Video Review Must Be Given To The On Field Officials

Why did Toronto have to waste their 2nd half challenge on Kackerts touchdown that is supposed to be automatically reviewed by the league? More clear evidence video review must go. This league, Tom Higgins and his review crew are not capable to do the job. They can't even follow their own rules.

They continue to embarrass themselves week after week. At least take it out of the hands of Higgins and his incompetent Toronto morons and give it to the on field Head Official. The league trusts him to make the calls as they happen without slo-mo or video replay why isn't he then the best choice to do the review when he has the advantage of multiple views and slo motion?

Because it wasn’t ruled a touchdown by the official on the field. Scoring plays are automatically reviewed, not plays that are ruled down at the one yard line. At least that’s the challenge rule as I understand it.

All replays should be done by the booth period. No more coach challenges. If it's good enough for the last 3 minutes, why not the first 57?

And that would add about another hour to the time it takes to play the game.

What proof do you have to back this claim up?

You think having a video review of every close play during a game would not add to the length of time it would take to play the game?

You mean other that the booth is more willing to review close plays then the coaches are? If this were to happen and some play were to not be reviewed, the fans would be whining incessantly about how the league screwed up and the refs suck blah blah blah. That inevitably means more reviews.

The game takes too long as it is, the last thing we need is six reviews a game. The fact that the thread was even started over a wrong complaint is a nice illustration of what a can of worms it’d open up.

That's not proof, that's an opinion. And we don't know how often coaches would be willing to ask for a review if they had unlimited opportunities to do so. Right now, coaches are reluctant because if their second challenge fails, they lose their timeout. Give coaches the power to ask for an infinite amount of reviews and I bet they ask for a lot more.

Unlimited, like the booth has? You're agreeing with us. :stuck_out_tongue:

Coaches don't have unlimited challenges specifically because if they did, they'd blow them on frivolous nonsense in order to rest players or disrupt a key drive by the opposition.

The current system works fine. If anything they should go the opposite route and eliminate any automatic challenges. Let the coaches make the decision and keep the game moving.

I think that play should have been reviewed. If all scoring plays are to be reviewed then a play that could have been a scoring play had the player been ruled out of bounds after crossing the goal line (for example) must be reviewed. If it's not then don't review any of them automatically because it is arbitrary applied as it is now.

I think the Toronto "war room" should be abandoned. They are not qualified (in Higgins case) nor are they competent enough to do the job consistently correct or apply the rules and procedures consistently. Give it to the on field officials and give coaches 1 mistake rather than 1 challenge. If his first challenge is correct why punish him by revoking his privilege for the rest of the half. He gets to keep his flag until he's wrong then take his privilege.

Bottom line, Higgins and company are not competent enough to handle the job so give it to the guys the league pays and trusts to do it right at full speed with one angle and no time to think it through. If they can do that surely they can get it right when they are asked to review the play in slo mo with multiple angles to look at.

Don't they already do that?

Bottom line, Higgins and company are not competent enough to handle the job so give it to the guys the league pays and trusts to do it right at full speed with one angle and no time to think it through. If they can do that surely they can get it right when they are asked to review the play in slo mo with multiple angles to look at.
They used to do it this way. It was changed because the on field official doesn't have access to the same kind of equipment as a central office does, and it's more expensive to try and put replay equipment on the field in every stadium. Besides, it's Jake Ireland doing the challenges and if he's not qualified then why would any other official in the league be qualified?

Coaches are not unlimited. I believe it is 1 per half regardless of whether or not he's correct.

I am aware that Jake Ireland is in the video room that's why I specifically referenced Higgins when I said "unqualified", but how many times, just this season, has there been controversy over video review decisions? How many of those have been questioned by the TSN commentators? These guys give the benefit of the doubt to the officials even when they believe that the opposite call should have been made but even Suitor has questioned some of the bizarre decisions made by the war room this season.

Personally I say get rid of it all together. I would rather a game be decided by an on field officials human error than the inconsistent and arbitrary application of rules/procedures that we have now. An official can be forgiven a human error but the kind of inconsistencies that have come out of Toronto this season especially are taking the game out of the hands of the players, the calls of the officials and are being unfairly applied based on how when their monitors and glasses were cleaned prior to each game.

Turns out we're both wrong:

"Each team will be entitled to two challenges per game. If they are successful with both challenges (i.e. the ruling is in their favour) and they still have at least one time-out remaining, they will be granted a third and final challenge."

Coaches are allowed two challenges per game, with a third being allowed if the first two are successful. A timeout is lost if the second or third challenge is unsuccessful, so they must have a timeout remaining (and be willing to lose it) in order to make those challenges. There is no restriction on when they can challenge a play other than not once the three-minute warning has been called. (EDIT: Saw the previous post just after hitting Submit.)

Personally I like the idea of unlimited challenges until one is unsuccessful, with one challenge allowed after that using the current second challenge timeout rule. And maybe a delay of game penalty for obvious frivolous challenges to prevent misuse. I also think the automatic challenge on scoring plays should be extended to potential scoring plays, e.g. Kackert's TD.

Then just amend the rule to allow them 1 failed challenge. They can challenge as many times as they like until they have had a challenge that was not upheld with a minimum guarantee as per above. Teams still get 2 challenges with a possible third if they have a time out but if they are successful in all their challenges they can continue to challenge until they have 1 fail. If a team challenges and the ruling on the field is over turned in their favour then their challenge was not frivolous and they shouldn't be penalized with the loss of a challenge.

I could go for that. :slight_smile:

Numbingly illogical.

The rule on all scoring plays being reviewed is not arbitrary - it is precise and applied without discretion, unless you mean “arbitrary” in a more general sense, in which case the entire sport and all the rules are arbitrary.

Unlimited challenges changed to one mistake leads to the logical outcome that one coach gets 6 right and 1 (last mistake) and the other coach gets 1 (first and last mistake) and 6 that he cannot challenge in the future - hardly a difference in fairness just timing.

If the officials would have shown they could get it right, the “war room” would have never been invented.

There will NEVER be an absence of errors until there is a complete absence of the human factor - but I prefer sports played and adjudicated by real people not a video game.


Booth has multiple screens they use. Refs would have one and it would take forever to cue up all the camera angles on one screen.

Arbitrary in the sense that Kackert's play was a touchdown. Why is it OK to automatically review a touchdown and take it away but not automatically review a close play down at the 1 and over turn it as a touchdown. The system is arbitrary not the people administering it.

That's not my intent. I stated it more clearly in a previous post. Each coach would be gauranteed his 2 per game but if both of those were upheld he would maintain his privilege to challenge until he was wrong. Why punish a team for challenging an incorrect call.

I agree with this part, but as you say as long as the human element is involved we will have mistakes. I would rather see a Grey Cup decided by a bad call by an on field official who had one angle, at full speed and 1/2 a second to make a decision than by the war room in Toronto because I see a far greater percentage of errors from Toronto than I do from the guys on the field. And the war room should be virtually perfect. Ireland and Higgins are 50/50 at best.

Works in the NFL.