Video replay, combined with all the flags, make it difficult to watch games. I find myself always waiting after a play -- first for the seemingly inevitable flag, and, after that, the video challenge.
I have a suggestion for video review -- limit each team to one challenge per game. But -- allow them to challenge anything. Any penalty can affect a play which can affect the outcome of the game.
What if there is PI on a play which can be challenged, but there is also offside or procedure, which can't be challenged? Both potentially negate the play, so both are just as critical.
If you limit the challenges to one, the coaches will stop challenging every little thing, and save it for something that really matters.
You could still allow booth reviews of turnovers and touchdowns, but please, let us watch the game.
Its a bit of a tough call on how many challenges are allowed. I wouldn't want a clearly bad call to make a game changing difference, and not be able to challenge because the one challenge was already used.
Also, I do agree that being able to challenge everything does slow down the gameplay. But as it stands, there is a maximum of 6 challenges per game (3 each, if the first 2 are successful). Beyond that, if the refs choose to review something, that is on them.
In the grand scheme of things, I would be happier with a slower game ending in a win, than a faster game ending in a loss.
The worse part about the replay is how many times the coaches are "right" thus making the officials "wrong". RiX says there are only 6 challenges maximum per game, but I read somewhere that the average number of calls is around 18. That is an detected error rate of 30%! And that is detected. Apparently every turnover and every scoring play is automatically reviewed, yet coaches still challenge and some are overturned. What's up with that? What exactly do they "automatically review"?
IMO challenges add to fan frustration by seemingly showing that calls are wrong, bringing all calls into question. Not to mention the long delays while the "command" centre reviews them. Especially sitting in the stands when there may be nothing interesting to distract you. I didn't pay to watch a half dozen guys in stripped shirts standing in a huddle.
Personally, I think we go back to the offical's calls, good or bad, as being "part of the game". Just like placement of the football. Some you win, some you lose, but that's football. Moves the game along and keeps the tempo of the game.
I'd also like to see the "contact on a receiver" rule repealed or revised, to allow for football contact before the throw, instead of just pitch and catch. Maybe the topic of another thread?
What is frustrating to both fans and players, is the seeming ambiguity of Illegal Contact or DPI on pass plays. We have seen at least 4 occasions where the defender made a bang-bang play, but upon video review, it is hard to tell if there was contact before the ball got there - especially if the contact was within a tenth of a second. If the referees, players, coaches, and fans don't know what is or is not a penalty, then there should be a league-wide overhaul of the process; since the calls certainly don't seem to follow precedence from game-to-game (or even within a game)...
The limit of six is on coach challenges. You are correct that there are many other reviews - scoring plays and turnovers, plus potentially any play om the last three minutes of each half. So not surprised that it’s as high as 18 per game.
Those other reviews, however, are during normal official timeouts, so don’t usually add much time to the length of a game. But even if it did add a few seconds, or even a minute, to the game, I’d rather have them review it and get the right call (and that last part is key - unlike the Sears PI penalty last week) than have a game decided on bad calls.
I have stated elsewhere that I am in favour of challenges being opened up to any yes or no, black or white calls, while maintaining the current limit on the number of challenges. The officials on the field would still be responsible for the judgement calls (e.g. did the early contact affect the play?), but if they missed the contact because of their angle, then their call could be overridden.
As for automatic turnover reviews, I think the Command Centre’s mandate is to look only at whether the turnover actually happened - was the ball carrier down before the ball came out, did the DB actually catch the ball, was the turnover caused by an uncalled unnecessary roughness penalty. They don’t look at what happened before the turnover, e.g. illegal contact, that may negate the turnover, which the coach may challenge.
What I can't stand are the challenges like Popp made tonight. The Als turn over the ball on a fumble and because it was a passing play Popp looks for a non-existent PI or contacting the receiver call to negate the turnover when CLEARLY there was no call to be made. I realize that maybe a video review coach may be telling him to do this but the intent was a desperate attempt to keep the ball. Terrible use of a review to hope for a terrible call to change the play. Thankfully the refs made the right call THIS TIME... :thdn:
Exactly why I don’t like the whole video review thing. It is only because Popp couldn’t take the ball and go home to tell his Mom that we all had to sit through that debacle.
Childish and demeaning. Have some respect, none of us are smarter than the game.
The problem in THAT case isn’t the availability of video review but the incompetence of the coach who seems to think he can challenge anything (sure sign of desperation) and apparently he did the same thing last game - trying to challenge something that he couldn’t. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: You’d never see Austin or probably any of the other coaches making that challenge - but then Popp is NOT a good HC IMO. It probably cost his team 2 points which might have been the difference between winning and losing if the game had been close which due to the Ticats better play in the 2nd half, it wasn’t.
Am I right in thinking that this was the play that Lawrence leg-whipped a ball carrier? Maybe a QB? If so, I'm sure Popp was trying to get any kind of review, hoping that the command centre would see and retroactively call the whip? Could have the wrong play, but I do recall something along those lines happening at some point.
I don't think it is a case of Popp not knowing the rules. I saw an interview with Rod Black, Jim Baker (? Argo GM) Popp and one other team official. They were discussing video reviews and I had the impression that they were all on the committee that looked into, and set up, the rules for video reviews. Popp seemed very knowledgeable at any rate, so when he was challenging that particular play, I'm sure it was for some other reason, and not really related to the supposed PI call.
Doesn't make it right, but perhaps explains what otherwise seemed to be selfish and childish behaviour?
