Moderator: Moderators
Because he didn't?Mothman wrote: I'm guessing our fellow board members just read the quote from the link and didn't get the whole story.
I can understand why Munnerlyn doesn't want to believe he did anything wrong!.
It was also a ridicules call. They had a few of those today, most seemingly helping the Packers.Purple Reign wrote:So did anyone see the penalty that Shields for the Packers got for basically touching Cutler on the helmet? There's no way Shields is going to get fined for that but it was still a penalty. The defenders have to understand that the refs are going to over protect all qbs, and not just the so called elite ones.
I agree, it was ridiculous, but that is they way they are calling things now. Several bad calls today but I think the calls have gone both ways. For example, the Packers had a hands to the face penalty called on them when it was the Chicago player that was the culprit and the pf on Shields. The Bears have been flagged a couple of times for hits that looked legit, so I would say it's pretty much a wash at this point (even though I know there are a lot of anti Packer fans who only want to see the penalties in favor of the Packers).PurpleKoolaid wrote: It was also a ridicules call. They had a few of those today, most seemingly helping the Packers.
Interesting. I hate reviews, and wish the Refs were a little more consistent with their calls, but I think this would do more good then harm. I wonder if this would include non calls, like on Brees last week.808vikingsfan wrote:Looks like personal fouls may be reviewable next year.
NFL on brink of making personal fouls reviewable, per report
I sure hope so. I'm also an advocate for being able to review any play, even so called 'judgment' calls like pass interference. The game is just so fast that the refs are bound to miss calls. For those who would argue it would just slow the game down, that's not true as the number of plays that can be reviewed wouldn't change, it's just that it would expand what can be reviewable. If the NFL really means it when the say "we just want to get it right" then I think they should expand what can be reviewable.808vikingsfan wrote:Looks like personal fouls may be reviewable next year.
NFL on brink of making personal fouls reviewable, per report
If it's questionable, then they let the call stand. It's to remedy situations where a blatantly bad call is made, like in today's Packer/Bears game where Peppers was called for hands to the face when in fact he was the one who was hit in the face.808vikingsfan wrote:Looks like personal fouls may be reviewable next year.
NFL on brink of making personal fouls reviewable, per report
Still, I think they're going to have to define personal fouls better, or maybe make 2 classifications of it (sort of like running into the kicker vs roughing kicker). If we can't decide if it was a personal foul a week later, how could watching a replay help?
I think sometimes we see flags thrown from refs who are either out of position or far away from the play, in those instances I think replay could help. Also, sometimes things in real time look a lot worse than they really are and when you slow it down, you can see it for what it really is.808vikingsfan wrote:Looks like personal fouls may be reviewable next year.
NFL on brink of making personal fouls reviewable, per report
Still, I think they're going to have to define personal fouls better, or maybe make 2 classifications of it (sort of like running into the kicker vs roughing kicker). If we can't decide if it was a personal foul a week later, how could watching a replay help?
Since the number of challenges doesn't increase, how would this slow the game down more? Just because more plays can be reviewed, it doesn't increase the number that can be reviewed.S197 wrote: I think sometimes we see flags thrown from refs who are either out of position or far away from the play, in those instances I think replay could help. Also, sometimes things in real time look a lot worse than they really are and when you slow it down, you can see it for what it really is.
My big question is how much will this slow down the game. The amount of commercials we have is already ridiculous and having more things to review only means more breaks.
Anytime you increase the opportunity for challenges it can slow the game even if the amount of challenges is kept constant. For one, teams don't always use every challenge and also winning two challenges gives you a third. With scores and turnovers being automatically reviewed, you have more room for discretionary challenges like this proposed one.Purple Reign wrote: Since the number of challenges doesn't increase, how would this slow the game down more? Just because more plays can be reviewed, it doesn't increase the number that can be reviewed.
If they really wanted to get it right, they wouldn't be using a flag-based system that only permits limited reviews.Purple Reign wrote: I sure hope so. I'm also an advocate for being able to review any play, even so called 'judgment' calls like pass interference. The game is just so fast that the refs are bound to miss calls. For those who would argue it would just slow the game down, that's not true as the number of plays that can be reviewed wouldn't change, it's just that it would expand what can be reviewable. If the NFL really means it when the say "we just want to get it right" then I think they should expand what can be reviewable.
Now there's no call for that!PurpleMustReign wrote:Fine, Jim, rain on my parade...
I did read the article, I must have just misread it. I read it pretty quickly.
Either way, the Saints still suck and Drew Brees should be forced to jump into a pool of his own feces.
Pool may be pushing it. Just a tub then?Mothman wrote: Now there's no call for that!
