Challenge Rules
Everything in a game can be reviewed all except a penalty. Do you think we'll ever see the day that major penalties (all but offsides and holding) can be reviewed? Good or bad calls make just as much if not more impact than a catch or a ball spot..
September 20th, 2010 at 10:58 PM ^
September 20th, 2010 at 11:04 PM ^
To watch football, not referees.
September 20th, 2010 at 11:10 PM ^
Please no. Every game would last 16 hours.
September 20th, 2010 at 11:16 PM ^
September 20th, 2010 at 11:40 PM ^
I would not want the replay booth reviewing every play for sake of time. Could you imagine if they had to review every no-call AND every wrong call?
<br>
<br>I WOULD support a rule that made penalties reviewable only through a coaches challenge. Seems like a fair compromise. If it's a game changing play I would rather they get the call right. With the coaches challenge it for Ed coaches to scrutinize which play is worth challenging.
<br>
<br>Just an idea...
September 20th, 2010 at 11:41 PM ^
I was thinking about this too. Not for holding, but pass interference. I think that it would be a mess, particularly in college where all plays are reviewed. Plus, where do you draw the line, because then there's and argument for using replay for reviewing non-calls and that would be a disaster. It's better not to go down that road IME.
September 20th, 2010 at 11:59 PM ^
i guess i never thought of the no calls which are just as important as the actual calls. maybe a coaches challenge and a booth review for personal fouls..I still think crables hit was legit..
September 21st, 2010 at 12:28 AM ^
While I wish this was true, Crable's hit was clearly helmet to helmet. The problem was that Troy Smith was 6' 0" and Crable was 6' 5". If Troy Smith had been Terrelle Pryor's hight, then we would have won that game IMO. Of course, then TS might actually be an NFL starter.
Not sure if this will embed.
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lOmGMGUDPbk?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lOmGMGUDPbk?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
September 21st, 2010 at 12:27 AM ^
I think it could work if a penalty or no-call was reviewed only on a challenge by a coach, not as a matter of official review. Coaches could just have one or two per game. Why not?
The Crable play is a great example. Just use your one challenge and go back to see if it's really a personal foul or not. Entire seasons hinge on such calls.
September 21st, 2010 at 12:41 AM ^
couldnt agree more. let the coaches decided whether a 5 yard penalty on a 4th and 2 is important or not versus replaying every call or automatically ruling out "misdemeanors" from the review process.
September 21st, 2010 at 4:05 AM ^
A lot of penalties, such as roughing the passer and late hits, are judgement calls by the refs. Because there is some referee discretion involved, it would be almost impossible to have conclusive video evidence that a penalty did or didn't occur.
September 21st, 2010 at 8:59 AM ^
The violence and intent of the play are not picked up by the camera as well as by a ref 10 feet away looking right at the play.
September 21st, 2010 at 9:40 AM ^
I don't know the rule book verbatim, but aren't the criteria for these fouls spelled out pretty clearly? It seems that in cases of penalties with a lot of gray area, the reviewers could just be ultraconservative, anyway. For example, a late hit wouldn't be overturned unless the offensive player was clearly still inbounds when contact was made.
September 22nd, 2010 at 11:28 PM ^
Great question. Your post made me curious about how rules appear in the rule book, so I googled it. Here's a link to the PDF version of the NCAA rule book if anyone is interested.
Some fouls are spelled out pretty clearly, but I think many penalties have room for referee interpretation that you don't have in plays that are currently challengeable. For example, here is the rule for roughing the passer:
"No defensive player shall charge into a passer or throw him to the
ground when it is obvious the ball has been thrown. This is roughing
the passer."
I think there is a lot of gray area here. The phrase "when it is obvious the ball has been thrown" can be interpreted differently by different referees. I think two different refs could make legitimate arguments about whether or not it is "obvious" that the ball has been thrown. This is much different than what is currently challengable (e.g. out of bounds, fumble, spot of the ball, catch vs incompletion) where there are clear cut rules with no room for interpretation. I'd be curious to hear other people's opinions about this.
September 21st, 2010 at 9:54 AM ^
we almost need teams of human movement specialists and lawyers to determine catches in the NFL.
September 21st, 2010 at 11:43 AM ^
One example when I think it would be good to be allowed: Mike Hart fumbled the ball a few years ago, I don't exactly remember when (I vaguely think against Iowa, but could easily be wrong). The play was reviewed to see if his knee was down before he fumbled the ball. It was close, but I think fairly clear that his knee was not yet down and it should have been a fumble. It was also clear, however, that a defensive player had his facemask and was twisting it, clearly a 15-yard penalty and that that's probably why he dropped the ball. No penalty could be called, obviously, but the instant replay said he was down and it wasn't a fumble. I thought it was technically the wrong call, but really the most correct outcome possible from the review (since an additional penalty couldn't be called).
I think it would be good if the rules were changed to make that actually the correct call--if an 'indisputable' penalty is clear (not a judgement call, but could still include interference if upon review it was clear there was no contact or that a player had tripped on his own, for example)--though there obviously need to be strict restrictions on what should be reviewed. If nothing else, make it official that the call with Mike Hart was correct--additional information can be incorporated into a review for another question.