Ball spot errors, need for change

[Sgt. Largent]

Easy solution, if it's at a critical point, say, for a first down, or a score, where ball spotting is critical, well that's when a automatic review for ball spot is placed. No challenge needed.

Just include ball spotting into the less than 5 minutes all scores are reviewed rule.

 

[Seymour]

I think it's a problem because it influences the outcome of games. An arbitrarily placed ball can keep a drive alive or kill one. Coaches have to waste valuable challenges on something that CAN be controlled.

The answer is as simple as NOT taking away a challenge if you win it, not unlimited challenges. Right now if you win 2, you get a 3rd which is wrong IMO (on ANY play) That way a crap crew will have less effect on the game, until the coach makes 2 bad challenges.

 

[Siouxhawk]

The time will come very soon where stadiums will be inundated with cameras and the myriad of video angles to get a call correct. The technology already allows unobtrusive cameras of all types that could be installed in the air and ground. As Largent said, a sensor could be placed in the ball with some kind of timing device, as well, to determine whether it crossed the line. A high-speed computer could sync up the sensor with the timing device of the appropriate camera angle and you'd have your correct call.
I wrestled with this because it takes away more of the human element, but I think I'd rather see the league do everything it can to get the play result correct as those are human efforts that should be rewarded too.

 

[Seymour]

Easy solution, if it's at a critical point, say, for a first down, or a score, where ball spotting is critical, well that's when a automatic review for ball spot is placed. No challenge needed.

Just include ball spotting into the less than 5 minutes all scores are reviewed rule.

????
Ball spotting happens on every single play in the game with the exception of incomplete passes. You cannot review every play.

 

[253hawk]

the human element

pls no

 

[Seanhawk]

the human element

pls no

That's a terrible picture. It makes it look like it was actually close.

 

[gtcotcakya]

I do not think you can challenge the spot of the ball by today's rules on any random play. Rather, you can only challenge whether or not the call was made correctly with respect to converting a first down or not. If you keep that rule intact, the sensors could help. Put sensors in the balls and on the first down marker. On reviews, have the referee determine the moment the player is down and the system could automatically determine whether or not it was a first down. Hell, you could even have the ball placement located by laser at that point.

I don't like the idea of infinite challenges, but I think you could improve the rules. I'd suggest that you're given two challenges at the beginning of the game. If you challenge and lose, you lose both a challenge and a timeout. If you challenge and win, you keep both the challenge and the timeout. So basically, you're giving coaches two mistakes a game and unlimited successes...up until the point they've used up their two mistakes.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

the human element

pls no

"the ball is in the other hand, the ball is in the other hand, the ball is in the other hand..." if you read it on the internet, it must be true..... :sarcasm_off: :stirthepot:

 

[scutterhawk]

I think the Hawks got jobbed by the referees in this last game.

Somehow it seems to me that the referees screwed the Hawks like usual with those early atrocious spots. It seemed unfair that the team lost their challenges having to deal with the obvious mistaken spots made by that terrible crew on Thursday. The non-first down spot was egregious, the actual spot initially made was simply awful, but something the team has seem before. It was more than 2 yards wrong.

Had the line judge actually watched Wagner's stop of Gurley they wouldn't have called it a first down that was naturally wrong, needing overturning. I couldn't believe after the first successful challenge how wrong the spot was. The fact the team was forced to use those two challenges was galling when both were obviously successful. Losing any right to challenge again for the whole game on the play by Baldwin to me was annoying as neither earlier challenge was improper or not even necessary. This part of the rulers allows an incompetent refereeing crew to manipulate the game results.

It's time to revisit the rule on challenges so you don't lose the right to challenge if your prior challenges are successful. If the league wants to actually get the calls right this chane would not result in delay of the game any more than present.

Besides that I thought as well the 3rd challenge result was closer but also wrong and Baldwin made that first down but the side judge (the same idiot from the first spot) got it wrong again. I watch the spots game to game and it is something the league needs to a better job at improving. I think Seattle gets screwed over this way quite often.

What pissed me off, was how the SAME Referee, showed his disdain towards Pete Carroll for daring to challenge them for their crappy Officiating MISTAKES with his two prior challenges.
They obviously don't like being exposed for being inept, eh?

 

[scutterhawk]

I am of the opinion you should have 2 challenges and you keep them if you are correct.

What kind of fair system punishes you for being correct? Absolutely ridiculous.

^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^

 

[BadgerVid]

I think the Hawks got jobbed by the referees in this last game.

Somehow it seems to me that the referees screwed the Hawks like usual with those early atrocious spots. It seemed unfair that the team lost their challenges having to deal with the obvious mistaken spots made by that terrible crew on Thursday. The non-first down spot was egregious, the actual spot initially made was simply awful, but something the team has seem before. It was more than 2 yards wrong.

Had the line judge actually watched Wagner's stop of Gurley they wouldn't have called it a first down that was naturally wrong, needing overturning. I couldn't believe after the first successful challenge how wrong the spot was. The fact the team was forced to use those two challenges was galling when both were obviously successful. Losing any right to challenge again for the whole game on the play by Baldwin to me was annoying as neither earlier challenge was improper or not even necessary. This part of the rulers allows an incompetent refereeing crew to manipulate the game results.

It's time to revisit the rule on challenges so you don't lose the right to challenge if your prior challenges are successful. If the league wants to actually get the calls right this chane would not result in delay of the game any more than present.

Besides that I thought as well the 3rd challenge result was closer but also wrong and Baldwin made that first down but the side judge (the same idiot from the first spot) got it wrong again. I watch the spots game to game and it is something the league needs to a better job at improving. I think Seattle gets screwed over this way quite often.

What pissed me off, was how the SAME Referee, showed his disdain towards Pete Carroll for daring to challenge them for their crappy Officiating MISTAKES with his two prior challenges.
They obviously don't like being exposed for being inept, eh?

I wondered if anyone else thought the official that made the announcements had an attitude. To me he seemed to grudgingly announce that the calls were reversed and the one that was upheld he almost seemed to celebrate.

 

[scutterhawk]

What is bad is we wasted our reviews for blatantly bad spots. It is understandable sometimes when the ref cant see something or it happens so quick. I also will echo what someone else said you should get 2 WRONG challenges. If you get them right you should not lose them. If it makes the game take to long then it should be up to the league to fix the product. The way it is now you only get to fix two (maybe three) of the screw ups the refs make but i they make more then you are out of luck. Doesn't seem like a very good model. It IS a fixable problem. I just don't understand why the league is soooo slow to make things better.

They're obviously making numerous mistakes but I don't think that the League is ready to turn loose their control of the games.

Having sensors in the balls would aid the Refs, in that their duties could then be focused on other aspects of the game.
I know how fantastic the sensors can work, I've seen them in high speed action behind the scenes with conveyor systems at the Portland airport that I had a hand in installing, it all but eliminates human error.
In all fairness to everyone involved, there has to be something done by the powers that be, to try and cut back on SOME of the mistakes made by a majority of THEIR Officials.....Hey, there are Coaches that go on the hot seat, or get canned for their mistakes, just sayin'.

 

[cymatica]

I think the Hawks got jobbed by the referees in this last game.

Somehow it seems to me that the referees screwed the Hawks like usual with those early atrocious spots. It seemed unfair that the team lost their challenges having to deal with the obvious mistaken spots made by that terrible crew on Thursday. The non-first down spot was egregious, the actual spot initially made was simply awful, but something the team has seem before. It was more than 2 yards wrong.

Had the line judge actually watched Wagner's stop of Gurley they wouldn't have called it a first down that was naturally wrong, needing overturning. I couldn't believe after the first successful challenge how wrong the spot was. The fact the team was forced to use those two challenges was galling when both were obviously successful. Losing any right to challenge again for the whole game on the play by Baldwin to me was annoying as neither earlier challenge was improper or not even necessary. This part of the rulers allows an incompetent refereeing crew to manipulate the game results.

It's time to revisit the rule on challenges so you don't lose the right to challenge if your prior challenges are successful. If the league wants to actually get the calls right this chane would not result in delay of the game any more than present.

Besides that I thought as well the 3rd challenge result was closer but also wrong and Baldwin made that first down but the side judge (the same idiot from the first spot) got it wrong again. I watch the spots game to game and it is something the league needs to a better job at improving. I think Seattle gets screwed over this way quite often.

What pissed me off, was how the SAME Referee, showed his disdain towards Pete Carroll for daring to challenge them for their crappy Officiating MISTAKES with his two prior challenges.
They obviously don't like being exposed for being inept, eh?

I wondered if anyone else thought the official that made the announcements had an attitude. To me he seemed to grudgingly announce that the calls were reversed and the one that was upheld he almost seemed to celebrate.

Most definetely, you could hear it in his tone, kind of made the wasted challenge worth it.

 

[jammerhawk]

I am of the opinion you should have 2 challenges and you keep them if you are correct.

What kind of fair system punishes you for being correct? Absolutely ridiculous.

Your response is exactly how I'd like the system to be. In short when you challenge successfully you don't lose that challenge. That is of course unlike the system in place now where you get only two challenges but if one challenge is successfuly you get a 3rd but then lose any further right to challenge. The system in place presently punsihes a team for making a correct challenge.

 

[McG]

This league has way too much money for them not to have a much better technology system in place (Largent80's points) or a truly dedicated crew upstairs that can quickly tell the refs where to place the ball. This league in general is become a bit of a punchline at this point. Either the league is attempting to fix games and/or they are trying to keep games close with trash calls. Well that, or the refs in most Hawk games decide they are going to hit each other on the heads with mallets before the game starts. It's starting to become comical at this point.

 

[RichNhansom]

I am of the opinion you should have 2 challenges and you keep them if you are correct.

What kind of fair system punishes you for being correct? Absolutely ridiculous.

Your response is exactly how I'd like the system to be. In short when you challenge successfully you don't lose that challenge. That is of course unlike the system in place now where you get only two challenges but if one challenge is successfuly you get a 3rd but then lose any further right to challenge. The system in place presently punsihes a team for making a correct challenge.

I think you only get a third challenge if you win both of the first two.

 

[jammerhawk]

Ball placement challenges shouldbe unlimited. They obviously ant get them right. And to say that that would take too much to.e is also ridiculous since the NFL broadcast's a gazillion commercials every five minutes.

There's has to be consequences, or else coaches would abuse an unlimited system.

4th quarter, we're driving down the field after wearing out the other team for the entire half. Other team's out of timeouts, just keep calling spot challenges so his defense can rest.

This would happen literally every game.

I'm fine with the current system. Ref's are idiots, but as Pete did, he challenged and won. He never should have challenged the last one and lost our last challenge, Doug obviously didn't reach the marker.

Sgt. Largent, I respect the heck out of your posts, but disagree with you here.

There is no possibility of there being an abuse of the challenges as described above. If the challenge is successful it deserves to be retained but not lost because of prior successful challenges. After two failed challenges you lose your right to challenge which ends the purposeful delay scenario you describe. There is in my mind some frequent casualness in the way the ball is spotted, along with potential for mischief. You can even see Pete eventually roll his eyes in frustration with all three spots he challenged. My point is the team got screwed by being required to make the successful challenges and this lost a challenge by poor refereeing. Both successful spots were egregiously bad. The college system for checking questionable plays seems more effective in getting it right.

I disagree as well on the Baldwin spot, but acknowledge it was less clear than either of the other crappy spots. The position of the ball when Baldwin went out of bounds was ahead of the needed line of gain. Watch it again.

 

[onanygivensunday]

I blame it all on instant replay and HD cameras.
Before instant replay, the officiating was perfect... no blown calls... ever. :sarcasm_off:

The way it used to be before instant replay... You think that your team got stiffed?... Tough tittie!!... said the cat to the kitty.

It's an imperfect world that we live in.

No amount of additional cameras and/or sensors will ensure that every call and ball placement is correct.

We would be endlessly chasing perfection when pretty good is good enough.

 

[NFSeahawks]

I am of the opinion you should have 2 challenges and you keep them if you are correct.

What kind of fair system punishes you for being correct? Absolutely ridiculous.

I've always found it quite odd.

It's almost like the NFL is saying, "Were normally right so don't push your luck".

Which is completely false anyway. If a coach needs to challenge 10 times in a game he should be able to and the league should get better refs, simple.

I've never understood how the line judge refuses to focus on where the ball actually is, last game they had one spot that was almost a yard off.

Like how do your eyes miss that bad? lol

 

[McGruff]

Do you realize a game is only 60 minutes?...A halftime is 15 minutes.

The NFL uses the rest of the time to bombard you with commercials, that is 1 hour and 45 minutes of commercials and you are going to complain about the game being spotted correctly?...Not me. I want that ball where it's supposed to go and if they can't get it right then it should be able to be challenged on any play.

Out of bounds, penalties, timeouts and injuries all add to the length of games as much or more than commercials.