The League will look into whether roughing the passer should be reviewable

[Greg S]

(10) Ian Rapoport on Twitter: "From NFL Now: Among the issues set to be discussed by the Competition Committee is whether roughing the passer should be reviewable. https://t.co/NNt245HfvG" / Twitter

 

That call in the 3rd quarter of the Dolphins-Chargers game was a joke. That was a normal hit/sack. I am all for player safety but some of these calls are wrong. I would hate for a game to be decided on a bad call especially if it would cost the Bills a game.

[Orlando Tim]

I am of the mindset that everything should be reviewable, but it must be clear and obvious to overturn. That call was terrible in hindsight but to an official being blocked it would be hard to tell.

[The Red King]

Likely pointless, unless the NFL or someone not the refs are the ones to review it.  Remember when PI was challengable?  They refused to overturn even the most obvious calls.  I don't see this being any different.

[DaggersEOD]

If they were to do this, it would have to be a New York call like they do for “easy call” corrections I’m real time.
 

BTW, those have been great. 
 

If we leave it to the ref to admit he made a mistake, it’ll be the whole PI review thing all over again. They will never overturn a call they made. 
 

Like he said 👆

Edited December 14, 2022 by DaggersEOD
Poster above made exact same point

[Boatdrinks]

6 minutes ago, The Red King said:

Likely pointless, unless the NFL or someone not the refs are the ones to review it.  Remember when PI was challengable?  They refused to overturn even the most obvious calls.  I don't see this being any different.

That was awful, and pretty much a protest by officials making a judgement call reviewable . It was terrible for the game. There are clear rules for hitting QBs and all too often they throw a flag if they think something happened. I’m not opposed to a review process as these are huge calls and defenses depend on pressuring the passer. PI is different because almost no crew calls it “ by the book” thank goodness- the game might be unwatchable if they did. 

[BillyBilliams]

11 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

I am of the mindset that everything should be reviewable, but it must be clear and obvious to overturn. That call was terrible in hindsight but to an official being blocked it would be hard to tell.

 

I don't like that honestly.  We'll get what's going on in soccer.  Touchdown happens, we can't celebrate because we have to wait until kickoff to find out if it's good or not.

[StHustle]

I don’t get why almost every call isn’t reviewable. Coaches still have a limit of how many can be called and it still costs a timeout when they are wrong. Let’s say increasing the amount of challengeable calls results in an average of 2 more challenge per game. That would result in an additional 5-7 minutes of game time. Is this not worth getting things right???

[dma0034]

I'm still surprised the NFL doesn't give coaches one single anything reviewable flag. 15 yard penalty if wrong but can be used for any penalty

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheFunPolice]

please no...

 

It will be just like DPI: they'll uphold every call anyway, making it a moot point

 

How about if in doubt keep the flag in your pocket?

[Greg S]

1 minute ago, DaggersEOD said:

If they were to do this, it would have to be a New York call like they do for “easy call” corrections I’m real time.
 

BTW, those have been great. 
 

If we leave it to the ref to admit he made a mistake, it’ll be the whole PI review thing all over again. They will never overturn a call they made. 

 

Hockey does the same thing I believe. Don't they have people in their Toronto office that watch and review every game. They are the ones handling the reviews. I think they can even call into the officials working the game and tell them that a certain play needs to be reviewed.

[thenorthremembers]

No.  If you write the rule correctly you shouldn't need review.   The thing about putting all your weight on the Quarterback is ridiculous and needs to go.

 

If the hit is egregiously late, low, or to the head call it roughing.  Otherwise leave it alone.   They are over-complicating it way too much.

[Beck Water]

14 minutes ago, The Red King said:

Likely pointless, unless the NFL or someone not the refs are the ones to review it.  Remember when PI was challengable?  They refused to overturn even the most obvious calls.  I don't see this being any different.

 

I think you are correct.

[Nextmanup]

I hate it.  Get rid of the entire review system, please.

 

It's going to get to the point where you don't know what you just watched on any play.  You'll have to wait for the review process to clear before you'll know if you should sad or happy.

 

This crap kills sports.

 

 

[Big Turk]

18 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

I am of the mindset that everything should be reviewable, but it must be clear and obvious to overturn. That call was terrible in hindsight but to an official being blocked it would be hard to tell.

 

That sounds great but it would quickly devolve into a giant mess.

4 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said:

No.  If you write the rule correctly you shouldn't need review.   The thing about putting all your weight on the Quarterback is ridiculous and needs to go.

 

If the hit is egregiously late, low, or to the head call it roughing.  Otherwise leave it alone.   They are over-complicating it way too much.

 

Has nothing to do with it. Calls are always subjective and as such, one referee will call something another won't. 

[Warcodered]

21 minutes ago, Greg S said:

That call in the 3rd quarter of the Dolphins-Chargers game was a joke.

That was by rule a roughing call, it might not have been a big hit, but the way the rule is written with landing with your body weight that is a penalty. 🤷‍♂️

[Punching Bag]

15 minutes ago, The Red King said:

Likely pointless, unless the NFL or someone not the refs are the ones to review it.  Remember when PI was challengable?  They refused to overturn even the most obvious calls.  I don't see this being any different.

 

Make not overturning calls when obvious a suspendable offense.  Then it is NFL oversight issue if they do not suspend referees,

[Warcodered]

20 minutes ago, The Red King said:

Likely pointless, unless the NFL or someone not the refs are the ones to review it.  Remember when PI was challengable?  They refused to overturn even the most obvious calls.  I don't see this being any different.

Didn't all those reviews go to one guy who seemed to refuse to overturn anything? I'm not sure the idea of reviewing was at fault there.

[DaggersEOD]

2 minutes ago, Greg S said:

 

Hockey does the same thing I believe. Don't they have people in their Toronto office that watch and review every game. They are the ones handling the reviews. I think they can even call into the officials working the game and tell them that a certain play needs to be reviewed.

That’s what I’m saying.
 

Like a “pick up the flag” buzzer. 
 

Trying my best to think of what a counter-argument could be…

 

…the only thing I can think of is that refs could argue that being overturned is embarrassing so having that potential “humiliation” on the line, they may decide to not throw a flag…

 

..Over time, that could lead to less penalties being called, therefore a more dangerous game?  Then the “abundance of caution” (ie for no good reason) mindset could kick in…

 

…but that’s stretching.

 

The only resistance would be from ref egos. 

[Greg S]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

That was by rule a roughing call, it might not have been a big hit, but the way the rule is written with landing with your body weight that is a penalty. 🤷‍♂️

 

We have all seen hits that were way worse, and nothing was called. I feel bad for the players in this spot. It makes it hard to play defense in today's game.

[Orlando Tim]

2 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

That sounds great but it would quickly devolve into a giant mess.

 

I will add once you get a challenge wrong then you lose the right to challenge, and the review process can not take more than 2 minutes. Clear and obvious means that frame by frame should not be needed 

[PetermansRedemption]

24 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

I am of the mindset that everything should be reviewable, but it must be clear and obvious to overturn. That call was terrible in hindsight but to an official being blocked it would be hard to tell.

I’ve been preaching this same thing for years. It would improve the game tenfold IMO. You get two challenges per game and everything is reviewable. If you get a challenge right or wrong, doesn’t matter, you still get only two challenges. In addition to this, replay has a “shot clock” of 2 minutes. If you can’t confirm or overturn after 2 minutes then it isn’t clear and obvious and the call on the field stands. 

25 minutes ago, The Red King said:

Likely pointless, unless the NFL or someone not the refs are the ones to review it.  Remember when PI was challengable?  They refused to overturn even the most obvious calls.  I don't see this being any different.

This is my fear. They will make it reviewable and then refuse to ever overturn it. Then it will mysteriously disappear after one year because it “didn’t work out”. 

[Orlando Tim]

1 minute ago, PetermansRedemption said:

I’ve been preaching this same thing for years. It would improve the game tenfold IMO. You get two challenges per game and everything is reviewable. If you get a challenge right or wrong, doesn’t matter, you still get only two challenges. In addition to this, replay has a “shot clock” of 2 minutes. If you can’t confirm or overturn after 2 minutes then it isn’t clear and obvious and the call on the field stands. 

You and I should address the league because we are very close to each other, my one issue with the limit is what if there are five horrible calls, like so often we got vs Pats*? But the time limit is needed, if it is clear and obvious you don't need 5 minutes.

[Big Turk]

7 minutes ago, Greg S said:

 

We have all seen hits that were way worse, and nothing was called. I feel bad for the players in this spot. It makes it hard to play defense in today's game.

 

There are defenders who have torn their ACL or suffered other serious injuries trying to get out of the way and not land on the QB while tackling them...it not only makes it hard to play defense, it makes it more dangerous.

[Billz4ever]

42 minutes ago, BillyBilliams said:

 

I don't like that honestly.  We'll get what's going on in soccer.  Touchdown happens, we can't celebrate because we have to wait until kickoff to find out if it's good or not.

All scoring plays are already reviewed and confirmed by the replay official.

[KHAN]

52 minutes ago, dma0034 said:

I'm still surprised the NFL doesn't give coaches one single anything reviewable flag. 15 yard penalty if wrong but can be used for any penalty.

I don't hate this.

[Brianmoorman4jesus]

I will never understand why everything is not reviewable. We have the technology, get the calls as close to right as possible. I don’t want to hear subjectiveness…if you can’t make those judgment calls slowed down then how can you be expected to make them at full speed?  

[Eastport bills]

The inconsistency in the referee’s interpretation and the fact that the rule is not indicative of roughing is compromising the outcomes of hard fought contests and threatening credibility. Sometimes the disproportionate desire to protect  QBs is trumped by respecting the legal efforts of defenders and honoring this great game.

[Buffalo ill]

Let a tribunal of Bruce Smith, Lawrence Taylor, and The ghosts of Reggie White and Deacon Jones review roughing calls.

[without a drought]

I don't care if the game takes 6 hours, I just want them to get it right.

 

I also love being micro managed at work.

 

Let the good times roll.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

I don't care how long it takes, I just want them to make sure that every important call is wrong.  I have difficulty doing small talk with people and I need enough wrong calls to get me through the week.

[Dablitzkrieg]

In this day and age, make everything reviewable with the given challenges.   Who cares?  Just get it right

[Simon]

4 hours ago, DaggersEOD said:

If they were to do this, it would have to be a New York call like they do for “easy call” corrections I’m real time.
 

BTW, those have been great. 

 

I think the biggest advantage of those is that, if done right, they can knock it out fast and keep the game moving.

This nonsense where stripes has to make an announcement, mosey on over to a hooded camera with a tiny screen, look at it 17 times, and then stroll back out to make another announcement is the height of stupidity. It's like a bunch of empty suits think that this is some sort of drama that people are interested in. Nobody wants to watch that nonsense.

Put me in a room upstairs with a cooler and 4 screens; I have until the next snap to buzz down for a review; if I do buzz down I've got 10 seconds to tell the white hat if the call has changed. Between the play clock and the extra 10 seconds that gives me over half a minute to watch slo-mo replays from multiple angles, which is more than enough time to see if something clearly needs overturned. If I can't decide in that time, it's too close to call, the call on the field stands, the play clock resets to :25 and we're playing ball in under a minute.

[Utah John]

The general rule is that an official must see the penalty to call the penalty.  But with roughing the passer, it seems as if the ref calls a penalty if he even suspects a foul has been committed, if his view of the play was obstructed in some way.  They make an exception to the general rule in this case, to go out of their way to protect QBs.

[Matt_In_NH]

Makes sense, it worked so well with PI.

[TwistofFate]

If it's capable of being reviewable, so should pass interference. 

[L Ron Burgundy]

Don't they have people reviewing everything right now? Those quick reversals that occasionally occur....couldn't those people just override the atrocious calls that are happening weekly?

[peterpan]

22 hours ago, DaggersEOD said:

If they were to do this, it would have to be a New York call like they do for “easy call” corrections I’m real time.
 

BTW, those have been great. 
 

 

Like he said 👆

I really think all reviews/plays/penalties should be like this.  Have a common second crew of officials reviewing and over ruling infield officials.  It would make the holding and PI and roughing penalties so much more consistent across the league