Home› Non Cigar Related

Challenging Penalties

clearlysuspectclearlysuspect Posts: 2,124 ✭✭✭✭
in Non Cigar Related
I think it's time the NFL extended the challenge system to penalties. Too many times a bad call affects the outcome of a game and I would dare say this happens more so than blown calls such as "complete or incomplete."

Today, the Vikings score a touchdown on a pass from Brett Favre to Sidney Rice but it was called back for "tripping." The replay clearly showed without doubt that there was no tripping involved at all and it was a legal block. Two plays later, the Steelers strip Favre of the ball and return the fumble for a touchdown.

Minus 7 points for the Vikings, plus 7 points for the Steelers. The product of a bad call from a referee is a 14 point swing.

The Vikings lost by 10.

Comments

  • LukoLuko Posts: 2,003 ✭✭
    clearlysuspect:
    I think it's time the NFL extended the challenge system to penalties. Too many times a bad call affects the outcome of a game and I would dare say this happens more so than blown calls such as "complete or incomplete."

    Today, the Vikings score a touchdown on a pass from Brett Favre to Sidney Rice but it was called back for "tripping." The replay clearly showed without doubt that there was no tripping involved at all and it was a legal block. Two plays later, the Steelers strip Favre of the ball and return the fumble for a touchdown.

    Minus 7 points for the Vikings, plus 7 points for the Steelers. The product of a bad call from a referee is a 14 point swing.

    The Vikings lost by 10.
    What about key calls that are missed, like the blatant block in the back I saw on Percy Harvin's kickoff return?
  • clearlysuspectclearlysuspect Posts: 2,124 ✭✭✭✭
    Luko:
    clearlysuspect:
    I think it's time the NFL extended the challenge system to penalties. Too many times a bad call affects the outcome of a game and I would dare say this happens more so than blown calls such as "complete or incomplete."

    Today, the Vikings score a touchdown on a pass from Brett Favre to Sidney Rice but it was called back for "tripping." The replay clearly showed without doubt that there was no tripping involved at all and it was a legal block. Two plays later, the Steelers strip Favre of the ball and return the fumble for a touchdown.

    Minus 7 points for the Vikings, plus 7 points for the Steelers. The product of a bad call from a referee is a 14 point swing.

    The Vikings lost by 10.
    What about key calls that are missed, like the blatant block in the back I saw on Percy Harvin's kickoff return?
    That's a good question. I didn't really think of that aspect of it. Sure, I guess. I think you should be able to use your challenge on any aspect of the game that you want. I didn't see the block you're referring to. But if it happened, they should be able to challenge it.
  • bibbybibby Posts: 152
    I really love the idea that anything is eligible to be reviewed via coaches challenge. The only thing I'm worried about is some of the rules that have some subjectivity, such as HOLDING, in the NFL their is offensive holding on almost every play. So the officials make a subjective decision that he didn't hold too much or he did hold too much now throw the flag. Just worried that some of those subjective calls would be overturned and the game would just become a penalty-fest. Just my opinion, but I really love the idea; nothing worse than an official effecting the game either positively or negatively.
  • clearlysuspectclearlysuspect Posts: 2,124 ✭✭✭✭
    bibby:
    I really love the idea that anything is eligible to be reviewed via coaches challenge. The only thing I'm worried about is some of the rules that have some subjectivity, such as HOLDING, in the NFL their is offensive holding on almost every play. So the officials make a subjective decision that he didn't hold too much or he did hold too much now throw the flag. Just worried that some of those subjective calls would be overturned and the game would just become a penalty-fest. Just my opinion, but I really love the idea; nothing worse than an official effecting the game either positively or negatively.
    No. I disagree with it becoming a penalty fest. Remember, coach only has two challenges. Use them wisely!
  • jlzimmermanjlzimmerman Posts: 282
    While I like the idea of challenges being widened for penalties, it's impractical, unless they limit the number of challenges even if the coach wins. Without limitations the game would become lifeless, drawn out, and boring.... like baseball.
  • bibbybibby Posts: 152
    clearlysuspect:
    bibby:
    I really love the idea that anything is eligible to be reviewed via coaches challenge. The only thing I'm worried about is some of the rules that have some subjectivity, such as HOLDING, in the NFL their is offensive holding on almost every play. So the officials make a subjective decision that he didn't hold too much or he did hold too much now throw the flag. Just worried that some of those subjective calls would be overturned and the game would just become a penalty-fest. Just my opinion, but I really love the idea; nothing worse than an official effecting the game either positively or negatively.
    No. I disagree with it becoming a penalty fest. Remember, coach only has two challenges. Use them wisely!
    I get the fact that you were not for an increase in coaches challenges; I was simply stating that if everything was now reviewable their could never be subjectivity. So a meaningless violation would now have to be called because it might be challenged. This is what I was trying to state; you would be taking away the ref's/officials ability to allow the players to "play"; which unfortunately sometimes they may violate a rule, but because the official can be subjective they don't throw the flag thus allowing the game to proceed. Hopefully that makes my thought more clear.
  • clearlysuspectclearlysuspect Posts: 2,124 ✭✭✭✭
    bibby:
    clearlysuspect:
    bibby:
    I really love the idea that anything is eligible to be reviewed via coaches challenge. The only thing I'm worried about is some of the rules that have some subjectivity, such as HOLDING, in the NFL their is offensive holding on almost every play. So the officials make a subjective decision that he didn't hold too much or he did hold too much now throw the flag. Just worried that some of those subjective calls would be overturned and the game would just become a penalty-fest. Just my opinion, but I really love the idea; nothing worse than an official effecting the game either positively or negatively.
    No. I disagree with it becoming a penalty fest. Remember, coach only has two challenges. Use them wisely!
    I get the fact that you were not arguing for an increase in coaches challenges; I was simply stating that if everything was now reviewable their could never be subjectivity. So a meaningless violation would now have to be called because it might be challenged. This is what I was trying to state; you would be taking about the ref's/officials ability to allow the players to "play"; which unfortunately sometimes they may violate a rule, but because the official can be subjective they don't throw the flag thus allowing the game to proceed. Hopefully that makes my thought more clear.
    I get what you're saying. I'm thinking that one additional penalty challenge should be given to the coaches. Keep in mind that it must be absolute. There must be indisputable evidence to overturn the call/no call. If it is questionable in the slightest, then the call is not overturned and the coach loses his challenge. If he's right he retains his challenge.

    I just really hate seeing referees determine the outcome of a hard fought game. The Vikings vs Steelers game was hard fought by both teams. It was a close game. Both teams were playing with everything they had, and the refs affected the outcome with a bad call.
Sign In or Register to comment.