(03-27-2019, 09:13 AM)Au165 Wrote: Offensive PI would be review able as well...like the pick play against by the Steelers that lost us the game.

In general I like the move as coaches still only have a limited number of challenges so if they use them up on tough to overturn judgment calls then they will suffer consequences later. I think when guys get hit with bad PI that result in 50 yard penalties knowing that can be corrected is a game changer.

Do you think the call to review that play would've came from the booth, though? I'm not sure that it would have.

If anything, it will just cause teams to try to get the line and snap the ball even faster after the two minute warnings to avoid such situations. It might lead to more mistakes.

It's a rule change that was only passed because of who complained. If what happened to the Saints happened to the Bengals there'd be nothing done.

Rules/Policies are created to fix past mistakes and prevent them from happening again. There is no doubt a playoff game win and Super Bowl trip was handed over to the Rams. This new rule will prevent it.


Let's see how they enforce it. My guess is coached better have clear cases or they lose a valuable challenge and time out. I think all plays should be reviewable (OL holding too), but any judgment call will get tremendous scrutiny to be over turned in my opinion.


I do see a potential issue of both teams challenging the same play. How many times have you seen a Holding or PI call made against a defense for example, only to see on replay the receiver was the one guilty. What to they do if they review it and reverse a defensive PI call, then the opposing coach can throw the flag for the offensive PI as his coaches get 3 to 5 minutes to look at in detail.

(03-26-2019, 10:29 PM)hollodero Wrote: Also, non-calls. And 31 teams voted in favor of this. Only the Bengals did not.

I don't know if that's a good thing or not, though the Saints-Rams game makes for a strong argument. I also wonder why the Bengals of all teams broke the unity on that one.

They should add personal fouls in this as well.
How many times had we seen someone like Iloka or Nelson get flagged for unnecessary roughness only to find out they definitively made contact with the chest rather than the neck/head?

(03-27-2019, 09:41 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Rules/Policies are created to fix past mistakes and prevent them from happening again. There is no doubt a playoff game win and Super Bowl trip was handed over to the Rams. This new rule will prevent it.


Let's see how they enforce it. My guess is coached better have clear cases or they lose a valuable challenge and time out. I think all plays should be reviewable (OL holding too), but any judgment call will get tremendous scrutiny to be over turned in my opinion.


I so see a potential issue of both teams challenging the same play. How many times have you seen a Holding or PI call made against a defense for example, only to see on replay the receiver was the one guilty. What to they do if they review it and reverse a defensive PI call, then the opposing coach can throw the flag for the offensive PI as his coaches get 3 to 5 minutes to look at in detail.

I wonder how fast the game would speed up if the refs stopped calling so many ticky tack penalties and only focused on the egregious ones.

(03-27-2019, 09:20 AM)NKURyan Wrote: Do you think the call to review that play would've came from the booth, though? I'm not sure that it would have.

If anything, it will just cause teams to try to get the line and snap the ball even faster after the two minute warnings to avoid such situations. It might lead to more mistakes.

I think they would, especially with it being a scoring play.

They do the same thing now with catches that may not be catches. It really isn't that big a change as people are trying to make it to be.

(03-26-2019, 10:29 PM)hollodero Wrote: Also, non-calls. And 31 teams voted in favor of this. Only the Bengals did not.

I don't know if that's a good thing or not, though the Saints-Rams game makes for a strong argument. I also wonder why the Bengals of all teams broke the unity on that one.

Good thing.

I could give a shit less about the "speed of the game" if it means that a Dre Kirkpatrick PI call gets overturned and we didn't end up putting the other team in position to win the game.

I think overall I like it.

What I don't like is, if you slow plays down enough...things look like PI that might not be.

Then, if this is successful...what's next? Holding calls? There is holding on virtually every play. You could have 4 hour games at some point.

But, when there is an obvious bad call, it makes me want to have replay so overall I think I like it as long as there are constraints around it.

(03-26-2019, 11:16 PM)NKURyan Wrote: Why they won't agree to guarantee every team at least one possession in overtime, I will never understand.

Teams can guarantee it themselves by not giving up a TD on the first possession in overtime.

 

Not surprised Mike Brown was the lone dissenting vote!

Just reaffirms how out-of-touch with reality this fossil is. There's an old saying: "if you always do what you've always done you'll always get what you've always gotten".

Does this guy not understand what Innovation means? It is the lifeblood of every business. Step 1, fail to innovate. Step 2: Lose market share. Step 3: No longer relevant (e.g. out of business).

It's no wonder the Bengals under his leadership never get where they want to be. Yes, it's a just a rule change but it epitomizes the philosophical view of this man. The only owner out of 32 teams to dissent. Good grief.

Had an NFL business not fallen to him through his fathers death I suspect he would've be a complete failure. He just happens to own a business where it's impossible to fail. Even a non-brain celled jellyfish could succeed as an NFL owner.

(03-27-2019, 09:41 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Rules/Policies are created to fix past mistakes and prevent them from happening again. There is no doubt a playoff game win and Super Bowl trip was handed over to the Rams. This new rule will prevent it.


Let's see how they enforce it. My guess is coached better have clear cases or they lose a valuable challenge and time out. I think all plays should be reviewable (OL holding too), but any judgment call will get tremendous scrutiny to be over turned in my opinion.


I do see a potential issue of both teams challenging the same play. How many times have you seen a Holding or PI call made against a defense for example, only to see on replay the receiver was the one guilty. What to they do if they review it and reverse a defensive PI call, then the opposing coach can throw the flag for the offensive PI as his coaches get 3 to 5 minutes to look at in detail.

I had the same line of thought as that. How many times have we seen the WR use an arm to push off, only to have PI called on the DB? Do the refs automatically switch the penalty then to the WR? I agree with MB on this one, to many unknowns that can make the call complicated. 

(03-27-2019, 11:18 AM)Daddy-O Wrote: Not surprised Mike Brown was the lone dissenting vote!

Just reaffirms how out-of-touch with reality this fossil is.  There's an old saying:  "if you always do what you've always done you'll always get what you've always gotten".  

Does this guy not understand what Innovation means?  It is the lifeblood of every business.  Step 1, fail to innovate.  Step 2:  Lose market share.  Step 3:  No longer relevant (e.g. out of business).

It's no wonder the Bengals under his leadership never get where they want to be.  Yes, it's a just a rule change but it epitomizes the philosophical view of this man.  The only owner out of 32 teams to dissent.  Good grief.

Had an NFL business not fallen to him through his fathers death I suspect he would've be a complete failure.  He just happens to own a business where it's impossible to fail.  Even a non-brain celled jellyfish could succeed as an NFL owner.

I actually agree with MB on this one.

(03-26-2019, 11:14 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah that was an initial impulse of mine as well.

@topic, I still am unsure how to feel about making judgment calls reviewable. I guess this new rule will lead to many discussions after the fact.

Aren’t PI’s defined though?

(03-27-2019, 09:48 AM)Au165 Wrote: I think they would, especially with it being a scoring play.

They do the same thing now with catches that may not be catches. It really isn't that big a change as people are trying to make it to be.

I guess my point is that they're already in hurry up mode at that point in all likelihood, and now they're going to be rushing even more to get the snap off before an official upstairs gives the word to take a look at it. You can afford to run to the line and call a short rush up the middle in a normal situation, but within the two minute warning? Probably not.

(03-27-2019, 10:36 AM)BengalChris Wrote: Teams can guarantee it themselves by not giving up a TD on the first possession in overtime.

 

Which is totally realistic as the game shifts to being more and more geared towards offense. Did you lose the coin toss against the Patriots, Saints, or Chiefs? Congratulations, you most likely just lost the game.

I fail to see the harm in allowing the other team a possession to match the touchdown, especially since the game is pretty much guaranteed to be an exciting one if it's made it to that point.

(03-27-2019, 11:18 AM)Daddy-O Wrote: Not surprised Mike Brown was the lone dissenting vote!

Just reaffirms how out-of-touch with reality this fossil is.  There's an old saying:  "if you always do what you've always done you'll always get what you've always gotten".  

Does this guy not understand what Innovation means?  It is the lifeblood of every business.  Step 1, fail to innovate.  Step 2:  Lose market share.  Step 3:  No longer relevant (e.g. out of business).

It's no wonder the Bengals under his leadership never get where they want to be.  Yes, it's a just a rule change but it epitomizes the philosophical view of this man.  The only owner out of 32 teams to dissent.  Good grief.

Had an NFL business not fallen to him through his fathers death I suspect he would've be a complete failure.  He just happens to own a business where it's impossible to fail.  Even a non-brain celled jellyfish could succeed as an NFL owner.

Usually Mike is a 100% wrong on things but this he got right. Judgement calls should not be reviewable period and this will yet again make playing defensive back that much harder.  They are overreacting over one play. 
Also why not have Facemask calls be reviewable because they missed one on the Saints on the previous drive.

I heard this on Clay Travis' show but I think it was a good point and good question. How is this going to work with Hsil Mary plays at the end of games? Those plays almost always have at least a few people committing PI but the whistle gets swallowed, as it should. What are they going to do now? Pick and choose when they review?

I have to say I don't think I will like this new rule. What happens if we get playoff game where there is a missed blatant holding call on a 60 yard last second TD for a win? Will they want to review holding calls as well, because if that holding was called (or didnt happen resulting in a sack), that TD wouldn't havent occurred.

Instead of adding this rule, NFL should makes refs full time employees of the league, while also maybe adding two more refs per game or something. NFL makes so much money, that would be a drop in the bucket for them.

(03-27-2019, 12:08 PM)NKURyan Wrote: Which is totally realistic as the game shifts to being more and more geared towards offense. Did you lose the coin toss against the Patriots, Saints, or Chiefs? Congratulations, you most likely just lost the game.

I fail to see the harm in allowing the other team a possession to match the touchdown, especially since the game is pretty much guaranteed to be an exciting one if it's made it to that point.

I agree that both teams should get 1 possession in OT. And if the scored is still tied after the second team has possession, then sudden death. A possession includes a kickoff return, punt return, or an interception so if a fumble happens on any of those, then that team lost their chance at a possession.

(03-27-2019, 07:44 AM)Tiger Teeth Wrote: I had to look this word up.

As for the new rule, it is going to make games longer as I suspect almost every closely defended pass play will end up being reviewed.

(03-27-2019, 07:47 AM)hollodero Wrote: The number of challenges will stay the same though and booth reviews will only take place in the last minutes, like now. So there's hardly the potential to review every second play.

Yeah, like he hollodero said, they're not going to have more challenges, so not like they can just throw one on every incomplete pass.

I don't necessarily like it, but we'll see how it goes.  If it's something as obvious as the pass interference play in the Saints/Rams game, then I agree that it should be reviewable, but we'll see how ticky-tack they get with it.

Offensive scoring makes money, so they're trying more and more to kill off the defensive side of the ball.

(03-27-2019, 02:11 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Yeah, like he hollodero said, they're not going to have more challenges, so not like they can just throw one on every incomplete pass.

I don't necessarily like it, but we'll see how it goes.  If it's something as obvious as the pass interference play in the Saints/Rams game, then I agree that it should be reviewable, but we'll see how ticky-tack they get with it.

Offensive scoring makes money, so they're trying more and more to kill off the defensive side of the ball.

The argument I would make is that the non-call in the Rams/Saints game was so insanely botched that 999 times out of 1000 it gets called.  The idea of using what may go down as the biggest, flukiest, craziest blown call in football (at least now in the age of replay and HD and every second of football being instantly available) to change the rules could come off as a bit overarching and knee-jerk.

The fact that pass interference in itself is a penalty should have been enough to flag that Saints/Rams play.  That's the best argument I can come up for to say "No thanks" to this, but I'm just spitballing here.