Bill Belichick asks a legitimate question: Why can’t we challenge everything?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from stewart7557. Show stewart7557's posts

    Bill Belichick asks a legitimate question - Why can't we challenge everything?

    http://nfl.si.com/2014/03/25/bill-belichick-nfl-challenge-rule/?sct=obnetwork

    There doesn't seem to be any significant downside to extending the coaches' challenge to all football plays. As long as you limit it to 2 challenges - it will not extend the game from the current rules. I clearly think pass interference should be reviewable and challengeable. The argument against it is that that its a judgement call and this is a weak argument since so there are many other judgement calls that are currently reviewable (i.e., the spot of the ball) I can't understand what the resistance is in allowing all plays to be reviewable - especially in light of the support it seems to have from other football head coaches.

    ====================================================================================

    “I’m not proposing more challenges,” he said. “All I’m saying is, as a coach, if you want to challenge a play, I think you should be able to challenge it. And why does it have to be limited to, I don’t know, there’s four or five pages in the rules book of plays that can be challenged, and now this year there are more proposals to amend that probably because of one or two plays that happened in the league last year.

    “I think eventually, each year, there’s gonna be some other circumstance, situation that comes up and we’re gonna want to add that. I mean it’s four to five pages of plays that challenge procedure. Every year it gets amended and it’s hard to keep it straight. I can’t get it right. We have a coach that’s responsible for that on gameday to know exactly … I don’t know how the fans could possibly get it right if the coaches can’t get it right. For the officials themselves, it’s challenging. I think it simplifies it. And I understand it’s a judgment call. So, if I throw a challenge on an offensive holding play and they look at it, and they don’t think it’s holding, I lose the challenge. But if it’s an egregious play, I don’t see why it should not be allowed to be challenged when it affects the outcome of the game. I think we can find multiple, multiple examples of plays for example where the offense isn’t set, that if the officials could look at it, it’s very clear that they’re not set, that would nullify what subsequently happened.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from csylvia79. Show csylvia79's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick asks a legitimate question: Why can’t we challenge everything?

    Totally Agree!

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duffie33. Show Duffie33's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick asks a legitimate question: Why can’t we challenge everything?

    In response to csylvia79's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Totally Agree!

    [/QUOTE]

    6 hour games 

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick asks a legitimate question: Why can’t we challenge everything?

    In response to Duffie33's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to csylvia79's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Totally Agree!

    [/QUOTE]

    6 hour games 

    [/QUOTE]

    Duffie... me thinks that is what the league talking heads fear.  How many games have you watched in which there were very "FEW" plays which could be challenged?  Seems there can be a heck of a lot that can be every game and we are not talking penalties.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from stewart7557. Show stewart7557's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick asks a legitimate question: Why can’t we challenge everything?

    In response to Duffie33's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to csylvia79's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Totally Agree!

    [/QUOTE]

    6 hour games 

    [/QUOTE]
    Per BB :


    “If we fundamentally want to try to get the games right and the plays right, then I don’t see why they should be excluded. Even though they’re judgment calls, but if you’re willing to use a timeout on that, I think you should be able to do that. It’s not going to slow the game down. It’s no different than if you challenged another play. So, I’m not looking for more challenges or anything else, just if you think it was a call that was missed, that you should have the opportunity to have the officials review it. That’s all. I don’t know if anybody agrees with that or not, but that’s the proposal.”

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick asks a legitimate question: Why can’t we challenge everything?

    We can't because that would too strongly limit the league's ability to control the outcome of certain key close games.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick asks a legitimate question: Why can’t we challenge everything?

    I agree.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Baffle. Show Baffle's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick asks a legitimate question: Why can’t we challenge everything?

    I could see an instance where it could be gamed.

    For example, you purposefully have a player perform a difficult to detect action that would normally negate a play but isnt often caught, you then follow up with a high risk, high reward play. If you hit it, you don't challenge and you get your points. But if it gets intercepted, you could challenge it - point out the uncalled poison pill move for replay that would negate the play and give you the ball back.

    I'm sure there are even more exploits should someone sit down and look at all the angles.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick asks a legitimate question: Why can’t we challenge everything?

    In response to Duffie33's comment:

    In response to csylvia79's comment:

    Totally Agree!

     



    6 hour games 

     




    No that would be baseball.  My gosh, who can sit through an entire baseball game on tv?  I can barely make it through a baseball game live, so freaking long and most the time boring.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick asks a legitimate question: Why can’t we challenge everything?

    This is a pretty old article in the news cycle now. 

    You may have wanted to mention this proposal was rejected by the league owners in a vote. 

    And there's no chance it will be voted in anytime in the next years. So this debate is really just for hobbyists. 

    Bill had more success with his other two proposals. Raising the field goals passed and while making the extra point tougher was tabled, it seems they may try it in the preseason at least. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from stewart7557. Show stewart7557's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick asks a legitimate question: Why can’t we challenge everything?

    In response to Baffle's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I could see an instance where it could be gamed.

    For example, you purposefully have a player perform a difficult to detect action that would normally negate a play but isnt often caught, you then follow up with a high risk, high reward play. If you hit it, you don't challenge and you get your points. But if it gets intercepted, you could challenge it - point out the uncalled poison pill move for replay that would negate the play and give you the ball back.

    I'm sure there are even more exploits should someone sit down and look at all the angles.

    [/QUOTE]


    Well Baffle......if you want to be diabolical about the whole thing I suppose you could conjure up a magic potion and put it in opposing team's water cooler when nobody is looking too but I was trying to be kind of realistic here.......I think one significant advantage of this rule change would help in reducing bogus penalties which can and do unfairly win or lose games.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from CatfishHunter. Show CatfishHunter's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick asks a legitimate question: Why can’t we challenge everything?

    Bad idea.

    So let's say a coach says "there was holding on that play".  Well, sure there's holding on most every play somewhere on the field. 

    Next, you'd be forced to identify which player was held.  Otherwise we'd have 3 minutes of replay for every 11 players.

    Then, to speed things along you'd also have to identify the accused party. 

    Then 5 minutes of trench replays from every angle.  At the end of all that you'd be forcing the refs into a reaaaaaallly bad situation.  Maybe they see holding, but was it bad enough to overturn the play?  Are they going to take points off the board for a borderline holding call that wasn't seen in live action?  

    How about the new rules regarding a runner lowering his head?  Is that ever called?  Did he lower his head or did he just scrunch down in anticipation of contact?

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from garytx. Show garytx's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick asks a legitimate question: Why can’t we challenge everything?

    First off it's only two calls a game.  If it's holding or interference I would imagine the coach would have to be pretty specific on who got held or interfered with.  The other thing is I would hold on to one of these calls for the end of the game if it looked like it was going to be close.  It would change the pace of the game.

    Playoffs are different.  Officials let a lot go.  Things get more physical.  I don't know why this can't be done all season long but for some reason the playoffs are held in a different light.  The lack of consistency between the season and playoffs would be a big factor.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick asks a legitimate question: Why can’t we challenge everything?

    In response to Duffie33's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to csylvia79's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Totally Agree!

    [/QUOTE]

    6 hour games 

    [/QUOTE]

    If each team still has the same limits in terms of number of challenges, why would the game be longer. BB is proposing to be able to challenge anything. I did not see him ask that each team have more than two challenges a game.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from DoNotSleepOnThePats. Show DoNotSleepOnThePats's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick asks a legitimate question: Why can’t we challenge everything?

    I agree and I'm pretty surprised that the other coaches aren’t in support as well like Jeff Fisher.  Apparently Fisher says a majority of coaches don't want that responsibility.  Something along the lines of them rather not constantly be thinking about whether to challenge the previous play.

    I think it's better to have options.  If you’re really that distracted by having more power over the outcome of the game, you might need to reevaluate yourself as a head coach.  Fisher is a bonehead.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick asks a legitimate question: Why can’t we challenge everything?

    I think this is a fantastic idea...  I believe A Coach should have 2, and even 3 challenges.  If it's 2, make'm "loseable", yet "reciprocal" IF the Coach is correct.  IF it's 3, make this ALL they get, period point-blank.

    I believe EVERY Officials call should be reviewable.  I do NOT believe those calls should extend towards "non-calls."  Yet, 1 of those 3 Total Challenges, just might be a good thing....andddd, then again, maybe not.  EX:  I, Mr. Coach believe that there was rampant pass-interference on that play...NON-called...OR- I, Mr. Coach, believe there was OBVIOUS holding on that play.  Idealistic REALITY:  There probably was...and it probably was missed.  TRUE REALITY:  What's to stop an NFL Coach using that 1 "non-call" challenge, on 1 of THE most critical/THE Biggest plays of any given game, In order to simply take the play 'back'...because & considering:  There are probably VERY few actual plays in any given game, wherein you could NOT find at least 1 Penalty- Holding-where?  somewhere...  Pass-Interference-where?  someone was probably lightly bumped in to.  Conclusion=THIS is NOT a good thing.

    But the 2 reuseable <IF Coach was right>, and/or the 3 in grand total, based on a BIG extension of the Officiating, I AM in favor of.  Things like: Scoring & ANY & EVERY Flag (recall, they'll only have 3 total...no matter what &/or they'll only have 2, and either the official WAS wrong, And it WAS a justified challenge...or said NFL Coach loses it & only has 1 shot left on that reusably just, or bad challenge-loss of that final challenge).

    ^ That's pretty simplistically fair stuff, right there.  That...would NOT, lol, extend the game by "3 hours"...  15, 20 minutes...unless the officials call an excellent game...?  Then 10...maybe?  The Officials call a p0s-game...then maybe half an hour difference?  Big deal...that's a good thing with the "Lebron runs in the lane-and HAS to have been fouled" type'a stuff I see in other sports.

    In life, I DESPISE hard-nosed, non-challengeable officiating & policing...with-OUT great deals to have checks and balances UPON said officiating/policing.  <cough> That's sorta what this Country was founded upon...  A buncha fellas whom said: "Sometimes your officials and your police and your lawmakers/making ARE Not Right OR Correct.  Thus:  We need to have checks and balances and challenges and very fair potentialities to justly and easly Amend/Fix/Regulate said 'lawgivers'...Because:  They are NOT gonna be always right & correct, even IF they have a title in front of their name, And they are NOT, nor should they be viewed AS: Absolute Powers in their always (laugh) 'Absolutely Correct & Right' Manifestos which/that they lay done."

    Ya know...crazy notions:  Like Individuals standing up ta stuff, even IF they have an officcial-looking uniform on, just to get things right/correct, even in the (dare i say) Insane event like the guy wearing the official-looking uni might be in the wrong/unjust...

    ^ Wild ideas like this...  Just radicalized, wild, wild notions. 

    3 Challenges as it relates back to the microcosm of the NFL and, & within a small, yet impt as pect of the game & gameplay:  Down and Distance...  "Spot of the ball."  Perhaps, THIS 1 should be that 1 out of the 3 in goalline scenarios/spot of the ball scenarios, &/or the 1 out of the 2 Reuseable.  AN NFL Coach WOULD only use this on critical plays/junctures of down and distance...4th down determinations when they were going for it/and/or went for it, and goal-line scenarios...  And just 1 of the 3, and/or the 1 Reuseable...said "reuseable" 1 being "justified wherein it was 3 inches or ^...and being non-determinable @ 3 inches or <3 inches. 

    CONCLUSION:  ALL Flags and ALL scoring.  NEVER based on "No Flag"  And the above-mentioned spot-of-ball scenarios.  3 TOTAL Challenges, and no more, OR 2 RE-Useable Challenges based on the coach keeping it in his/her rightness/correctness, or losing it based on their non-right/incorrect challenge reviewed and upon and after review.        

     

Share