I suppose this would be a good place to ask, after reading some of the discussion in one of the game threads.
What should change with regards to challenges for calls made on calls or non-calls for pass interference, if anything at all?
Linked above plus also below is the current list of plays that can be challenged,
which includes all calls or no-calls for passing interference on offence or defence,
plus also for any blocking downfield by any eligible receiver, also whether or not called as a penalty.
Should be loss of down if you outright lose the challenge.
This would be for definitive loss of the challenge.
It would not apply if there was no conclusive proof to overturn.
I think this is one outstanding idea, for such a punishment for a definitive loss on a challenge would almost eliminate all the fishing for an overturn of a call that takes place, sometimes merely out of desperation or spite, and always to waste time often near the end of a game.
Pat (out to lunch?) Lynch. I agree that suits is pathetic, but for other reasons. In fact, he often dumps on the Riders unfairly so that he would give the appearance of being unbiased. The other reasons: he is so often focused on his ābabbleā that we miss calls on the field. And that is the next reason too: he often misses calls on the field. You correctly identified this constant drumbeat of irrelevant info while the game is played. Unfortunately, he is not the only one. Often a flag fliesāand they go to commercial break. When returning, the ball is placed forward or back, and there is still no explanation, as they are so consumed with irrelevant babble. EVEN WORSE: during-play interviews with some dude who may have played the game years ago, while totally ignoring what is happening on the field. When the ācelebā being interviewed is not at all connected to football; that is even more egregious.
When the booth gets involved they get way more right than wrong. As do the refs. I do question at times why they let some stuff slide and not others. For example, they canāt possibly know if a QB has glanced at the other side of the field or not.
I question when the Command Centre initiates a review on something that is challengable. Sometimes they do it, sometimes they donāt. It guvea the appearance of possibly favouring a team. If the team has a challenge, let them ask for a review. If they donāt, sorry.
[quote=āsackatz, post:85, topic:93413ā]
.
[/quote
Yes they get more right than wrong. However, during almost every game I spot the infraction before they do in the boothā¦and, often, they donāt know what the flag was for, or get it wrong. I have one monitor while they have severalā¦and they get paid to know what is going on, and to relay that info instead of spewing totally irrelevant garbageā¦seems they are not focused on the game, perhaps more focused on what they will say.
You know who else knows before guys in the booth? The cameramen. How often have we seen the guys calling the play trying to figure out the flag while we see the culprit getting some major screen time. Happens all the time.
Iām waiting for the day to come when Andre Proulx hangs up the cleats and moves upstairs into the replay centre with a microphone in front of him, to announce decisions. Fans, always wanting to know, surely would get a thorough explanation each time.
Such a move, whether via retirement or reassignment, from the field to the booth often has not worked out well for officials in many leagues.
I certainly hope the CFL learns from the adverse experiences of some other leagues in this regard instead of reliving such nightmares.
Just get non-CFL officials who understand the rules trained for the Command Centre.
Though the rules are the same, the use of technology and procedures in the booth are a different discipline in officiating, including in particular on the fly during a live game broadcast and especially when many reviews still take too damn long.
They need to copy what soccer does, the ref goes over to the monitor on the sidelines and makes the decision, no waiting minutes. His rule is final thatās why we have refs, he doesnāt go upstairs to a committee to make the decision.
