Review process in NFL games needs to change

[Stout]

I think it is appalling that the NFL allows the same guys who make the calls review the calls. Oh, they're supposed to be impartial and call it correctly, and I'm not saying they're purposefully trying to cover up their own mistakes, but it's pretty difficult to remian 100 percent impartial when reviewing your own mistake.

In no world should the Tim Hightower fumble have been upheld after reviewing that play. The ball was clearly not moving, the ball then hit the turf, and THEN the ball popped out. Clear as day. Yet the same jokers that let the play go on went to the booth, and of course upheld the play.

We need instant replay the way it is in college football, or the NHL. Let someone else with the league review the call and avoid this stupidity.

And just to show that this rant isn't solely driven by a bad call against my team, I'll point out the stupid review in the Lions game that cost them the win.

 

[Cardiac]

I was shocked that TH's "fumble" was over turned. I also didn't get the best view (stupid DTV DVR sucks) and couldn't tell if the ball started to move in his arm before he hit the turf.

The Lions game wasn't a bad call. One could argue that it's a bad rule.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

The problem with that call, is that it wasn't clear. They have made an emphasis to not overturn plays unless they are 100% clear and the incorrect call. The camera views were bad.

 

[Big D]

Being a biased Cardinals fan I didn't think it was a fumble but since they called it that way on the field and there was no replay shown where you could actually see the ball before it popped out when Hightower hit the ground I don't think there was enough to overturn it.

Same thing if they would have ruled the ground caused the fumble then looked at it. Since you really could not see the ball at all before it popped out there was really no way to determine if it was moving or not before it hit the ground, so they would have to uphold the original ruling.

 

[football karma]

here is the truth:

If that game had been the Sunday night game, the Monday game or even the feature afternoon game -- the call gets reversed because there would have been at least one more angle on it.

In this game, the only angle had a player in the way -- so you could kinda see, but not really

 

[Stout]

1-Baloney--I watched the ball secure in his arms until it hit the ground.
2-Johnson's catch WAS a catch by the rules. He caught it, possessed it, hit the ground, rolled over, and PUT the ball on the ground. I don't care what kind of picky rule you have, if a catch happens in every definition of the word and THEN the player PURPOSEFULLY puts the ball on the ground, it is a catch. Are we going to start reviewing plays where the WR flips the ball and gets up at the same time? No, that doesn't happen, nor will it. This was a bad call.

 

[crisper57]

Do lower-tier games have fewer cameras? I mean, I am pretty sure the national games have more. That would cut down on the number of reviewable angles for regionally-televised games.

Both the angles in the THT fumble were inconclusive IMO because the ball disappears from view for a few frames, but the second one sure seemed to show he was down. More cameras in the stadium might have turned the call our way.

 

[chickenhead]

I agree that the calls should be reviewed upstairs. Like in the NHL, where neither the goal judge nor referee is making the final review. Of course, they might still give you the Cup with a toe in the crease, but that's a different story...

 

[CardLogic]

I am on board, and have stated more than once, the review should be done by booth official, not the referee.

 

[MadCardDisease]

The problem with that call, is that it wasn't clear. They have made an emphasis to not overturn plays unless they are 100% clear and the incorrect call. The camera views were bad.

Fox just plain sucks. Worst announcers. Terrible camera guys and producers. What did they only have like 3 cameras at that game?

I hate that we always get the crappy crews with zero equipment.

 

[stewdog1]

Fox just plain sucks. Worst announcers. Terrible camera guys and producers. What did they only have like 3 cameras at that game?

I hate that we always get the crappy crews with zero equipment.

You'd think they would just give us a radio feed if they could get away with it.

 

[Buckybird]

1-Baloney--I watched the ball secure in his arms until it hit the ground.
2-Johnson's catch WAS a catch by the rules. He caught it, possessed it, hit the ground, rolled over, and PUT the ball on the ground. I don't care what kind of picky rule you have, if a catch happens in every definition of the word and THEN the player PURPOSEFULLY puts the ball on the ground, it is a catch. Are we going to start reviewing plays where the WR flips the ball and gets up at the same time? No, that doesn't happen, nor will it. This was a bad call.

1,000,000,000% agree.

The possession rule of a catch has been changed how many times now? Rememeber Tampa-Rams playoff game. How about the tuck rule? Stupidest rule in all off sports!!! Sometimes common sense should be applied.

BTW-College football has it right...take the guy out of the equation that made the call on the field, plus it takes less time.

 

[football karma]

the fumble issue is tricky.

for every Tim Hightower call, there seems like there have been three or four where a legitimate fumble was called dead, the play stops, and the defense is denied a chance to get the ball.

In response, refs I think have taken the pov that they will assume fumble, thinking that replay can clean up the mess if it wasnt.

The problem obviously is that it put burden of "indisputable evidence" on seeing it as "not a fumble" -- and the Cardinals have seen two instances already this season of fumbles where the video evidence came within an eyelash of indisputable evidence, but not quite there.

 

[jbeecham]

In response, refs I think have taken the pov that they will assume fumble, thinking that replay can clean up the mess if it wasnt.

I think this is the main problem right now... when replay 1st started, the refs would assume the player was down by contact & the coaches or booth would have to challenge to determine it was a fumble... which to me makes more sense because it's easier to see indisputable evidence that it is a fumble than indisputable evidence that it isn't a fumble.

Somewhere along the line, the refs/league decided to call the most extreme outcome & then try to overturn the worst case scenario with indisputable evidence... I guess it leads to more turnovers & controversial plays, which creates more drama, interest & publicity in the league. Plus, if you stop the play that really was a fumble then you don't know how far the return of that fumble would've gone.

We're just lucky it didn't bite us in the butt this time because our defense stepped up once again.

 

[Russ Smith]

My annual complaint, the problem is this.

The current rule says we uphold the call on the field unless we have CONCLUSIVE evidence it's wrong. THe problem is even with replay often there isn't a good enough shot to be CONCLUSIVE. So you can look at a replay in slo mo and most people will say, that's not a fumble, but it's not 100% conclusive so by rule you stick with the original call.

So slo mo looks one way but by rule you go with the original call which was made at full speed.

they give too much power to the original call.

 

[earthsci]

My annual complaint, the problem is this.

The current rule says we uphold the call on the field unless we have CONCLUSIVE evidence it's wrong. THe problem is even with replay often there isn't a good enough shot to be CONCLUSIVE. So you can look at a replay in slo mo and most people will say, that's not a fumble, but it's not 100% conclusive so by rule you stick with the original call.

So slo mo looks one way but by rule you go with the original call which was made at full speed.

they give too much power to the original call.

I disagree. If there isn't irrefutable evidence to overturn the call, then the call on the field should stay as is.

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

The "fumble" was very reminicent of teh Beanie "fumble" in preseason. I guess the benefit of the doubt goes to players who do not have a reputation as a fumbler.

 

[Russ Smith]

I disagree. If there isn't irrefutable evidence to overturn the call, then the call on the field should stay as is.

My logic is what you ideally want is the "correct" call. If the replay isn't conclusive then the call is going to be an educated guess. What is more likely to be accurate, a call made at full speed, or a call made after watching the replay many times in slo mo?

If you can't be 100% correct, you should at least use the most educated guess IMHO?

The current rule is as it is to protect the refs, they don't want them to be afraid to make a call, waiting for replay.

 

[jbeecham]

I disagree. If there isn't irrefutable evidence to overturn the call, then the call on the field should stay as is.

That depends on your definition of irrefutable... lots of things can affect that. I don't know if that Hightower fumble review was more affected by bad camera angles or the ref refusing to admit that he made the wrong call. The slo-mo replay I had showed TH with control of the ball to the ground, his left shoulder & knees hit the ground, then hit right arm hits the ground & the ball pops out... either the review ref didn't get this view or he must've thought he saw some movement in the ball before TH hit the ground. Maybe it was simply a home call since they were in St Louis & it created lots of excitement & drama in the game & almost allowed a Rams upset... stuff like that happens in the NBA all the time. The Cards did get called for 2x the penalties & obvious holds & late hits on DA were missed when the Rams committed them.

 

[earthsci]

My logic is what you ideally want is the "correct" call. If the replay isn't conclusive then the call is going to be an educated guess. What is more likely to be accurate, a call made at full speed, or a call made after watching the replay many times in slo mo?

If you can't be 100% correct, you should at least use the most educated guess IMHO?

And you have sound logic but in an answer, no. First, it will really slow down the game but secondly, and more importantly, instant replay is there to reverse the calls that the referee obviously missed, not get a better chance at a judgment call.

 

[earthsci]

That depends on your definition of irrefutable... lots of things can affect that. I don't know if that Hightower fumble review was more affected by bad camera angles or the ref refusing to admit that he made the wrong call. The slo-mo replay I had showed TH with control of the ball to the ground, his left shoulder & knees hit the ground, then hit right arm hits the ground & the ball pops out... either the review ref didn't get this view or he must've thought he saw some movement in the ball before TH hit the ground.

No, he probably didn't see movement, and I agree that there wasn't a fumble. Here's the "but" though. In the replay you lose sight of the ball so how does the replay show that he never lost control before he hit the ground? I agree that he didn't but the replay doesn't provide enough proof that the ball never came loose before he hit the ground.

 

[jbeecham]

No, he probably didn't see movement, and I agree that there wasn't a fumble. Here's the "but" though. In the replay you lose sight of the ball so how does the replay show that he never lost control before he hit the ground? I agree that he didn't but the replay doesn't provide enough proof that the ball never came loose before he hit the ground.

For arguments sake, does the replay show irrefutable evidence that it was a fumble? If the refs had ruled it down by contact then I don't think there's any chance that play gets overturned either & there lies the problem with the rule...

 

[earthsci]

For arguments sake, does the replay show irrefutable evidence that it was a fumble?

No but that isn't what they are looking for. They are looking for irrefutable evidence to overturn the call.

If the refs had ruled it down by contact then I don't think there's any chance that play gets overturned either & there lies the problem with the rule... it's not getting the right call, it's just the refs admitting that they don't know the correct call so they go with whatever was originally called.

Well I guess that we will have to agree to disagree. Instant replay is there to overturn blatantly bad calls that are irrefutably wrong, not to help in the decision making process if the replay kinda looks like the ref got it wrong.

 

[Russ Smith]

For arguments sake, does the replay show irrefutable evidence that it was a fumble? If the refs had ruled it down by contact then I don't think there's any chance that play gets overturned either & there lies the problem with the rule...

That's my point too I said the exact same thing yesterday. If the call on the field was no fumble, replay would have upheld it. If the call was fumble, replay would have upheld it, the replay was not conclusive.

however IMHO if there was no call made and they looked at replay to decide what the right call was, they would rule no fumble.

 

[jbeecham]

No but that isn't what they are looking for. They are looking for irrefutable evidence to overturn the call. Well I guess that we will have to agree to disagree. Instant replay is there to overturn blatantly bad calls that are irrefutably wrong, not to help in the decision making process if the replay kinda looks like the ref got it wrong.

The point of this thread is that the replay rule needs to CHANGE. All of your argument is just stating the current rule. The point of replay is to get the correct call... they should change the rule to throw out the original ruling on the field & make the correct call. I also agree that the refs who made the original call shouldn't also be the ones making the review because they are biased by what they've already called & how they think they saw the play in real time. Ideally, these refs should care the most about the integrity of the game & getting the call right, but that's not always the case.