Expanding playoffs, instant replay

[Piranha]

Expanding playoffs, instant replay on NFL owners' agenda

 

Proposals to expand the NFL playoff field from 12 to 14 teams and to make all penalties eligible for instant replay review will vie for attention by team owners next week as they also look to establish a process by which they will replace Commissioner Paul Tagliabue.

The league meeting in Orlando begins Monday and concludes Wednesday. Tagliabue, who announced his retirement earlier this week, will discuss procedures for creating a committee to handle the search for his successor.

 

Adding two playoff teams and widening the scope of replay as an officiating tool are under consideration by the competition committee, which makes recommendations about the rules of the game to the owners. The Kansas City Chiefs pitched the larger playoff field, having missed qualifying for the postseason this year with a 10-6 record. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers pitched the expanded use of replay.

 

Adding playoff teams has been discussed before and voted down but committee co-chairman Rich McKay, the Atlanta Falcons general manager, says it "has definitely sparked some interest." Part of that stems from the first-ever Super Bowl victory by a team (the Pittsburgh Steelers) seeded sixth (last) in its conference.

 

McKay said the league was also concerned about the perception that officiating had slipped but he emphasized that the concern was more about the perception than any actual decline. He did not argue that some calls made during the playoffs and Super Bowl were, at the very least, controversial.

 

"We thought the officials had a very good year," he said in conference call with reporters Wednesday afternoon. "There was no question there were a couple of calls in the playoffs and the Super Bowl that we wish we had back but by and large it was a very good year."

 

The competition committee is also looking at a couple of other issues, including:

 

Low hits on quarterbacks: "We're going to put a little more onus on the defensive player when he has the opportunity to avoid" such contact, McKay said.

 

Protect long snappers on kicks: A rule change would not allow anyone to line up head up on the centers.

 

Blocks in the back: The proposal would prohibit the kicking team from pushing or blocking in back while the ball is in the air.

 

No loading up on onside kicks: The NFL would adopt the college rule mandating at least four players on either side of the kicker.

 

Broaden the horsecollar tackle rule: To include tackles made when players grab the inside of the back of the jersey, not just the shoulder pad.

 

Instant replay: Allow review of plays where the officials ruled a player down by contact, which was proposed last year but did not pass. The committee also wants to cut the referee's review time from 90 seconds to 60 seconds.

 

False starts: Would allow eligible receivers to reset after a flinch instead of forcing officials to throw the flag and kill the play. There were 850 false-start penalties last year.

[Randall]

On NFL Network I saw a piece where teams would be allowed to bring their own balls, submitted by Brady and Peyton Manning. Teams could get the balls the way they want them and use them in games. I like that one.

[Hat Trick]

Expanding playoffs, instant replay on NFL owners' agenda

 

Adding two playoff teams and widening the scope of replay as an officiating tool are under consideration by the competition committee, which makes recommendations about the rules of the game to the owners. The Kansas City Chiefs pitched the larger playoff field, having missed qualifying for the postseason this year with a 10-6 record.

 

1384207[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

For the record Lamar hunt has been trying to get 14 teams for a couple years now, having barely missed the playoffs last year had nothing to do with it. Although it did stress the point he is trying to make

[AtomicCEO]

I keep saying this... but I think that the only way to allow instant replay of any type of call would be to have an off-field official who could make the call.

 

This whole process of having a field ref run over to the hood, queue the tape, talk to the guy upstairs, run the tape again for a minute and a half, then run on the field and talk about it... then make the call... That whole thing takes 5 minutes and sucks the life out of the game.

 

Just have a trained official in the replay booth on the radio who can say "I'm looking at it now, and his knee was down." Then, make the call on the field. Easy-peasy, nice and greasy, 30 seconds and we're done.

 

I'm all for that. This whole thing of having a guy wearing a uniform run over to the sidelines to look is all showy nonsense. The umpire trusts the line judge when he makes a call that the umpire couldn't see... why not just trust the replay official?

Edited March 23, 2006 by AtomicCEO

[Savage Beatings]

No loading up on onside kicks: The NFL would adopt the college rule mandating at least four players on either side of the kicker.

 

1384207[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Why bother?

 

Is there really someone complaining about loading up on onside kicks? Can someone here help me understand the argument here?

[Vote Quimby2]

The playoffs don't need to be expanded. I see no reason to award teams for being average.

[Kid Cid]

The playoffs don't need to be expanded. I see no reason to award teams for being average.

 

1384451[/snapback]

 

 

 

Agree, this isn't hockey afterall.

[Gunther]

I keep saying this... but I think that the only way to allow instant replay of any type of call would be to have an off-field official who could make the call. 

 

This whole process of having a field ref run over to the hood, queue the tape, talk to the guy upstairs, run the tape again for a minute and a half, then run on the field and talk about it... then make the call... That whole thing takes 5 minutes and sucks the life out of the game.

 

Just have a trained official in the replay booth on the radio who can say "I'm looking at it now, and his knee was down."  Then, make the call on the field.  Easy-peasy, nice and greasy, 30 seconds and we're done.

 

I'm all for that.  This whole thing of having a guy wearing a uniform run over to the sidelines to look is all showy nonsense.  The umpire trusts the line judge when he makes a call that the umpire couldn't see... why not just trust the replay official?

 

1384441[/snapback]

 

 

 

This makes sense to me, I agree.

 

One of the things I never understood is why they would not allow a review if the player with the ball was ruled down by contact on the field.

[Voltaire]

I keep saying this... but I think that the only way to allow instant replay of any type of call would be to have an off-field official who could make the call. 

 

This whole process of having a field ref run over to the hood, queue the tape, talk to the guy upstairs, run the tape again for a minute and a half, then run on the field and talk about it... then make the call... That whole thing takes 5 minutes and sucks the life out of the game.

 

Just have a trained official in the replay booth on the radio who can say "I'm looking at it now, and his knee was down."  Then, make the call on the field.  Easy-peasy, nice and greasy, 30 seconds and we're done.

 

I'm all for that.  This whole thing of having a guy wearing a uniform run over to the sidelines to look is all showy nonsense.  The umpire trusts the line judge when he makes a call that the umpire couldn't see... why not just trust the replay official?

 

1384441[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Couldn't agree more. Well said.

[Big John]

I keep saying this... but I think that the only way to allow instant replay of any type of call would be to have an off-field official who could make the call. 

 

This whole process of having a field ref run over to the hood, queue the tape, talk to the guy upstairs, run the tape again for a minute and a half, then run on the field and talk about it... then make the call... That whole thing takes 5 minutes and sucks the life out of the game.

 

Just have a trained official in the replay booth on the radio who can say "I'm looking at it now, and his knee was down."  Then, make the call on the field.  Easy-peasy, nice and greasy, 30 seconds and we're done.

 

I'm all for that.  This whole thing of having a guy wearing a uniform run over to the sidelines to look is all showy nonsense.  The umpire trusts the line judge when he makes a call that the umpire couldn't see... why not just trust the replay official?

 

1384441[/snapback]

 

 

 

That is about how it was done in the late 1980's, but then the owners did not get the supermajority to keep that and went to what we have now just so there were enough owners to agree to something.

[AtomicCEO]

One of the things I never understood is why they would not allow a review if the player with the ball was ruled down by contact on the field.

 

1384580[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

A RB from Team A gets grabbed, and he fumbles the ball... and it's picked up by Team B and Team B has a clear shot to the end zone, but the ref blows a whistle and says he was down by contact.

 

On replay, we see that the RB was not down by contact, and that it actually was a fumble.

 

Where do you spot the ball? At the spot that the knee was not actually down? At the spot where the ball was recovered despite the fact that nobody went down there? Do you give them the progress they earned before the whistle was blown and the players stopped trying to tackle them? Do you go ahead and estimate that they would have gotten the touchdown?

 

I think that sticky wicket is why they made the rule that way.

[MrFancyPants]

A RB from Team A gets grabbed, and he fumbles the ball... and it's picked up by Team B and Team B has a clear shot to the end zone, but the ref blows a whistle and says he was down by contact.

 

On replay, we see that the RB was not down by contact, and that it actually was a fumble.

 

Where do you spot the ball?  At the spot that the knee was not actually down?  At the spot where the ball was recovered despite the fact that nobody went down there?  Do you give them the progress they earned before the whistle was blown and the players stopped trying to tackle them?  Do you go ahead and estimate that they would have gotten the touchdown?

 

I think that sticky wicket is why they made the rule that way.

 

1384761[/snapback]

 

 

 

Agree Atomic, but another scenario is perhaps even stickier.

 

One of the issues is to make sure all players stop playing when they hear the whistle. If the whistle blows because the ref's opinion was that the runner was down by contact but the runner *may* have actually fumbled before he was down, then it would benefit players to keep playing even though the whistle had blown, and try to recover the ball in case the call was reversed. There are injury (some players may "let their guard down" when hearing a whistle, and others would not) and general fairness problems in this scenario (players who ignore the whistle could be rewarded with a recovery)

[AtomicCEO]

Agree Atomic, but another scenario is perhaps even stickier.

 

One of the issues is to make sure all players stop playing when they hear the whistle. If the whistle blows because the ref's opinion was that the runner was down by contact but the runner *may* have actually fumbled before he was down,  then it would benefit players to keep playing even though the whistle had blown, and try to recover the ball in case the call was reversed. There are injury (some players may "let their guard down" when hearing a whistle, and others would not) and general fairness problems in this scenario (players who ignore the whistle could be rewarded with a recovery)

 

1385136[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Yup. The refs really should only blow the whistle if they had a dead-eye leap pipe lock absolute positive view of the knee going down before the ball moved. But... they don't do that, even though they should.

[PantherDave]

The year it works for a 10-6 team will be fewer than 8-8 and 7-9's culling that PO spot for most years, because more times than not, a 10-6 is gonna make it to the PO. The only other team outta recent memory would have been the Phins, maybe 4-5 years ago, miss at 10-6.

[HutOne]

The playoffs don't need to be expanded. I see no reason to award teams for being average.

 

1384451[/snapback]

 

 

 

I totally agree. Every year there will be teams that just barely miss the playoffs whether it is expanded or not. Soon it will be the NHL where 1/2 the teams are making the playoffs. Keep it the way it is.

[jjpro11]

this isnt the nba or nhl.. its supposed to be an honor for a team to make the playoffs.. we dont need half the league in them.