Mike Pereira admits Bubba Franks TD was a force out.

[Randall]

He said Franks would have landed in bounds had he not been forced out.

 

Nice. I have a lot more respect for the Head of Officials than I have for Hugh One.

[slickvick]

I am glad he agreed it was a force out.That needs to be a reviewable play IMO.

[Fatman]

I'm just glad we won. Good to hear that he agrees with what everyone else saw, however.

[Tally]

I am glad he agreed it was a force out.That needs to be a reviewable play IMO.

 

+1

[xtra]

Ive seen 2 plays I thought should be reviewed on the show that werent,one was the TD a viking caught in week 2 or 3 that looked from every angle like a TD and the other was TOs in the Buffalo game where he was forced out but it wasnt called(similar to Sundays ).

 

I was starting to think they didnt want to see bad calls,now I know that isnt true.

Edited October 18, 2007 by xtra

[Chavez]

He said Franks would have landed in bounds had he not been forced out.

 

Nice. I have a lot more respect for the Head of Officials than I have for Hugh One.

Good for him.

 

However, if Green Bay had lost, the fact that he admitted it was a force out and $3.50 would get the Packers a latte at Starbucks.

[Azazello1313]

Good for him.

 

However, if Green Bay had lost, the fact that he admitted it was a force out and $3.50 would get the Packers a latte at Starbucks.

 

well, if green bay lost he probably wouldn't be admitting it was a bad call. that's pretty much how these guys operate.

[bushwacked]

Messed up call, no doubt about it.

 

well, if green bay lost he probably wouldn't be admitting it was a bad call. that's pretty much how these guys operate.

 

 

Well yeah, up until now they have only admitted a tackle on a player with the ball isn't really a block below the waist.

 

And the last thing we need to see is refs deciding a push out in the replay booth.

Edited October 18, 2007 by bushwacked

[Swiss Cheezhead]

And the last thing we need to see is refs deciding a push out in the replay booth.

 

Still waiting for this argument to be explained with any persuasion.

[bushwacked]

Still waiting for this argument to be explained with any persuasion.

 

It is unique, in that it is a "grey area" judgment call on the field. But the main factor is that the call would lack indisputable evidence 99.99% of the time to overturn a push out (or vice versa) in the booth. Actually, push outs would lack indisputable evidence in a replay 100% of the time but I'm being generous.

 

For the same reason they don't review defensive holding.

 

For the same reason they don't review offensive holding.

 

For the same reason they don't review offensive pass interference.

 

For the same reason they don't review defensive pass interference.

 

For the same reason they don't review illegal hands to the face.

 

For the same reason they don't review false starts.

 

For the same reason they don't review defensive offsides.

 

For the same reason they don't review illegal blocks to the back.

 

 

 

I like instant replay and it serves the purposes well within the rules. We don't need some boner, under a hood, deciding what team wins a championship because he guessed a WR's fourth metatarsal drifted one inch within the plane in slow motion while trying to do a physics equation in his head to figure out if the guy should have been in bounds.

 

Yes, you guys got screwed on an obvious bad call. Let's not poison the whole NFL because of the anecdotal experience. The push out rule is non reviewable for a hell of good reason, even thought it almost always favors the receiving team.

Edited October 18, 2007 by bushwacked

[whomper]

It is unique, in that it is a "grey area" judgment call on the field. But the main factor is that the call would lack indisputable evidence 99.99% of the time to overturn a push out (or vice versa) in the booth. Actually, push outs would lack indisputable evidence in a replay 100% of the time but I'm being generous.

 

For the same reason they don't review defensive holding.

 

For the same reason they don't review offensive holding.

 

For the same reason they don't review offensive pass interference.

 

For the same reason they don't review defensive pass interference.

 

For the same reason they don't review illegal hands to the face.

 

For the same reason they don't review false starts.

 

For the same reason they don't review defensive offsides.

 

For the same reason they don't review illegal blocks to the back.

 

I like instant replay and it serves the purposes well within the rules. We don't need some boner, under a hood, deciding what team wins a championship because he guessed a WR's fourth metatarsal drifted one inch within the plane in slow motion while trying to do a physics equation in his head to figure out if the guy should have been in bounds.

 

Yes, you guys got screwed on an obvious bad call. Let's not poison the whole NFL because of the anecdotal experience. The push out rule is non reviewable for a hell of good reason, even thought it almost always favors the receiving team.

 

 

Still waiting

[Bronco Billy]

Did he happen to mention how many tickets the refs in that game cashed at WAS -3 1/2?

[policyvote]

It is unique, in that it is a "grey area" judgment call on the field. But the main factor is that the call would lack indisputable evidence 99.99% of the time to overturn a push out (or vice versa) in the booth. Actually, push outs would lack indisputable evidence in a replay 100% of the time but I'm being generous.

 

Well, in this case, 100% of the people who saw the replay said "They should have called that a push-out". Seems pretty damn black-and-white to me.

 

For the same reason they don't review false starts.

 

All of those penalties COULD easily be reviewable--but false starts in particular. I mean, what moved first, the dude or the ball. If there's EVER a time when freeze-frame or slow motion could determine anything, that would be it. I've always thought penalties should be reviewable.

 

I like instant replay and it serves the purposes well within the rules. We don't need some boner, under a hood, deciding what team wins a championship because he guessed a WR's fourth metatarsal drifted one inch within the plane in slow motion while trying to do a physics equation in his head to figure out if the guy should have been in bounds.

 

You'd rather have that same boner decide a championship with a bad call, at full speed, from a bad angle, and not let him take a second look?

 

I think they should do away with challenges and the on-field review entirely. Do it like they do in the Big Ten--an honored ex-official with a monitor of every camera feed and a TiVo hooked up to every montior. He reviews every play in between snaps, and pushes a button for more time if something looks fishy. Then if it's reversible, he radios the head ref. Simple, fast, no BS, no standing around and the right call gets made.

 

Peace

policy

[detlef]

I think they should do away with challenges and the on-field review entirely. Do it like they do in the Big Ten--an honored ex-official with a monitor of every camera feed and a TiVo hooked up to every montior. He reviews every play in between snaps, and pushes a button for more time if something looks fishy. Then if it's reversible, he radios the head ref. Simple, fast, no BS, no standing around and the right call gets made.

 

Peace

policy

That seems better than pretty much every challenge system I see. Why turn it into a game within itself? Why make the coach have to decide if it's worth looking at or not? Why give them a limit even if they keep correctly challenging calls. I mean, what if the refs screw up three times against the same team? Is it the teams fault? But as it stands, the coach has to decide if the first down he might be getting robbed of is worth wasting his last challenge in case they take a TD away or say his team fumbled when it really didn't later on. The only logical rationale is to keep the game moving. Well, the Big 10 method does just that. As it stands, the most strategic time to have the clock stopped for a review is in the last few minutes of the half and they already take that call away from the coaches anyway.

 

It's just more complication than there needs to be. Hell, you could have a few guys in the booth each in charge of a few angles. I mean, this is big business, what's a few hundred $$ more per game to hire some assistance for the replay crew?

 

I thought the same thing watching the US Open tennis. The reviews are instant. They would not slow the game up at all if they simply had someone in the booth watching the calls. Bad call, buzz the official in the chair. Simple as that. Yet they have this silly deal where the players themselves get 1-2 per set. Then they make a big deal out of it.

 

The game itself has gotten so complicated and scientific. Every competitive angle is hyper-analyzed and planned for. Players are scientific marvels using crazy hi-tech systems. Yet we cling to this romantic notion of the human element when it comes to governing the play of the game. I mean, the most boring part of the game, the necessary evil, the freaking cops of football. Why is that where we draw the line?

[Yukon Cornelius]

u guys are starting to sound like viking fans

[Swiss Cheezhead]

We don't need some boner, under a hood, deciding what team wins a championship because he guessed a WR's fourth metatarsal drifted one inch within the plane in slow motion while trying to do a physics equation in his head to figure out if the guy should have been in bounds.

 

You'd rather have that same boner decide a championship with a bad call, at full speed, from a bad angle, and not let him take a second look?

 

Peace

policy

 

Thanks for beating me to the punch, policy.

 

Bush -- that's the inherent flaw in your argument. You're trading the human under a hood with a human processing the same information in a miniscule fraction of the time. Yeah...your way is somehow better.

 

You -- and people like you -- seem to value some kind of "TV-watching efficiency" MORE than the fairness of the game. Seriously...what's the absolute WORST-case scenario if ALL those things were challengable/reviewable? Answer: You'd have to be on your couch for about 15 more minutes per game. Personally, I'm willing to make that "sacrifice" to make the games more fair. Apparently, you are not.

 

On the flip side, what irritates you more: A horrible, game-altering call? Or that ref who takes too much time under the hood? They're both unpleasant, but I know which one I hate worse.

 

An idea for you...get NFL Sunday Ticket. During those agonizing breaks while experienced officials are trying to make the right call to keep a level playing field, just change the friggin' channel.

 

Still waiting

 

Yep.

[bushwacked]

Bush -- that's the inherent flaw in your argument. You're trading the human under a hood with a human processing the same information in a miniscule fraction of the time. Yeah...your way is somehow better.

 

 

You dismissed the main point of my argument. Replay overturns indisputable evidence and indisputable evidence only.

 

. Do it like they do in the Big Ten

 

Doesn't college have a one foot down and one foot down only with control as the only thing that matters.

[Bronco Billy]

u guys are starting to sound like viking fans

 

[Azazello1313]

It is unique, in that it is a "grey area" judgment call on the field. But the main factor is that the call would lack indisputable evidence 99.99% of the time to overturn a push out (or vice versa) in the booth. Actually, push outs would lack indisputable evidence in a replay 100% of the time but I'm being generous.

 

For the same reason they don't review defensive holding.

 

For the same reason they don't review offensive holding.

 

For the same reason they don't review offensive pass interference.

 

For the same reason they don't review defensive pass interference.

 

For the same reason they don't review illegal hands to the face.

 

For the same reason they don't review false starts.

 

For the same reason they don't review defensive offsides.

 

For the same reason they don't review illegal blocks to the back.

 

I like instant replay and it serves the purposes well within the rules. We don't need some boner, under a hood, deciding what team wins a championship because he guessed a WR's fourth metatarsal drifted one inch within the plane in slow motion while trying to do a physics equation in his head to figure out if the guy should have been in bounds.

 

Yes, you guys got screwed on an obvious bad call. Let's not poison the whole NFL because of the anecdotal experience. The push out rule is non reviewable for a hell of good reason, even thought it almost always favors the receiving team.

 

agree completely. no way those judgment type calls can ever be reviewable. review is appropriate where there are clear black/white answers: yes his knee was down, no his knee wasn't down. yes his second foot was in bounds, no his foot was not in bounds. yes the ball crossed the plane, no it didn't cross the plane. the push out rule is not like that, it is like all those other non-reviewable judgment calls bush listed. making that sort of thing reviewable would be a disaster.

 

do you boners want holding calls to be reviewable to?

[detlef]

You dismissed the main point of my argument. Replay overturns indisputable evidence and indisputable evidence only.

Doesn't college have a one foot down and one foot down only with control as the only thing that matters.

We're not saying make the rules the same, just review policy.

 

As for indisputable evidence, how can you not find indisputable evidence that a dude moved before the ball did? I mean, you included false start as something that shouldn't be reviewed.

 

Scenario:

 

Team X snaps the ball and runs the play, however, one of the guys in the booth is pretty sure that either a D-lineman crossed the plane or an O-lineman moved before the ball snapped. He goes back and takes another look. Bingo. He was right, guy did. Play gets called back.

 

Team X gets called for offsides. While the offense is running it's "free play". Dude in the booth checks it out. Actually, the guy was not offsides. Certainly you can't make the play stand because the QB might make a throw he wouldn't have normally done because he thinks the play is free. None the less, you just run the play over with no penalty to the D. The only thing changed in this example is that 5 yards are not marked off or any good play made by the offense doesn't stand.

 

You could even set a limit to how closely it can be scrutinized. For instance, slow-mo can be timed. If the player jumped less that .1 secs early, you don't consider that jumping. Just so things don't get silly. After all, the o-line goes on the snap count. If the center is .05 seconds slower snapping the ball then the OT is at moving, that's a bit extreme to throw the flag. So you build in an acceptable margin of error for the sake of keeping the game moving.

[charty]

Unless the body is coming straight down, and the projection of the feet would have 100% led to them being in bounds, it's hard not to side with the defense there. If that's the case with the Bubba TD, that's fine.

 

The offense has such an advantage these days, that I wouldn't like to see more and more of these ruled a pushout with the ASSUMPTION that the receiver would be able to get 2 feet down. Over the weekend, I heard pushout a few times across the games, I can't recall the instances, but not all of them were as clear cut as the announcer was making them out to be.

[Fatman]

Hey, hijackers - the point of this thread is that GB got jobbed and should be given a win over the Bears as compensation. If you want to discuss replay, take it somewhere else.

[G.K.Trey]

It is unique, in that it is a "grey area" judgment call on the field. But the main factor is that the call would lack indisputable evidence 99.99% of the time to overturn a push out (or vice versa) in the booth. Actually, push outs would lack indisputable evidence in a replay 100% of the time but I'm being generous.

 

For the same reason they don't review defensive holding.

 

For the same reason they don't review offensive holding.

 

For the same reason they don't review offensive pass interference.

 

For the same reason they don't review defensive pass interference.

 

For the same reason they don't review illegal hands to the face.

 

For the same reason they don't review false starts.

 

For the same reason they don't review defensive offsides.

 

For the same reason they don't review illegal blocks to the back.

 

I like instant replay and it serves the purposes well within the rules. We don't need some boner, under a hood, deciding what team wins a championship because he guessed a WR's fourth metatarsal drifted one inch within the plane in slow motion while trying to do a physics equation in his head to figure out if the guy should have been in bounds.

 

Yes, you guys got screwed on an obvious bad call. Let's not poison the whole NFL because of the anecdotal experience. The push out rule is non reviewable for a hell of good reason, even thought it almost always favors the receiving team.

Not that I disagree with the notion of push out not being reviewed , but you are comparing them to penalties, a push out is not a penalty so its apples and yellow flags here.

[G.K.Trey]

Hey, hijackers - the point of this thread is that GB got jobbed and should be given a win over the Bears as compensation. If you want to discuss replay, take it somewhere else.

 

GB didnt get jobbed , they won the game. As far as I know GB doesn't get any bonus points for winning by 7 instead of 3. So the only people who got jobbed are the bettors.

Edited October 18, 2007 by G.K.Trey

[Fatman]

GB didnt get jobbed , they won the game. As far as I know GB doesn't get any bonus points for winning by 7 instead of 3. So the only people who got jobbed are the bettors.

 

Sarcasm. Learn it. Love it.