PDA

View Full Version : Replays


texanhead08
10-31-2011, 08:58 PM
There are a lot of people ripping Kubes because of his low percentage of wins on challenges, but you rarely see any calls overturned so the real question is why have it. John Gruden said tonight on MNF they should just get rid of it because it delays the game and why have it when calls are blown and they just won't change the call.

Kthx
10-31-2011, 09:05 PM
I think they should have a replay-ref who isn't involved in the actual game at all but whose sole duty is to do replays on challenges. I think a majority of the time the ref who does the challenge is biased because he doesn't want to go against what his crew called or swallow his own ego and go against what he thought the play was originally. Just my two cents.

TejasTom
10-31-2011, 09:06 PM
I haven't seen the replay from CBS but the replay they showed in the stadium, Walter's toe looked inbounds.

BorrowMe
10-31-2011, 09:11 PM
Nope, it was out of bounds

TejasTom
10-31-2011, 09:11 PM
I think they should have a replay-ref who isn't involved in the actual game at all but whose sole duty is to do replays on challenges. I think a majority of the time the ref who does the challenge is biased because he doesn't want to go against what his crew called or swallow his own ego and go against what he thought the play was originally. Just my two cents.

They wouldn't even have to be at the game. It could be randomly assigned, or an odd number panel of judges vote, with a majority rule.

Kthx
10-31-2011, 09:13 PM
Either way, they just need to get the ego element out of it I think.

The Cush
10-31-2011, 09:14 PM
I haven't seen the replay from CBS but the replay they showed in the stadium, Walter's toe looked inbounds.

They made the right call. Walter didn't get the second foot down until after it hit white

Nawzer
10-31-2011, 09:19 PM
I thought they got both calls right yesterday. Replay needs to stay but I agree that it needs to go to a ref who's in the booth.

Farough
10-31-2011, 09:29 PM
I think that the replays should be done like they are in college. If there is a questionable play that's very close then a replay official up in the booth buzzes down to the head referee. The replay official then tells the ref what the correct call is.

This would take away from all the confusion that some of the coaches have when it comes to replays.(Challenging plays that you aren't able to challenge) which also adds more time to the games.

The Pencil Neck
10-31-2011, 09:33 PM
Yesterday, Andy Reid got two calls overturned, iirc. Some staffs are good at it and some staffs aren't.

I like having plays reviewed, I just don't know that they've found the best way to do it, yet. If they can come up with a better, more elegant way to get the plays called correctly -- great. But I'm just fine with it as it is.

thunderkyss
10-31-2011, 09:34 PM
I think they should have a replay-ref who isn't involved in the actual game at all but whose sole duty is to do replays on challenges.

I think they need to get rid of challenges all together. Put a ref in the booth, a supervisor if you will. If he sees a play that is close... or flat out wrong, he rings a buzzer, tells the referee, review it, or that it's just plain wrong.

Missed calls continue to be missed calls.

thunderkyss
10-31-2011, 09:36 PM
I thought they got both calls right yesterday. Replay needs to stay but I agree that it needs to go to a ref who's in the booth.

At the stadium, both replays they showed looked to be indisputable & we thought they were going to over turn both.

So, while I know people like to pile on Gary, those two, I think he did the right thing with the information he had.

Jackie Chiles
10-31-2011, 09:52 PM
At the stadium, both replays they showed looked to be indisputable & we thought they were going to over turn both.

So, while I know people like to pile on Gary, those two, I think he did the right thing with the information he had.

Sitting at home I KNEW he would lose both challenges immediately so he needs to get better information than crowd noise (when do they ever think a challenge shouldn't be thrown) and a glance at the jumbotron. Emotion from the game should have nothing to do with his decision.

There needs to be someone up in the booth that can make an unbiased and quick decision on these things. If we currently have a guy doing this job, I'm sorry but he probably needs to go.

TexanSam
10-31-2011, 09:53 PM
Is there some site that keeps up with current coaches challenge percentage?

They said on 790 this morning than Kubiak has challenged 35 plays as a coach and lost 25 of them. That seems pretty bad.

Nawzer
10-31-2011, 09:57 PM
At the stadium, both replays they showed looked to be indisputable & we thought they were going to over turn both.

So, while I know people like to pile on Gary, those two, I think he did the right thing with the information he had.

Idk what it looked like in the stadium but you could obviously hear the cheer from the crowd when Gary threw the red flag on both occasions. I knew the Kevin Walter catch was not going to be overturned because there was not enough info to overturn it. The Ben Tate fumble was close, but once again not enough evidence to overturn it. I think the Jags may have potentially missed a chance to overturn a call on an Owen Daniels catch. After the catch was made by OD you could see the Texans coaches on the sideline telling them to snap the ball fast. Idk if it was or wasn't a catch, but that could've been a big play for the Jags.

The Pencil Neck
10-31-2011, 09:58 PM
Is there some site that keeps up with current coaches challenge percentage?

They said on 790 this morning than Kubiak has challenged 35 plays as a coach and lost 25 of them. That seems pretty bad.

I'm still looking for stats but as of 2008, there had been 2067 challenges and 916 reversals.

I haven't turned up anything else.

The Pencil Neck
10-31-2011, 09:59 PM
Idk what it looked like in the stadium but you could obviously hear the cheer from the crowd when Gary threw the red flag on both occasions. I knew the Kevin Walter catch was not going to be overturned because there was not enough info to overturn it. The Ben Tate fumble was close, but once again not enough evidence to overturn it. I think the Jags may have potentially missed a chance to overturn a call on an Owen Daniels catch. After the catch was made by OD you could see the Texans coaches on the sideline telling them to snap the ball fast. Idk if it was or wasn't a catch, but that could've been a big play for the Jags.

I went back and looked and the OD catch actually looked like it was good. If Del Rio had challenged that, I think he would have burned a time out, too.

Nawzer
10-31-2011, 10:02 PM
I went back and looked and the OD catch actually looked like it was good. If Del Rio had challenged that, I think he would have burned a time out, too.

Thanks. OD has amazing hands, so it's more than likely he made the catch clean.

eriadoc
10-31-2011, 10:02 PM
The overturn ratio is roughly half across the NFL. That means the refs make some bad calls, especially when you consider that a fair number of the half that are upheld are dumb challenges anyway (Kubiak). Leave instant replay as it is.

texanhead08
10-31-2011, 10:28 PM
Is there some site that keeps up with current coaches challenge percentage?

They said on 790 this morning than Kubiak has challenged 35 plays as a coach and lost 25 of them. That seems pretty bad.


I am surprised to hear he is that successful. I am at every game and I have never seen him win one.

TexansFanatic
10-31-2011, 10:34 PM
I can't seem to turn up any records online of the success rates of each team/coach with the coach's challenge but I remember hearing last year that Kubiak had one of the lowest success rates in challenging calls with replay.

I can't figure out why it's so damned difficult. I can tell you from my living room couch whether the call is going to be overturned or not.

Kubiak is constantly wasting timeouts throwing the red flag on plays that obviously won't be reversed.

That's something I think is easily fixed. Wish the Texans would figure it out.

Jackie Chiles
10-31-2011, 10:35 PM
One more thing to add after listening to Gary's press conference today: We can't keep challenging plays based on how big a play it could wind up being if reversed. It has to be based on evidence. Just because it is a critical play doesn't mean we should use a challenge/burn a timeout if we have a minuscule percentage of it getting overturned. I believe this is one of the roots of Gary's problem with the red flag.

There is no doubt that Kevin Walter's play, if reversed, would have been a tremendous boost for us but that should not weigh so heavily in Gary's mind. Priority by a large margin needs to be "Do we have a good to great chance of getting this overturned," not "boy this would really be a huge swing if overturned." Gary consistently mentions this line of thinking when the media tries to get some insight into his method and I cringe every time.

I just get the feeling that we pay lip service to this aspect of the game which is really weird for a coach who is always stressing the little things we need to do and the attention to detail we need to maintain in order to, for instance, have success in the running game. This same focus needs to be paid to challenges.

MEGA SWATT
10-31-2011, 10:41 PM
I agree with taking it out of the hands of the zebras calling the actual game.

TexansFanatic
10-31-2011, 11:20 PM
One more thing to add after listening to Gary's press conference today: We can't keep challenging plays based on how big a play it could wind up being if reversed. It has to be based on evidence. Just because it is a critical play doesn't mean we should use a challenge/burn a timeout if we have a minuscule percentage of it getting overturned. I believe this is one of the roots of Gary's problem with the red flag.

Good grief, if that's true it's just asinine. So a call that's obviously not going to be overturned is challenged because if by some bizarre chance the replay official gets it wrong then that would mean a big gain in yardage or a swing in momentum?

The epic failure in that logic would certainly explain some of the stupid challenges. Geez.

Corrosion
10-31-2011, 11:30 PM
I think they should have a replay-ref who isn't involved in the actual game at all but whose sole duty is to do replays on challenges. I think a majority of the time the ref who does the challenge is biased because he doesn't want to go against what his crew called or swallow his own ego and go against what he thought the play was originally. Just my two cents.

There is a replay official in the booth who reviews all scoring plays as well as plays in the last two minutes. They should have that guy make all the replay decisions rather than one of the field officials.


I haven't seen the replay from CBS but the replay they showed in the stadium, Walter's toe looked inbounds.

Walter's toe came down on the white , only showed from one angle .... but it was out. When Kubiak made the challenge I thought it would get overturned until they showed that final angle ....


There needs to be someone up in the booth that can make an unbiased and quick decision on these things. If we currently have a guy doing this job, I'm sorry but he probably needs to go.

Every team has a guy in the booth looking at questionable calls who communicates to the coach if they should challenge or not ....

texanhead08
10-31-2011, 11:32 PM
Both replays they showed in the stadium looked like they could be overturned. The thing is no one really knows what angle the official looks at when he goes to the monitor. He could be looking at porn on the monitor for all we know.

Corrosion
10-31-2011, 11:39 PM
Both replays they showed in the stadium looked like they could be overturned. The thing is no one really knows what angle the official looks at when he goes to the monitor. He could be looking at porn on the monitor for all we know.

The Walter call was very close , as I said before , only one of the several angles shownshowed his toe to be out of bounds. I dont think it was a bad challenge at all.


As for Tates fumble , I think that was more Kubiak trying to help Tate out by showing some confidence in him after two recent fumbles. He knew that call wasnt going to be overturned but being ahead he had the luxury of wasting a time out for the benifit of his player.

Texanmike02
11-01-2011, 12:29 AM
Its funny, they have given the coaches part of the ref's responsibility. I hate that part of the game. There should be a two step process. One guy watching every game. He should determine if any play needs to be reviewed. If he flags it for review a random, off site official should review the play without prejudice for the call on the field. His call should be final.

Its not perfect but it does three things. First, I don't like the idea that a coach risks a timeout to find out if a ruling on the field on a close play was correct. That is asinine. Second, it has someone review the play without a prejudice for the outcome. He cannot be expected to know the call and if you have say 8 officials looking at plays, his number comes up. Nobody has to know who did it.

If things can be booth reviews in the last two minutes, I don't see why every play can't be reviewed in this fashion. I hate the comment "it slows the games down too much". I would rather a game run an extra 10 minutes and have the correct calls first of all, and second, if you are having that many calls overturned then maybe you need to add officials on the field?



Mike

Air Canada
11-01-2011, 01:04 AM
I completely disagree with taking away the challenges... We already have to trust the refs with calling a good game and all the terrible calls or "no calls" they make... It's nice having some way to have the crucial calls overturned when they screw it up... Instead of hoping they review everything THEY consider a "close" call. Just like on Sunday night Reid had made 2 challenges... both calls were overturned and he received a 3rd challenge because of it.

thunderkyss
11-01-2011, 04:48 AM
Sitting at home I KNEW he would lose both challenges immediately so he needs to get better information than crowd noise (when do they ever think a challenge shouldn't be thrown) and a glance at the jumbotron. Emotion from the game should have nothing to do with his decision.

There needs to be someone up in the booth that can make an unbiased and quick decision on these things. If we currently have a guy doing this job, I'm sorry but he probably needs to go.

my point was that the replay, camera information he has available to him & his staff showed indisputable evidence.

Obviously he doesn't have the "angles" you had at home or what the referee looked at.

texanhead08
11-01-2011, 08:17 AM
There were 3 challenges I saw in the game last night. I didn't watch every play so I am not sure if there were more than this. The first half there were 2 and even the guys in the booth were saying they would be overturned. They didn't reverse them. One was the fumble by McCluster.

The 3 one was the fumble/incomplete pass by Cassel. It was overturned.

I still think the refs are protecting their crews by not reversing these calls.

El Tejano
11-01-2011, 08:47 AM
They just need to have a team rule. If it means it wipes out a score, or if it takes us out of scoring range, or if it wipes out a turnover we forced...it should be considered.

Jackie Chiles
11-01-2011, 11:28 AM
my point was that the replay, camera information he has available to him & his staff showed indisputable evidence.

Obviously he doesn't have the "angles" you had at home or what the referee looked at.

Someone in the booth has those angles I have at home. Hell, people on the concourse in the club level have those angles. If we really don't have anyone looking at all the replay angles from the broadcast I can't even tell you how unacceptable that is.

Also, how can he be shown indisputable evidence when there is no indisputable evidence? Gary has never needed indisputable evidence to throw the flag and that, like I explained earlier, is his major flaw when it comes to challenges.

thunderkyss
11-01-2011, 11:39 AM
Someone in the booth has those angles I have at home. Hell, people on the concourse in the club level have those angles. If we really don't have anyone looking at all the replay angles from the broadcast I can't even tell you how unacceptable that is.

Also, how can he be shown indisputable evidence when there is no indisputable evidence? Gary has never needed indisputable evidence to throw the flag and that, like I explained earlier, is his major flaw when it comes to challenges.

I'm just telling you.

Before he threw the flag, on both replays it looked close. He threw the flag.

Both times the booth came up with another angle (maybe they altered it) & it showed what appeared to be inconclusive evidence. Maybe the big screen is too far away for this kind of work, I don't know. But we were all saying, "there's no way he loses this one" both times.

Then when I got home & watched the game again, they showed completely different angles & shots, & didn't show the ones we saw at all.

There's definitely something funny going on, I don't know what exactly.

Again, both times it looked like there was indisputable evidence that Walter's toe tapped in-bounds (close, but in-bounds) & Tate's Knee on the ground with the ball firmly in his grips (that one didn't even look close).

infantrycak
11-01-2011, 01:00 PM
I'm just telling you.

Before he threw the flag, on both replays it looked close. He threw the flag.

Both times the booth came up with another angle (maybe they altered it) & it showed what appeared to be inconclusive evidence. Maybe the big screen is too far away for this kind of work, I don't know. But we were all saying, "there's no way he loses this one" both times.

Then when I got home & watched the game again, they showed completely different angles & shots, & didn't show the ones we saw at all.

There's definitely something funny going on, I don't know what exactly.

Again, both times it looked like there was indisputable evidence that Walter's toe tapped in-bounds (close, but in-bounds) & Tate's Knee on the ground with the ball firmly in his grips (that one didn't even look close).

Who knows what the Texans' replay guy gets to see or how he gets to select it but I will corroborate TK in this ... on the Walter catch the first clip shown in the stadium looked like his toe clearly touched in bounds. The flag was thrown and then they showed a replay from the opposite angle and it looked clearly out of bounds. I still think Tate should have been ruled down, but on both plays I think if the refs had ruled either way it would have been upheld on review.

Blake
11-01-2011, 01:06 PM
There are a lot of people ripping Kubes because of his low percentage of wins on challenges, but you rarely see any calls overturned so the real question is why have it. John Gruden said tonight on MNF they should just get rid of it because it delays the game and why have it when calls are blown and they just won't change the call.

Replay needs to stay. I would rather them take a 2nd look than just get a blatanly obvious call wrong.

Are we really worried about a 4 minute pause to get a call right when we have all the 5 minute commercial breaks we do?

TOUCHDOWN! Extra point. Commercial Break. Kickoff. Commercial Break. 4 plays. End of the 1st quarter. Commercial Break.

The "flow" that Gruden referred to being interrupted is just as interrupted by commercial breaks as anything.

TejasTom
11-01-2011, 08:17 PM
Its funny, they have given the coaches part of the ref's responsibility. I hate that part of the game. There should be a two step process. One guy watching every game. He should determine if any play needs to be reviewed. If he flags it for review a random, off site official should review the play without prejudice for the call on the field. His call should be final.

Its not perfect but it does three things. First, I don't like the idea that a coach risks a timeout to find out if a ruling on the field on a close play was correct. That is asinine. Second, it has someone review the play without a prejudice for the outcome. He cannot be expected to know the call and if you have say 8 officials looking at plays, his number comes up. Nobody has to know who did it.

If things can be booth reviews in the last two minutes, I don't see why every play can't be reviewed in this fashion. I hate the comment "it slows the games down too much". I would rather a game run an extra 10 minutes and have the correct calls first of all, and second, if you are having that many calls overturned then maybe you need to add officials on the field?



Mike

Are you saying replay official should not know the call on the field or who challenged it?

That's even better.

Texanmike02
11-01-2011, 11:13 PM
Are you saying replay official should not know the call on the field or who challenged it?

That's even better.

I'm saying you do both. Don't tell the replay official anything. Let them watch it in slow motion and make the call. That way the replay official has no prejudice/politics/anything. Their only job is to look at the play and decide if it is a fumble or not (or whatever).

I would like an official in a booth in the stadium to be able to call for a replay too. I hate that coaches are given the responsibility of getting a call right for 56 minutes of the game and then we put it on the booth the other 4. Why? I think its because the booth is probably in a better position. I mean think about this for a second. One of the things that makes you successful as a coach is how well you are able to process and dispute whether or not to question the calls the refs make? Really? That is asinine. Why not make the coaches call off sides too? Why not give them random responsibilities? The officials and the rules of the game should be set up so that the coaches must worry as little as possible about the quality of the officiating in a game. I am fine with giving the team ONE challenge/half or something if they absolutely believe that they must challenge something but I don't like that the person who has the best ability to view every play (the replay official) can only make a change on 4 minutes of game film (ok and scores too. That equals what? another 5 or 6 plays a game? They need to be able to make a change on every play.

Mike