beaglehound

Hi Guys, 

I've created this topic to accommodate those who want to talk about a coach's challenges etc and video replay etc. 

Some have gone off-topic and are posting their thoughts about this subject on the 2018 Free Agent Signings Thread.  I'll ask them to move them over to here. 

Lennywasout

The current process is broken. Something needs to change.  The old system was broken and needed changing.  There has to be a better way. Not sure what but I don’t think the way it is now is fair.

longtimetcfan

One of the reasons the challenge system was changed was because it was being abused. Coaches would challenge hoping for an illegal contact on a receiver anywhere on the field and unfortunately they often won.

If the refs would have called more receivers for intentionally running into/contacting dbs, knowing the dbs would more often than not get called, the abuses would not have occurred and the challenges would have fulfilled their intended purpose... challenge borderline or egregious calls coaches thought went against their team... IMO.

Otherwise get rid of illegal contact as written and only call legitimate interference, offensive as well as defensive.

I also believe challenges often frustrating due to the incompetence and lack of consistency from Command Centre reviews and decisions.

Slomojo2005

Just saw this on TSN:
Lalji: 'Players aren't perfect, officiating doesn't need to be as well'
Last summer, CFL commissioner Randy Ambrosie cut video review challenges per game to one for coaches and Dave Naylor and Farhan Lalji debate whether or not that needs to be addressed again next season.

My first thoughts To this is that players have ONLY one chance to make the perfect/correct play.   Officials have several chances including the video review process.   The process was put into place to correct play calls, to get to the correct answer BUT as we saw last year and year prior, this is not necessarily the case.  The review process should run in conjunction with each play and the calls made should be corrected as necessary, not only when a coach challenges.   1 challenge as currently exists is not  sufficient and more challenges is time consuming/ leads to gamesmanship., Should be replaced with an automatic review booth process.  Like Mike Holmes says. Let’s get it Right!

Slomojo2005

Just saw this on TSN:
Lalji: 'Players aren't perfect, officiating doesn't need to be as well'
Last summer, CFL commissioner Randy Ambrosie cut video review challenges per game to one for coaches and Dave Naylor and Farhan Lalji debate whether or not that needs to be addressed again next season.

My first thoughts To this is that players have ONLY one chance to make the perfect/correct play.   Coaches have several chances including the video review process.   The process was put into place to correct play calls, to get to the correct answer BUT as we saw last year and year prior, this is not necessarily the case.  The review process should run in conjunction with each play and the calls made should be corrected as necessary not only when a coach challenges.   1 challenge as currently exists is not  sufficient and more challenges is time consuming/ leads to gamesmanship. the coach’s challenge, Should be replaced with an automatic review booth process.  Like Mike Holmes says. Let’s get it Right!
I wasn’t suggesting that the review booth holds up play, every play.  They should follow along and when they see a close call, a call that is questionable, thatz when they should interject.

DisplacedCatsFan

An NFL rule that I actually like is "Defensive Holding" - a 5-yd penalty and first down. I prefer that over Illegal Contact, because of the automatic first down, it's actually a harsher penalty.

I agree that interference should be called both ways, I hate that a receiver can run into the defender without a call. IMHO a defender has the right to the piece of turf he's standing on. If the receiver initiates contact, then it should be Offensive Interference. 

I believe that any serious blow to the head should be a free challenge for the team if the call was missed. How many times have we seen a Ticat be hit helmet-to-helmet without a call. In the age of player safety, this should be a no-brainer... ;)
Formerly sigpig

Velox Versutus Vigilans

R.I.P. Cpl Nathan Cirillo Albainn Gu Brath

Grover

1 challenge, use it very wisely.
It was the Head Coaches in this league that abused the right to have more than 1 challenge. 

Thanks to @Doc_Dave for sig

Hank01

 I have no problem challenging a penalty called to get it right but shouldn't be used to call one and for this you get one challenge for the game . You most likely will save it for the right moment  and not a fishing expedition . One challenge for this a game .

For all matters like rules not applied to action on field like onside kick , spot of the ball ,fumbles  , catches , out of bounds and breaking the goal line plane they should all be challengeable only after the command centre has verified the play to the official . Therefore it would only be the one's so outrageously bad that would be challenged and given a third look ; as the second look was already given by the eye in the sky . A quality control that would work seamlessly if done right and reduce the need to challenge the obvious .You get one challenge for this a game .

But it should not be used to call penalties that are missed that is what drags the game into the abyss and kills the natural rhythm and flow of the game . Let them play and if they miss a few they miss a few .

 So two challenges but only one for each separate issue . One for a challenge on a specific penalty like interference and the other challenging the ruling of the play like a fumble .

Crash

1 challenge, use it very wisely.
It was the Head Coaches in this league that abused the right to have more than 1 challenge.
Challenges only get abused based on whats allowed to be looked at.

1. Lose any away from the ball challenge that isn't a major foul. Lose illegal contact but stipulate it can be called when you challenge PI at the ball.

2. Go back to 3 challenges. I'd rather get it right. (Within reason) 

safetyblitz

The real heart of the problem is that the league has been unable to consistently call illegal contact.

Limiting coaches to 1 challenge doesn't solve the problem, it just means that teams will get away with illegal contact more often in critical situations.

Eliminating the penalty for illegal contact isn't a good option: the current implementation of the rule was brought in because passing offenses were getting locked down too much under the old rules, which is where *really* boring games were coming from.

Many people insist that illegal contact away from the ball shouldn't be a penalty, but the reality is that illegal contact away from the ball *does* affect the play by taking away one of the QBs potential targets. Again, the whole point of the current version of the rule was to make it easier for receivers to get open.

The tipping point last season was the accusation that Dave Dickenson was drawing up plays where he had certain receivers in the play deliberately instigating contact with defenders to create opportunities to challenge for illegal contact when desired.

Palmer

How about IC away from the play being a 5 yard penalty, no auto 1st down?  Plus, I’d like to see the officials more aware of the 5 yard from line of scrimmage leeway when allowing for legal contact, or ideally for me, increase it to 10 yards.

Lastly, how about two challenges, one per half?  And only PI, not IC?

CatsFaninOttawa

First of all, they need to start calling illegal contact correctly. The rules state that a defender is allowed to fend off a receiver, but it seems that whenever one does that, they get called for IC. Fix that, and a lot of the problems with reviews go away.

Anyway, I'm thinking they need to go back to three challenges. Maybe they can limit the number of challenges looking for an uncalled penalty other than unnecessary roughness / head shots especially. Or fix the way penalties are called by the Command Centre (see point #1).

Lennywasout

How about if you lose your challenge you get accessed a penalty for delay of game.  Will make Coaches think twice about throwing a flag unless they are absolutely positive it was an erroneous call.

beaglehound

Quote from: Slomojo2005 on Feb 27 2018, 11:13 AM
Quote
My first thoughts To this is that players have ONLY one chance to make the perfect/correct play.   Coaches have several chances including the video review process.   The process was put into place to correct play calls, to get to the correct answer BUT as we saw last year and year prior, this is not necessarily the case.  The review process should run in conjunction with each play and the calls made should be corrected as necessary not only when a coach challenges.   1 challenge as currently exists is not  sufficient and more challenges is time consuming/ leads to gamesmanship. the coach’s challenge, Should be replaced with an automatic review booth process.  Like Mike Holmes says. Let’s get it Right!

"The problem is, trying to get the correct call on every single play would be incredibly time taking.  I'm really not sure what a perfect system would be, but I don't want to be sitting in the stands waiting 5 mins for replay officials to determine whether a guy was in bounds on a 1st and 10 pass that went 3 yards in the 1st quarter of a game" - by letsgoticats

Hank01


  Under no circumstances should a challenge be used to call a penalty that is the very heart of the problem . Nobody finds this entertaining or justified in the time used for such an interruption in the flow of the game . 

 If however the game is already interrupted by a call on the field no one minds the time spent by either team to challenge this call if it is obviously an error . 

 The command centre if used correctly will automatically review most calls now and will be able to correct the on field official within seconds of obvious poor rule ruling on a out of  bounds call etc that is abhorrent to allow to stand . 

 The flow of the game is crucial for those watching the game and will drive any viewer away if used to draw the game to a halt for fishing calls even if they end up correct in the end they kill any entertainment value .

An automatic review that is done in seconds for all plays can be relayed to the official and if more time is needed they can call to the official that a review of the play is called and the official can relay this to the viewer . This should eliminate the horrible calls like the Flutie fumble GC play in quick order .
 


Users Online

107 Guests, 13 Users (11 Spiders, 2 Hidden)

Users active in past 15 minutes:
Cool, Hamilton2005, J_15, Oskie18, Reggiemac, Mightygoose, of course, Grover, ExPat, ploen_truth, ticat1, Google (AdSense) (4), Google (7)

Most Online Today: 152. Most Online Ever: 489 (Nov 26 2017, 08:38 PM)