The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

what are some views and some changes you would like to see take place with instant replay?REDSKINZ4EVER!!!

They could start by actually adhereing to the timing rule. . .I hate it when Refs take all that extra time, probably when they're not just listening to the judges in the upstairs booths.

thanks fellow piggie for a reply.REDSKINZ4EVER!!!

Drop the instant replay.

(a) It's not instant. It takes too long.

(b) It changes the way refs call things...either over-cautious, so as not to be reversed, or sloppy, because the video-tape will always correct the close plays.

(c) Football got along fine without the replay for a hundred years.

The call is the call. Referees and umpires usually get it right.

i like it... the game is to fast for the referees to see everything right.... plus there not covering a basketball court here...
it's a 120 yard field they gotta cover.... I'd rather it take a little long and them get the call right... then them make a bad call... nothins worse than losing a game over a bad call...

The only thing i wish they would change is i wish they would just let the ref's in the booth's handle replay... this would take away from alot of the time of the ref walking back and forth to the video... and it would take the ref's bias that he doesn't want his officiating team makin a bad call on the field... i just wouldn't like to go back to the days of no replay

put a detector in the ball and in the players shoes - have lasers gridding the field. You'll never guess again

LOL - what?

It could happen!

Ok... I'm leaving now

IMO if the Refs were doing their jobs from day one this would be a non-issue.

IMO if the Refs were doing their jobs from day one this would be a non-issue.

Redskincity it's just not that simple. I know that there are several difficulties with instant replay, but before we all throw a Billick-style temper tantrum (he'll do anything to make himself look "cool") about it, hear me out on a few things.

welch, I know that you criticize it for not being instant, but that isn't how it was designed. The refs are supposed to take a maximum of 90 seconds to review the play, which they rarely do--especially on tough ones. Instead of what's currently happening, refs should only take 90 seconds to look at the tough calls; this isn't too long to wait to get the right call (in my opinion, I'd like to hear why you would disagree if they actually did this). If they decided to move faster on instant replay then they could.

Yes, coaches have been throwing out the flag even when they know that it won't be overturned, and that does take up useless time. However, if the refs just started only using 5-10 seconds to "review" these plays, coaches would get the message that there needs to be a good reason to throw that red flag. Have you ever seen a ref only look at a play for 10 seconds? I have, and it's very effective in establishing their authority and ability. So, my plan would be to try to use as few seconds as possible, not soak up the full 90 seconds every time a red flag is thrown--even I get quite annoyed with that.

The call is the call. Referees and umpires usually get it right.

Yes, but they're human and therefore (quite) prone to messing up.

And finally, they refs would make the right call more consistently (I think that they do a great job already, I'm no zebra hater) if the NFL finally made it a full time profession. John Madden has written about this in every one of his books, and I totally agree--pay these refs for full time work and drill them hard in the offseason. Keep them sharp, and they will make more right calls.

My two (or maybe more like 20) cents. . .but I'd like to hear more on why you still don't like instant replay.

skinsfaninroanoke wrote:put a detector in the ball and in the players shoes - have lasers gridding the field. You'll never guess again

LOL - what?

It could happen!

Ok... I'm leaving now

ROTFALMAO that would get em straight.
i like the replay rule. it rights any wrongs. they should make a few more things reviewable, but all and all it works......except for that stephen davis goal line TD that won carolina the game

i think i'd like to see some of those 'unreviewable' plays be reviewable. that's what really gets my goat is when the ref makes a horrible call, everyone knows it including him, but because it's 'unreviewable', the play stands.

I think the best improvement is your suggestion that referees be made professsional, full-time, like baseball umpires.

Have to add that I'm not certain about all this...it's not an issue on which I have well thought-out opinions...not like the designated hitter in MLB (an abomination), aluminum bats (same), or the removal of baseball from DC (everyone knows that the season starts when the President throws out the first pitch in Washington; therefore all seasons since the dismal last '71 season have an asterisk. Not official seasons!!!

But:

- I just prefer that the refs on the field decide the calls, and that's that.

- Let the game move on. There are too many stoppages already.

- Only the really chancy in-betweeners seem like they need to be reversed. It usually takes slo-mo from a few directions to find that a play has been missed. That takes the time.

- The practice usually gives the announcers the feeling that they -- rather than the refs -- are calling the game.

- Ditto with baseball, where Tim McCarver & friends have (alomst) forever between pitches to show by triple slo-mo that the ball arrived at first a millisend after the runner's foot. Then Timmy will almost, with great certainly, that the replay "clearly" shows that the umpire missed the play.

- I'm willing to tolerate the sometime miss on plays that are too close for a human to call. I expect, on the other hand, that referees get into position to make the call, since there are enough of them, and with the suggestion that they become professionals.

- (and for all the slo-mo, I think Art Monk was pushed out of bounds in SB 26!)

I'll reply when I get some time, welch, I'm interested in your ideas. I agree that Monk was pushed--but it didn't matter on that drive (I think), or in perspective of the rest of the game for that matter.

But I do know that Stephen Davis (as much as I still love him) did NOT score that touchdown on us for the game winner that all those Skins hating media-types were just itching for. . .[Davis runs his revenge into Skins blah blah blah]

With the technology we have today it would be stupid not to use it. Call me crazy but I envision a day when evrything is going to be handled from the booth. As for now I would like to see a team not lose a challenge whe they get it right. I know this would make for many more challenges but there aren't that mant plays in a game that get challanged.

Replay is a necessary evil. Its usage has evened the playing field somewhat. Certain teams always seemed to get the calls, while certain others the "shaft". This still happens on the subjective penalties of holding and interference but it has helped.

Look at the college system without replay. I'll use Penn State as an example because their situation is probably the most egregious. They have at least six "We're Sorry" letters from the Big 10, prompting the conference to adopt a "replay" provision.

The margin of error between success and failure is so minute at the professional level. Two, perhaps even one, game(s) can make or break a season. If that game is decided on something that could have been corrected, it's almost a must that it is corrected.

I am in agreement with welsh. Here are some of my ideas:

1-Refs as a full time job.
2-Refs need to younger (which is happening now) and be in shape. I have a hard time seeing these 70 yr old ref running down the field trying to keep up with the players. It doesn't happen. A lot of time the ref is out of position to make a correct call.
3-Get rid of the infamous call of "inadvertment whisle (SP??)". I mean you get the ref call that and you can defendantly tell that no whisle was blown.
4-Keep with the 90 period to review the play.

Alright, I'll give it another go.

welch, I agree that the instant replay makes today's announcers feel like they own the place. But what's new? My dad raised me on "Sonny and Sam" (I'm going to miss Frank badly), so I can't stand anyone else covering the Skins. Yet even when I watch other games my buddies and I usually have the volume extremely low on the TV because of the announcers. I wish I could get all of the crowd noise without the chaos of those idiots. In turn, I think you've got a point--the announcers make all fans question the ref's competence even more, etc.

However, the NFL did just add a rule that says you can have an extra challenge if you get the first two right--and I think this will have a good effect on how often challenges are thrown. Add full time refs (something everyone except Tagliabue seems to agree on), and there really won't be as many calls.

While I respect that you want the refs on the field to make the final call and have that just be it, I think we've gotta keep in mind how many teams have been shafted in the past. It's a game of inches, and IR brings the ref's ability to that level.

If we cut a few commercials out (like the whole situation of: touchdown, commercial, kickoff, commercial, 3 and out, commercial--that drives me nuts) and made the refs stick to the clock on reviewing plays, the stoppages would probably be less than what we have now. In the end, it's all about $$ so I guess there isn't much of a chance of this happening. . .not like they'd want to reward the fans or anything crazy like that.