Mr. WEO

The fumble by a runner rules are different at the goal line, so why not? Runner loses the ball before down by contact in the field, it's a fumble. Runner lunging across the goal line where ball crosses the plane, but he loses the ball before he's down by contact just scored a TD.

this stat will doom the Chiefs

One more time: I favor them changing the rule for passes caught in the end zone. I'm aware of how it works now--no need to keep reiterating the rule.

too many are #2

the plane of the end zone is the plane of the end zone

Again, I'm saying that possession for a pass in the EZ should not include surviving the ground. If you catch it just over the goal line in a diving catch--you have possession. if, as you hit the ground, it comes out---TD. Same as for a runner who dives across the goal line and then it pops out as he lands hands first in the EZ (or a Defender chops it out)---TD.

No I'm talking about a receiver who has possession when the ball crosses the goal line...but it comes out as he hits the ground. Should be a TD, like a run for a score. Unlike in the filed of play, a catch in the EZ (not bobbled) should not have to survive the ground, as it does in the field of play. TD plays end at the crossing of the goal line.

It never made sense to me that there are different criteria for TD.

Why, if a ball carrier crosses the plane then fumbles in the EZ, is it ruled a TD? If both the receiver and the runner have possession when they cross the plane (the definition of a TD), why not the same call? Crossing the EZ plane should end every play.

Ernie Shavers?

Poyer was a great pile jumper. Also lots of tackles after big gains.

why bad blood? His career took off only after being paired with a far better Safety. Bills kept him around a year too long, he shouldn't be harboring bad blood, for a team that made his career. Now he's a cheap shot artist as he is washed.

6 teams in 5 years. give another year or too, he's not ripe yet

debunked. yes. the claim that full time refs would solve any problem has no basis in fact. all evidence points to it having no better outcome than it does in the pro leagues. MLB refs are terrible. Can't call a strike---the simplest call in all of sports. Can't call correct play at the bases despite many reviews/angles. Angel Hernandez is the worst referee/ump in sports history---he was allowed to make egregiously bad calls for 30 years...and he wasn't alone. And mind you, MLB is the slowest pro sport in the world. Compare that to the speed of the NFL game, with 22 guys running around at once. The claim that MLB has "the best officials" isn't a serious argument. This is all stuff for us to talk about between Sundays.

Buffalo Joe should be happy just to be out there--I bet he'll frame that fine letter for his future man cave....

Ravens didn't cover. "Vegas" isn't doing the game fixing correctly.

First, there's no intuitive reason to believe that full time refs would make any difference at all. They are required to have a decade or more of high level reffing experience before they are accepting into NFL training. And, more, importantly, leagues with full time refs suffer from equally "bad" reffing--we all already understand this (see: MLB playoffs, any NBA game). And when you watch any game Sunday, point out the flag throw where there was no ref/ump/line judge anywhere near the play.

why would being in Div 1 "shape" lead to better calls? The calls aren't being blown because there aren't any refs who can catch up with the play.... The full time ref stuff has already been debunked

I really don’t see the huffing and puffing up and down the field as a problem. Most of the time they are standing still watching the backfield or the sideline or the end zone as plays begin or conclude. They aren’t running the fly route with Justin Jefferson to see if he caught the pass. As for visual acuity after 50…there are far more significant jobs being performed by guys over 50 where the outcome is far more consequential than a blown call (that gets overturned on review anyway)—-I don’t see anyone calling for 50+ pilots or surgeons etc to retire. And of course much younger refs with inadequate experience at a high level certainly won’t solve this problem.

What is the evidence that older refs "can't ever get it right"? Compared to who? Younger NFL refs? Older MLB/NBA refs? Why do you say this? The average age is 51. MLB (full timers all) it's 46, same as NBA. Who is making the argument that MLB/NBA have solved bad call issues by hiring full time refs? No one---because it's obviously not true. And you would take the most experienced NFL refs and simply replace them with guys who have less experience, but are younger? What problem does that solve? All major pro leagues are sports entertainment. NFL is simply the most popular by far. MLB and NHL can't get anyone to watch until the playoffs---and even then the numbers are abysmal.

That's above their pay grade. The NFL writes the rule book--what constitutes a penalty and what the consequence is. They decide what should be called. In fact, they frequently issue guidelines for the refs and delivers edicts on "points of emphasis" for an upcoming season. See my post above--I think refs should get some discretion allowing for the ability to judge a penalty based on its impact on a play. They are not allowed any as it stands. So your proposal isn't possible. this is the current system,

the repaly rules and "eye in the sky" came about specifically because option 1 was a failure. Also, why would refs, with no replay recourse, change the way they call penalties, big or small? You would have them pick and choose which holding calls they would call (the rules obviously do not permit them to do that). Now, individual refs may decide not to choose to throw a flag on the Giesicki hold (for example)--but then they would be ignoring the rules as written (great for one team's fans, not so great for the opponent's). The rules do not allow for letting a player slide for a witnessed infraction. Now, if the rules committee changed everything about how they do their business and allowed individual ref discretion as to whether to call holding, based on its impact on the outcome of a particular play (he could explain his no call to the head umpire for backup)----I would be all for that.

every team has banged up/injured players in January. "resting your starters" typically isn't used to describe letting injured players heal. it's simply giving everyone a game or 2 off before the playoffs.

resting players is a fools game---ask Tony Dungy.

I don't understand the logic that informs the opinion that "full time refs" would change an outcome. How is that been working forever in MLB? lol---not well. And it makes no sense to say that the NFL system has suddenly "broke". They haven't changed their hiring and training methods. "Bad calls" aren't made because the officials simply don't understand the rule book---it's because they didn't see what viewers feel they saw. So having them "study (or whatnot) on the season's off months would accomplish little. I think, with replay, officials "back in New York" should be able to simply say "that was a penalty" or "pick up the flag" on any significant play. Also, simplify the rules. Offensive holding should be radically simplified--it's a penalty if you take a guy to the ground---not for transiently grabbing his jersey sleeve for 2-3 seconds. Also, a TD pass should be ruled as such immediately when the ball in the receivers possession crosses the plane (same as a rushing TD)---the catch should not have to "survive the ground". These are only 2 examples where, in seeking clarity, the rule have only introduced hopeless complexity, leading to all of these contorted referees interpretations. Get rid of challenges. Let the "eye in the sky" decide if they disagree with any call. Logic would dictate that the solution isn't having "full time refs" sitting around watching film for 7 moths out of the year. It all gets fixed by a systematic review and simplification of the rules.