challenge to be reviewed, all the while your booth is looking at every angle of the play and trying to find a random holding call somewhere on the field. 

 

 

Ok, so you say, if your opponent throws a challenge flag, and you (or an asst coach) saw something as well, grab and hold your challenge flag and then throw it (only) right after your opponent throws his; just before they go to review.

 

53 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Both coaches can throw a flag on the same play, and we'll review them at the same time and sort the play out. Seems like a rare situation that it would happen, even rarer that it would be legitimate.

 

And if both challenges fail, both coaches are penalized.

 

What if opponent challenge fails, but yours is upheld? Can you then decline the challenge and accept the original play results and retain your challenge for later?

 

See... so many items to discuss...   ;-)

 

53 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The standard is the same outside of two minutes. The league office doesn't review every play that they think might have been missed, the coaches have to initiate a review. Inside of two minutes is the critical 'get it right' period where game-deciding calls should be free from reproach, to whatever extent is reasonable.

 

But never override on field call unless convincingly egregious is the competition committee mantra.  even if it is "more likely than not" somethiing happened, can't overrule unless evidence is "obvious" {convincing}.

 

53 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Maybe this seems two-faced, but I'm okay with false start not being a reviewable penalty. We're looking at mostly a ticky-tack penalty -- especially if it's missed, which somehow false starts seem to never get missed -- vs game-changing plays.

 

 

 

I don't pick and choose between supposed ticky tack vs game changing.  Rules are rules.  And, that was game changing above...  Wasn't another official  fired earlier this year for missing a false start?  Oh yeah-

 

http://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/nfl-fires-official-browns-chargers-missed-false-start-call-video-watch-news/h2s444x7utz7149950nx60npv

 

 

53 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

I don't know why Polian used the word he used, but people in the media use the wrong words about recall all the time. I think the wording was likely chosen carefully, and the meaning of the wording they used speaks for itself. Either way, it leaves room for the judgment of the reviewer.

 

Specific to the Edelman play, I'm convinced and think there was clear evidence the ball didn't touch him. So I don't see it as anyone's lousy judgment, I see it as good use of replay. And you know I'm in now way sympathetic to Boston sports.

 

 

 

I wasn't, too many angles to extrapolate and devise correlation was needed IMO to possibly think that.  I needed more obvious resolution than that.  I did think that it was more likely than not he didn't touch it, but was by no means completely convinced.

 

53 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I disagree. Just because your judgment differs from mine on a specific play doesn't mean either of us is wrong. I think there will be plays where there's no consensus, even among informed reviewers. The Edelman play is an example.

 

The by intent of competition committee, the ruling on the field stands.

 

53 minutes ago, Superman said:

The bolded is not the standard. The standard is 'clear and obvious evidence,' not 'did they botch this, or can we let this one stand?' It doesn't have to be an egregious miss to warrant being overturned, you just need clear and obvious evidence that the call on the field wasn't correct.

 

It was not clear and obvious.  I was not convinced he didn't touch it.  I felt there was a good chance that he didn't touch it.  But that is not the standard to overturn on on field ruling.

 

This reminds me of the was it a catch revisions.  NFL had to re-word the ruling that the majority guys/gals watching on TV would call it right.  Same thing here.

 

53 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Of course, this is all more specific, and a problem that exists with replay in general. More replays of more plays/calls would lead to more dissension about whether the officials and replay team got the call right, but it should be used -- IMO -- to get more calls right than they do now.

 

And I'm for less ruling by technology and better training and get it right better by officials on  the field.  And adding less rules, even better.

 

53 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I heard that also, but that's an unwritten courtesy. If you line up offsides, you're subject to be penalized. I don't understand offering any sympathy for an unforced procedural penalty.

 

Fine, but be consistent and enforce all rules in the same manner.  don't swallow your whistle on other plays. But we know they don't do that either.

[chad72]

Last 5 minutes of either half, I am fine with it. Otherwise, no!!!

 

If it is the last 5 minutes, all 15 yard penalties and PIs can be reviewed, IMO. 

 

That has a possibility of not slowing the game too much.

[Superman]

42 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

What if opponent challenge fails, but yours is upheld? Can you then decline the challenge and accept the original play results and retain your challenge for later?

  

See... so many items to discuss...   ;-)

 

So let's walk this back, because chad's post reminded me of what I really think should be done, which is what I said originally:

 

28 minutes ago, chad72 said:

Last 5 minutes of either half, I am fine with it. Otherwise, no!!!

 

If it is the last 5 minutes, all 15 yard penalties and PIs can be reviewed, IMO. 

 

That has a possibility of not slowing the game too much.

 

And that means that full reviews of all plays -- or just personal fouls and PIs -- can be initiated by the eye in the sky, and not all game by the coaches. And I think that simplifies the multiple challenge issue on one play.

 

Quote

The by intent of competition committee, the ruling on the field stands.

 

I don't agree. "Clear and obvious" doesn't include a provision for consensus. If it's clear and obvious to me, but not to you, that doesn't mean I'm not cooperating with the spirit of the rule. And just because our judgment differs doesn't mean one of us has lousy judgment. There will be close plays on which there is no clear consensus.

 

And I think that's why words like "convincing" and "indisputable" -- which are used by the media, but are not in the rulebook -- are inappropriate. That's a higher standard than "clear and obvious." 

 

Quote

And I'm for less ruling by technology and better training and get it right better by officials on  the field.  And adding less rules, even better.

 

I had a thought on this yesterday. If we were inventing football now, and we had reliable technology to use robot officials, that's what we'd do. The human element of officiating is only a thing because we have no better option. 

 

My point is that I don't think there's a problem with using more technology, especially when it comes to replay. In the case of the PI no-call, technology shows us that it was an egregiously bad call, but we've restricted the use of said technology and just have to live with it, even though, in this case, we could easily have corrected the play. I know it's a tough provision to implement, but getting more calls right is better than getting fewer calls right, which is why I'm such a big proponent of replay.

 

Quote

Fine, but be consistent and enforce all rules in the same manner.  don't swallow your whistle on other plays. But we know they don't do that either.

 

I agree. Just specifically on that play, the fault is on Dee Ford, not the official. (And that's setting aside whether it's actually true that the ref didn't warn him prior to calling the penalty, which we can probably never determine.)

[ColtsBlueFL]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

So let's walk this back, because chad's post reminded me of what I really think should be done, which is what I said originally:

 

 

And that means that full reviews of all plays -- or just personal fouls and PIs -- can be initiated by the eye in the sky, and not all game by the coaches. And I think that simplifies the multiple challenge issue on one play.

 

OK

 

Quote

 

I don't agree. "Clear and obvious" doesn't include a provision for consensus. If it's clear and obvious to me, but not to you, that doesn't mean I'm not cooperating with the spirit of the rule.

 

 

If I'm on the Comp Committee, and we devised and worded a rule in a certain way, and you as Sr. VP of officiating rule in a way that subverts the Spirit and Intent of the Rule devised in excruciating discussion and detail... then we have issues.  Polian was on the former, defined the intent,  and has eluded to the latter happening.  Between refs very bad performances and the replay issues, I'm certain some strained  conversations are going on. Al Riveron might even get the boot at some point because of poor official;s and this saga; provided a satisfactory replacement is discovered and secured.

 

Quote

And just because our judgment differs doesn't mean one of us has lousy judgment. There will be close plays on which there is no clear consensus.

 

It's about the Comp committee consensus, not just you and I. And to the comp committee, it's the vast majority consensus they strive for in tis instance.  Polian said as much.

 

Quote

And I think that's why words like "convincing" and "indisputable" -- which are used by the media, but are not in the rulebook -- are inappropriate. That's a higher standard than "clear and obvious." 

 

Can you post the link to the latest NFL Operations manual for this wording?  Also, define the differences and how each would apply.  Bill Polian, one of the original co-authors of the rule, uses the word convincing (but does not use indisputable).

 

Quote

 

I had a thought on this yesterday. If we were inventing football now, and we had reliable technology to use robot officials, that's what we'd do. The human element of officiating is only a thing because we have no better option. 

 

My point is that I don't think there's a problem with using more technology, especially when it comes to replay. In the case of the PI no-call, technology shows us that it was an egregiously bad call, but we've restricted the use of said technology and just have to live with it, even though, in this case, we could easily have corrected the play. I know it's a tough provision to implement, but getting more calls right is better than getting fewer calls right, which is why I'm such a big proponent of replay.

 

Tech needs to get better (not rely on TV directors and broadcast cameras) for me.

 

Quote

 

I agree. Just specifically on that play, the fault is on Dee Ford, not the official. (And that's setting aside whether it's actually true that the ref didn't warn him prior to calling the penalty, which we can probably never determine.)

 

And was it the ONLY time Dee had lined up anywhere in the neutral zone all game?  Really?  And if not was he warned (as you say, we will never truly know) about it, or flagged then too?

 

Te fact you and I have this discussion already tells me comp committee will have lengthy and debatable discussions on these things.

[ReMeDy]

On 1/22/2019 at 10:12 AM, Superman said:

 

Seriously. I mean, what's this guy looking at?

 

What I find funny is you can see HC Sean Payton a lot further away than the ref, yet Sean notices it just fine and goes storming over to the ref to give him an earful. The ref looks like he's saying, "Yo, chill bro. It's only a game."

[ColtsBlueFL]

11 minutes ago, ReMeDy said:

What I find funny is you can see HC Sean Payton a lot further away than the ref, yet Sean notices it just fine and goes storming over to the ref to give him an earful. The ref looks like he's saying, "Yo, chill bro. It's only a game."

 

Sean is a member of the competition committee. His voice will most certainly be heard; do not worry.

[crazycolt1]

If they are going to look at making defensive pass interference challengeable how about offensive pass interference?  If there going to look close at the defensive player don't you think the same should be done to the offensive player? 

Just about every rule already benefits the offense.

The refs have long overlooked illegal picks.

[Superman]

14 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

If I'm on the Comp Committee, and we devised and worded a rule in a certain way, and you as Sr. VP of officiating rule in a way that subverts the Spirit and Intent of the Rule devised in excruciating discussion and detail... then we have issues.  Polian was on the former, defined the intent,  and has eluded to the latter happening.  Between refs very bad performances and the replay issues, I'm certain some strained  conversations are going on. Al Riveron might even get the boot at some point because of poor official;s and this saga; provided a satisfactory replacement is discovered and secured.

 

It's about the Comp committee consensus, not just you and I. And to the comp committee, it's the vast majority consensus they strive for in tis instance.  Polian said as much.

 

Much respect to Polian's knowledge of the game and the league, and he clearly has a lot of insight and perspective as a former member of the competition committee, even serving as chairman at one point.

 

But he's not the arbiter of what the intent of the rules is today, in 2018. I also think there's a possibility that the rule formerly used the word "convincing," but the fact that it does not presently use that word illustrates what I'm saying, specific to Polian. 

 

He's forgotten more than I'll ever know, but to me, "convincing" is a higher standard than "clear and obvious." And yes, this is pedantic, but that's part of writing and enforcing rules/laws. Wording is very important.

 

Quote

Can you post the link to the latest NFL Operations manual for this wording?  Also, define the differences and how each would apply.  Bill Polian, one of the original co-authors of the rule, uses the word convincing (but does not use indisputable).

 

I linked this a few posts back, but here it is.

 

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2018-nfl-rulebook/#rule15

 

Quote

Tech needs to get better (not rely on TV directors and broadcast cameras) for me.

 

Yeah, and the fact that the networks' D crews have way fewer cameras than a primetime game is a significant disadvantage in some replays. It would be better if there were standard sight-line cameras in every building, operating by the replay crew, to get good angles on every play. Like the pylon cams.

 

Quote

 

And was it the ONLY time Dee had lined up anywhere in the neutral zone all game?  Really?  And if not was he warned (as you say, we will never truly know) about it, or flagged then too?

 

Te fact you and I have this discussion already tells me comp committee will have lengthy and debatable discussions on these things.

 

 

I hope so.

[Superman]

14 hours ago, ReMeDy said:

What I find funny is you can see HC Sean Payton a lot further away than the ref, yet Sean notices it just fine and goes storming over to the ref to give him an earful. The ref looks like he's saying, "Yo, chill bro. It's only a game."

 

There's another ref at the front corner of the end zone, who saw the play from the front angle, and he should have thrown the flag also. It's an abject failure on the part of the refs.

 

And while I do think replay could be used to correct egregious wrongs at the end of games, the main problem is that the refs missed an obvious call that happened right in front of their faces. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

I have to be honest here, if I was a Saints fan I would have trouble watching Football again. That was really bad on the REFS part. This is one case where we can all say that non-call cost a team the game. Of course Brees would've had the run the clock down and the FG kicker would've had to make a 25 yard FG so ok  . Very brutal look on the NFL.

[Gramz]

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

There's another ref at the front corner of the end zone, who saw the play from the front angle, and he should have thrown the flag also. It's an abject failure on the part of the refs.

 

And while I do think replay could be used to correct egregious wrongs at the end of games, the main problem is that the refs missed an obvious call that happened right in front of their faces. 

missed    or    ignored?

[CoachLite]

Can we agree that the problem as it exists today is unacceptable? There have been several suggestions to correct the problem - none of which rectifies this for NO. The NFL has taken a very serious hit to its credibility, IMO (much like the Olympic judging in the 1970s and 80s, or cycling in the 2000s). What happens next?

[ColtsBlueFL]

12 hours ago, Gramz said:

missed    or    ignored?

 

Missed.  Refs, by and large, have no skin in the games, and no reason to show/rule by bias. They also get graded on performance - future pay increases and playoff games (even more $$)

 

12 hours ago, CoachLite said:

Can we agree that the problem as it exists today is unacceptable? There have been several suggestions to correct the problem - none of which rectifies this for NO. The NFL has taken a very serious hit to its credibility, IMO (much like the Olympic judging in the 1970s and 80s, or cycling in the 2000s). What happens next?

 

Competition committee to discuss (Sean Payton is a member already of it too) issue and potential resolutions.

[CoachLite]

9 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Missed.  Refs, by and large, have no skin in the games, and no reason to show/rule by bias. They also get graded on performance - future pay increases and playoff games (even more $$)

 

It isn't the refs that are the problem, it's the system (sort of a quality assurance problem that many companies get sued over for negligence). Fortunately for the NFL, no one died because of this problematic system. Over long periods of time, however, it does take a toll - like what happened to Sears.

[ColtsBlueFL]

On 1/24/2019 at 5:20 PM, Superman said:

And I think that's why words like "convincing" and "indisputable" -- which are used by the media, but are not in the rulebook -- are inappropriate. That's a higher standard than "clear and obvious." 

 

Just looked up synonyms of obvious.  Here's a select few from the list-

 

Evident, glaring, indisputable, undeniable, unmistakable ...

 

 

[Luck is Good]

Let’s not forget that the Saints put themselves in that position by not finishing off the Rams in the first quarter. Officiating didn’t cost Saints the game. They have no one to blame but themselves

[ColtsBlueFL]

On 1/25/2019 at 9:57 AM, Superman said:

 

There's another ref at the front corner of the end zone, who saw the play from the front angle, and he should have thrown the flag also. It's an abject failure on the part of the refs.

 

And while I do think replay could be used to correct egregious wrongs at the end of games, the main problem is that the refs missed an obvious call that happened right in front of their faces. 

 

On 1/25/2019 at 10:10 AM, Gramz said:

missed    or    ignored?

 

Someone already did what we talked about.

 

 

 

It now appears there were 2 penalties on each side on that same play.  I do not see clear and obvious evidence the pass was tipped, but may well have been. 

[Superman]

On 1/26/2019 at 6:28 AM, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Just looked up synonyms of obvious.  Here's a select few from the list-

 

Evident, glaring, indisputable, undeniable, unmistakable ...

 

So, to continue being pedantic, synonyms are not equal. If I'm writing a rule for a professional sports league, my wording is going to be chosen carefully, because wording is important. I think "indisputable" is a more definitive and stronger adjective than "obvious." 

 

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/indisputable

Quote

 

If you say something is indisputable, you’d better be pretty sure about it. Indisputable is used to describe something that is so obviously true that there is no room for questions or debate.

 

If you dispute something, you question it, such as disputing your friend's claim that he is the faster runner. You might have a race to determine who's right. But if something is indisputable, it is beyond question or doubt, like if your friend also happens to be an Olympic marathoner and you can barely jog a mile. But pay attention — if someone is calling something indisputable that's really a matter of opinion or taste, it's debatable. Indisputable requires facts.

 

 

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/obvious

Quote

 

Something obvious is plain to see and easily understandable. It was obvious that you didn't enjoy your meal because I found it rolled in a napkin and shoved under the rug.

 

There's nothing vague about the adjective obvious — it's right there in front of your eyes! It describes something that's easy to figure out or the most straightforward option. If someone states the obvious, you're likely to respond with a sarcastic "No duh!" or "Thanks Sherlock." If obviousisn't the obvious word of choice, you can try a synonym such as "evident" or "apparent."

 

 

(All emphasis mine.)

 

"Indisputable" is a higher standard than "obvious." I think that's obvious, but not indisputable. ;)

[Superman]

2 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

 

Someone already did what we talked about.

 

 

 

It now appears there were 2 penalties on each side on that same play.  I do not see clear and obvious evidence the pass was tipped, but may well have been. 

 

Yeah, the issue though is that there was clearly pass interference, with two refs close enough that they probably felt the contact themselves, and neither of them threw a flag. There was also a personal foul with the contact, which has been reviewed by the league and a fine has been assessed. If there was a ticky tack holding penalty somewhere else, or if the ball was tipped at the line, that might change the outcome of the play, but it doesn't change the fact that they blew the PI call.

 

So if the refs call this correctly, and they deem that there was a hold on NO, but PI and a personal foul on LA, the Saints still get 15 yards and an automatic first down. And even if the refs say the ball was tipped so there's no PI, the down gets replayed. And at least it was officiated, as opposed to what happened, where we have to wonder if the refs are either incompetent or corrupt.

 

By the way, I think the answer is neither; good refs miss calls, it's a fact of life. Barring evidence to the contrary, I'm not accusing either ref of being bad at their job or being biased or corrupt. But since we have replay, and this play was inside of the critical automatic review window, it seems like we have a mechanism by which we can correct egregious wrongs that directly influence the outcome of the game. We're just arbitrarily choosing not to use it, which seems wrong.

[ColtsBlueFL]

39 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So, to continue being pedantic, synonyms are not equal. If I'm writing a rule for a professional sports league, my wording is going to be chosen carefully, because wording is important. I think "indisputable" is a more definitive and stronger adjective than "obvious." 

 

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/indisputable

 

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/obvious

 

(All emphasis mine.)

 

"Indisputable" is a higher standard than "obvious." I think that's obvious, but not indisputable. ;)

 

 

So it is a notch below Indisputable, but how high a bar is it?  Let's compare some modifiers-

 

**

Obviously refers to something that needs no evidence to be understood. "In a way that is easily perceived or understood; clearly," according to the dictionary. That is, it's something that you couldn't help knowing. If you saw a glass on its side on a table surrounded by a puddle of milk, it would be obvious that the glass fell over and spilled.

 

  * I still feel the muff replays did not meet that standard.*

 

Apparently is defined as "As far as one knows or can see." That is, it is the result of the best information one has on hand. Knowing that your son is the only other person in the house, he apparently spilled his milk and didn't clean it up.

 

Evidently can mean the same as obviously, but it holds a connotation (at least to me, anyway) of being more evidence-based, and not necessarily completely obvious. It also means "It would seem that" and seems the likely usage here. Evidently, your son is not as responsible as you thought. 

**

 

34 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Yeah, the issue though is that there was clearly pass interference, with two refs close enough that they probably felt the contact themselves, and neither of them threw a flag. There was also a personal foul with the contact, which has been reviewed by the league and a fine has been assessed. If there was a ticky tack holding penalty somewhere else, or if the ball was tipped at the line, that might change the outcome of the play, but it doesn't change the fact that they blew the PI call.

 

Yes. And also the issue was a hands to the face of Aaron Donald too, along with that offensive holding. Since both are 10 yard penalties, NFL rules say they offset the two 15 yard defensive penalties ( 15 vs. 5 wipes out the 5 yard penalty and enforces the 15, but against 10's), DPI and helmet to defenseless receiver.  And there were no flags anywhere.  Truly a 'were at the end of the game, let them play' stance.  And demonstrates the issue of allowing reviewing of just a portion of a call and not the whole play.

 

I feel if they can call encroachment of a few inches by a D linemen (KC game), they call these other infractions too.

 

Quote

 

So if the refs call this correctly, and they deem that there was a hold on NO, but PI and a personal foul on LA, the Saints still get 15 yards and an automatic first down. And even if the refs say the ball was tipped so there's no PI, the down gets replayed. And at least it was officiated, as opposed to what happened, where we have to wonder if the refs are either incompetent or corrupt.

 

No, the hands to the face takes away the other penalty.  All offset. No play, replay the down.

 

Quote

By the way, I think the answer is neither; good refs miss calls, it's a fact of life. Barring evidence to the contrary, I'm not accusing either ref of being bad at their job or being biased or corrupt. But since we have replay, and this play was inside of the critical automatic review window, it seems like we have a mechanism by which we can correct egregious wrongs that directly influence the outcome of the game. We're just arbitrarily choosing not to use it, which seems wrong.

 

Maybe 1 extra challenge per team, but only within the last 2 minutes of a game.  And the 'whole play' gets reviewed. And only  'obvious' infractions get called.  (tipped pass was not obvious).