Jump to content

Idle thought...successful challenges should be free?


Recommended Posts

I always wondered why successful challenges cost something.  You get two challenges, and a third if those two were successful.  But even if you got all three right, that's all you get.  Get the first wrong and the second is your last, even if it's successful.  I know people worry about slowing down the game, but if the refs screwed up a ruling shouldn't it be overturned without it somehow counting against the challenging team?  I mean, if the refs blow four big plays in a Bills' game, shouldn't they all be overturned?  Just wondering if it wouldn't be better to say a coach can continue to issue challenges until they fail two, or something like that. ?

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they were to do this, then they would have to go to one challenge a game. There is already way too much replay in the NFL, I am adamantly against having anymore. Hate the PI challenge rule and am glad the officials are basically nullifying it by never overturning anything. I’m far more in favor of reducing coaches challenges. I don’t think a successful one should get you anything at all. I believe it should be two challenges in a game, regardless of the outcome. To balance this out I would be willing to make everything reviewable though 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree and have always thought this. However, if that becomes the case then I think they should have fewer automatic reviews. Every turnover, every scoring play and all plays inside of two minutes are already subject to automatic review and that’s 80% of the plays you would want reviewed to begin with.

 

i would just give the team as many reviews as they have timeouts and that’s it. Successful reviews cost nothing. Failed reviews cost a timeout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Warcodered said:

It's to limit it's use people complain enough about the challenges we have now.

 

There also has to be a limit on how embarrassed the refs become for being wrong so often. 

 

 

 

OK, maybe not.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, The Red King said:

I always wondered why successful challenges cost something.  You get two challenges, and a third if those two were successful.  But even if you got all three right, that's all you get.  Get the first wrong and the second is your last, even if it's successful.  I know people worry about slowing down the game, but if the refs screwed up a ruling shouldn't it be overturned without it somehow counting against the challenging team?  I mean, if the refs blow four big plays in a Bills' game, shouldn't they all be overturned?  Just wondering if it wouldn't be better to say a coach can continue to issue challenges until they fail two, or something like that. ?

 

I agree and have always felt this should be the case. From 1999 to 2016, 37% of replays have been successful, 43% in 2015-2016. So, using those higher numbers, in 57% of the games, there likely would not be any additional replay. Seeing as there were only an average of 1.3 replays per game, not four as would be the case if both teams used both replays, I see the actual impact as minimal. But, it just seems fair that if the refs screw up the call and are successfully challenged, the team should not be penalized by losing one of their challenges.

https://operations.nfl.com/the-game/history-of-instant-replay/

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, The Red King said:

I always wondered why successful challenges cost something.  You get two challenges, and a third if those two were successful.  But even if you got all three right, that's all you get.  Get the first wrong and the second is your last, even if it's successful.  I know people worry about slowing down the game, but if the refs screwed up a ruling shouldn't it be overturned without it somehow counting against the challenging team?  I mean, if the refs blow four big plays in a Bills' game, shouldn't they all be overturned?  Just wondering if it wouldn't be better to say a coach can continue to issue challenges until they fail two, or something like that. ?

I've always thought this was the case.  If you challenge successfully, it should never cost you a challenge and it shouldn't cost you a timeout.   You should not be penalized for having assisted the officials in making the correct call. 

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I've always thought this was the case.  If you challenge successfully, it should never cost you a challenge and it shouldn't cost you a timeout.   You should not be penalized for having assisted the officials in making the correct call. 

And to say nothing of the additional advertising revenue your stoppage of play generates for the league!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bills2ref said:

If they were to do this, then they would have to go to one challenge a game. There is already way too much replay in the NFL, I am adamantly against having anymore. Hate the PI challenge rule and am glad the officials are basically nullifying it by never overturning anything. I’m far more in favor of reducing coaches challenges. I don’t think a successful one should get you anything at all. I believe it should be two challenges in a game, regardless of the outcome. To balance this out I would be willing to make everything reviewable though 

 

The only problem with this scenario is that it assumes the refs are getting the calls correct.  But they are uniformly bad across the league.  Coaches need some way to counteract how bad the refs are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My rule would be as follows.  Each team gets one challenge per half.  Every successful challenge earns one more.  Your first failed challenge is your last challenge of the half.  If Al Riveron continues to refuse to overturn blown calls on pass interference, they might as well repeal the option to challenge pass interference.  If coaches know there is no overturn blown penalty calls and they only get one challenge, they'll just stop challenging them anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Bills2ref said:

If they were to do this, then they would have to go to one challenge a game. There is already way too much replay in the NFL, I am adamantly against having anymore. Hate the PI challenge rule and am glad the officials are basically nullifying it by never overturning anything. I’m far more in favor of reducing coaches challenges. I don’t think a successful one should get you anything at all. I believe it should be two challenges in a game, regardless of the outcome. To balance this out I would be willing to make everything reviewable though 

They should go to the college rule. Where the booth just calls down the challenge and there can be as many reviews as are needed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Watkins90 said:

They should go to the college rule. Where the booth just calls down the challenge and there can be as many reviews as are needed. 


The NFL wants the 1pm games over without overlap to the 4ish games, moving some games to 425 has mostly helped

 

another 10 minutes for triggered replay would upset this

 

it all evens out with bad calls,  fans who complain will never be happy

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Red King said:

I always wondered why successful challenges cost something.  You get two challenges, and a third if those two were successful.  But even if you got all three right, that's all you get.  Get the first wrong and the second is your last, even if it's successful.  I know people worry about slowing down the game, but if the refs screwed up a ruling shouldn't it be overturned without it somehow counting against the challenging team?  I mean, if the refs blow four big plays in a Bills' game, shouldn't they all be overturned?  Just wondering if it wouldn't be better to say a coach can continue to issue challenges until they fail two, or something like that. ?

 

I’ve always thought that too 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...