Go Back   Sports Central Message Boards > Professional Sports Discussion > National Football League

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-21-2002, 10:54 PM   #1
Marc
Administrator
 
Marc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lake Wylie, SC
Posts: 26,475
Marc will become famous soon enough
Default Instant Reply, Upon Further Review

With all the controversy still surrounding the Pats/Raiders game on Saturday night, Craig Hardesty brings up another issue: instant replay. He basically says mistakes are inevitable and NFL refs are good and we should just play the game without dealing with replays. Raiders fans definitely aren't on instant replay's side... as instant replay was the reason their call was overturned, costing them their season. What's your take?
Quote:
Instant Reply, Upon Further Review

https://www.sports-central.org/sport...cle111_2.shtml

By Craig Hardesty
Monday, January 21st, 2002

You can bet your last challenge that every member of the Oakland Raiders will be replaying Tom Brady's infamous "non-fumble" over and over again in their minds for the entire offseason. And it is an even safer bet that every member of the Raiders also wishes that the officials had not replayed the non-fumble at all this past Saturday night.

Even if you can stomach the shaky explanation of that pivotal play (the referee ruled that Brady's arm motion constituted an incomplete pass even though he was clearly holding the ball when Charles Woodson slapped it out of his hand), what is a lot harder to accept is the fact that the original ruling was overturned because of instant replay.

To make matters worse, Patriots head coach Bill Belichick did not even challenge the call himself - the play was reviewed automatically because of a very suspect "under two minutes" rule. According to NFL instant replay law, any close call that occurs during the last two minutes of the half will automatically be reviewed.

What about the other 56 minutes of the game? Don't close calls happen during that time, as well?
__________________
Marc James - SCMB Administrator | Sports Central Managing Editor & Founder
Teams: [Kentucky Wildcats] [Green Bay Packers] [Charlotte Hornets]
Follow on Twitter: @mnjames | @sportcentral
Marc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2002, 11:07 PM   #2
bama4256
Baseball Fanatic
 
bama4256's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Marshalltown, Iowa
Posts: 6,484
bama4256 will become famous soon enough
Default

I'm for the instant replay. Officials are human and the replay should only help and not hinder. The replay must show overwhelming evidence to overturn a call. If's its real real close let the call stand.
__________________
Keith "baseball nut" Thronson
bama4256 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2002, 11:20 PM   #3
bostonsportsfan
Hall of Famer
 
bostonsportsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,427
bostonsportsfan is on a distinguished road
Default

He brings up a very interesting point, but either way, I really don't think anyone will ever be fully satisfied with it.

I happen to like Instant Replay, but the system is flawed in some respects. Without it, the referee can obviously miss a call or commit some type of error. They're only human after all.
bostonsportsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2002, 11:39 PM   #4
Dre2g
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Posts: 166
Dre2g is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by bama4256
I'm for the instant replay. Officials are human and the replay should only help and not hinder. The replay must show overwhelming evidence to overturn a call. If's its real real close let the call stand.
I could not have said it any better.
__________________
"I am amused by the simplicity of this game."-Ken Griffey JR
Dre2g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2002, 04:02 AM   #5
Anthony
Moderator
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 8,377
Anthony is on a distinguished road
Default

If you have instant replay at all, it must be used in all situations where a call can be disputed. This business of pass interference not being reviewable is ridiculous. It's like finding a cure for cancer and then passing a law banning cancer patients from obtaining it! Another thing I would like to see changed is what happens when a challenge does not result in the call being overturned; instead of deducting a time-out, I say penalize the team five yards for delay of game - the challenge did end up delaying the game, did it not?

And if they can't bring themselves to include pass interference as a reviewable play, they should institute a 15-yard penalty (plus an automatic first down, of course) for "non-flagrant" pass interference - or at the very least limit the penalty to half the distance to the goal in the case of interference on a very long pass. And a safeguard could be put in place to prevent deliberate fouls at the very end of a half or game, and that would be that the clock would be reset to how much time remained prior to the snap on any play where pass interference was committed in the last two minutes of a half or game (and the clock would not restart until the next snap if even if the clock had been running prior to the previous snap).
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:56 PM.