I PROPOSE A RULE CHANGE

[Tomkat]

I realize I'm just blowing hot air, but here goes...

In the Ryder Cup (golf,) a team must be BEATEN in order to lose it (if the teams tie, then whoever had the cup RETAINS IT) Also, in the NFL - when there is a simultaneous catch (receiver and defender) with joint possession - THE OFFENSE RETAINS POSSESSION.

However, when it comes to turnovers, for some reason the NFL is obsessed with "the call on the field."
and needing conclusive evidence to overturn it.
I think this is the wrong approach, because sometimes, as with the case of Boyd's "fumble" call, overturning it becomes a case of trying to prove a negative, which is impossible. (Proving he DIDN'T FUMBLE is like proving Bigfoot DOESN'T EXIST.) The burden should be on proving what DID happen, not what DIDN'T.
I mean, OF COURSE you're not going to "see whether or not the ball moved" before his knee was down, if there's nothing to see because the ball was secure.

I think the NFL should take more of an "innocent-until-proven-guilty" approach that is more like the Ryder Cup, or joint possession rule, namely...

THE BALL BELONGS TO THE OFFENSE UNLESS IT IS CLEARLY TAKEN AWAY BY THE DEFENSE, and
THE BALL IS CONSIDERED "SECURE" UNLESS THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE OTHERWISE.

If the intent of instant replay is to get the calls RIGHT, then THIS approach would go a LONG WAY toward reducing "phantom" calls that end up standing ONLY BECAUSE THEY HAD THE ADVANTAGE OF BEING THE CALL ON THE FIELD.

It's time to REMOVE that advantage, stop worrying about hurting the official's feelings, and focus on GETTING CALLS RIGHT!

[SunsetBengal]

Well intended idea, but a false interpretation of the existing rule. TV camera angles clearly showed that Boyd's knee had been planted in the ground, prior to the ball jarring contact. The question is; Why do the NFL officials not have the same camera technology as television? I mean the NFL is the highest profiting "non-profit" organization on the planet, why not invest a couple bucks and get this shit right?

[Tomkat]

(09-19-2016, 05:28 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well intended idea, but a false interpretation of the existing rule...

Perhaps, but it seems as though once the call is "fumble" - now they are FORCED to prove NO FUMBLE.

My suggestion is to always make them PROVE WHAT DID HAPPEN, not what didn't - REGARDLESS of the call on the field.

Take away the burden of "overturning" a call - and focus on GETTING IT RIGHT.  

[OrlandoBengal]

(09-19-2016, 05:28 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well intended idea, but a false interpretation of the existing rule.  TV camera angles clearly showed that Boyd's knee had been planted in the ground, prior to the ball jarring contact.  The question is;  Why do the NFL officials not have the same camera technology as television?  I mean the NFL is the highest profiting "non-profit" organization on the planet, why not invest a couple bucks and get this shit right?

Are you sure about that?  I thought they get all the same angles as the viewing audience.

[jonesy84]

Even if they did adopt a rule like that, it would be worded very vaguely, to give them an 'out' to call it in Shitsburgh's favor...

They should just create a rule requiring refs to call games fairly all the time LOL or adopt a system where there is a panel of otherwise uninterested, non-biased women, to handle all the video replays back in NY. Just have the league tell them "do you see this, or not"

[SunsetBengal]

(09-19-2016, 05:30 PM)Tomkat Wrote: Perhaps, but it seems as though once the call is "fumble" - now they are FORCED to prove NO FUMBLE.

My suggestion is to always make them PROVE WHAT DID HAPPEN, not what didn't - REGARDLESS of the call on the field.

Take away the burden of "overturning" a call - and focus on GETTING IT RIGHT.  

Except that with the expansion of video review, offensive players were supposed to be given the benefit of the call and let replay sort it out.

(09-19-2016, 05:35 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: Are you sure about that?  I thought they get all the same angles as the viewing audience.

Obviously not, as the NFL released a statement upholding the call, citing that there were no angles showing evidence to overturn the call.  Now I watched it on TV, they showed it many times from all various angles.  If it was clear to me and the TV commentators that the knee was down before the contact that jarred the ball loose, how did the NFL not see it?

[Tomkat]

(09-19-2016, 05:47 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Except that with the expansion of video review, offensive players were supposed to be given the benefit of the call and let replay sort it out.

Except offensive players are clearly NOT being the benefit of the call.

[SunsetBengal]

(09-19-2016, 06:14 PM)Tomkat Wrote: Except offensive players are clearly NOT being the benefit of the call.

Exactly.  Which is why so many are up in arms over the "selected" rule enforcement in the NFL.  It is turning into a freaking farce.  I mean if they are going to run it like that, might as well go and support your local Semi-Pro team, as the rules are enforced just as loosely.

[leonardfan40]

(09-19-2016, 05:35 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: Are you sure about that?  I thought they get all the same angles as the viewing audience.

You are correct the NFL has all the angles the tv station does. They just refuse to admit it wasn't a fumble 

[bengal kitten uk]

The real problem is the contradiction in the rules.

Officials are told that where there is doubt they should let the play continue because it can be sorted out on replay. It then goes to replay and the referee is told that the earlier "call" of a fumble must stand because there isn't enough evidence to overturn it. Of course, when the officials didn't make a call because they wanted replay to sort it out, this doesn't really work...

What a crazy system.

[OBX Bengal]

(09-19-2016, 06:23 PM)leonardfan40 Wrote: You are correct the NFL has all the angles the tv station does. They just refuse to admit it wasn't a fumble 

Quote from Marvin Lewis in today's press conference:


"The coaches don’t get all the views that the media and broadcasters get. That’s a fallacy of television."


I don't understand why, with today's technology, the coaches, the NFL and the fans can't all view the same game.

[OrlandoBengal]

(09-19-2016, 07:54 PM)OBX Bengal Wrote: Quote from Marvin Lewis in today's press conference:


"The coaches don’t get all the views that the media and broadcasters get. That’s a fallacy of television."


I don't understand why, with today's technology, the coaches, the NFL and the fans can't all view the same game.

I really find this difficult to believe.  If that truly is the case, then why not have someone sitting in the booth with an Ipad so that they get the benefit of all angles?  Also, isn't Marvin on the competition committee?  You would think this would have come up at some point.

[leonardfan40]

(09-19-2016, 07:54 PM)OBX Bengal Wrote: Quote from Marvin Lewis in today's press conference:


"The coaches don’t get all the views that the media and broadcasters get. That’s a fallacy of television."


I don't understand why, with today's technology, the coaches, the NFL and the fans can't all view the same game.

I was referring to the officials getting all the angles from tv broadcast when reviewing a play, which is true.

I have no idea what angles the coaches get, you would think they could have the broadcast angles in the coaches booth but I've never heard what exactly views they actually get. 

It definitely doesn't make sense that the refs and coaches don't get every angle available.

[RiverRat13]

(09-19-2016, 07:27 PM)bengal kitten uk Wrote: The real problem is the contradiction in the rules.

Officials are told that where there is doubt they should let the play continue because it can be sorted out on replay.  It then goes to replay and the referee is told that the earlier "call" of a fumble must stand because there isn't enough evidence to overturn it.  Of course, when the officials didn't make a call because they wanted replay to sort it out, this doesn't really work...

What a crazy system.

This is 100% spot on.

[xxlt]

(09-19-2016, 05:47 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Except that with the expansion of video review, offensive players were supposed to be given the benefit of the call and let replay sort it out.


Obviously not, as the NFL released a statement upholding the call, citing that there were no angles showing evidence to overturn the call.  Now I watched it on TV, they showed it many times from all various angles.  If it was clear to me and the TV commentators that the knee was down before the contact that jarred the ball loose, how did the NFL not see it?

I think the problem isn't that they don't have all the views, the problem is they don't want to "see" an official made another mistake. So, if there is even a scintilla of doubt - even unreasonable doubt - then they uphold the call. The stated goal isn't to get the call right, but to avoid overturning the call on the field.

[xxlt]

(09-19-2016, 06:21 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Exactly.  Which is why so many are up in arms over the "selected" rule enforcement in the NFL.  It is turning into a freaking farce.  I mean if they are going to run it like that, might as well go and support your local Semi-Pro team, as the rules are enforced just as loosely.

And, there's always the WWE!

[wolfkaosaun]

(09-19-2016, 07:54 PM)OBX Bengal Wrote: Quote from Marvin Lewis in today's press conference:


"The coaches don’t get all the views that the media and broadcasters get. That’s a fallacy of television."


I don't understand why, with today's technology, the coaches, the NFL and the fans can't all view the same game.

But the video played on the screen on Heinz Field. You can even hear the crowd's reaction to the replay because it sounds like they know it was down.

Also, Lewis also stated that the officials on the sideline said that Boyd was down.

https://twitter.com/Local12Skinny/status/777613915840798721

NFL can't cover this up. They got it wrong. Own up to it.

[Tomkat]

(09-20-2016, 06:31 AM)xxlt Wrote: The stated goal isn't to get the call right, but to avoid overturning the call on the field.

Which is why the rule needs to change.  

[djam]

My rule change would be to fire Goodell and let football players play again. I would undo most of what he did.

[jonesy84]

(09-20-2016, 07:52 AM)djam Wrote: My rule change would be to fire Goodell and let football players play again. I would undo most of what he did.

Goodell is to the NFL what Obama is to the United States (except that financially Goodell well for the NFL, but only that small asterisk)

and I agree with your sentiments completely