09-19-2016, 05:16 PM
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!
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!
