Quote:If we are going to have challenges in general, then everything should be reviewable. As JW said, the number of challeneges remains the same, so it won't add much if anything to the time of a game.

 

I'm a fan of them, but don't understand why some are reviewable and some are not.

 

I do see Deacon's view on no challeneges at all and overcoming the mistakes of the refs. it was that way for decades and in most other sports until just recently. Even tennis has challenges in recent years. It is what it is. Either allow it all to be challenged or nothing. If you can challenge the spot of the football of all things, you should certainly be able to challenge PI, or "illegal hits" or anything.

 

Over the years the NFL has been making more and more plays reviewable. When challenges were first allowed, they could not be used for "down by contact" (DBC) rulings because the play is over at that point. It also did not allow reviews of fumble recoveries. Later fumble recoveries in the end zone were allowed, but not in the field of play (FOP) Then NoVorro Bowman pounced on a fumbled football and the NFL made up a rule in his name: allow reviews of fumble recoveries in the FOP. This was after the Ed Hochuli Rule (incomplete pass vs. fumble can be reviewed) was added and out of bounds kickoffs became reviewable. Then came automatic reviews of all turnovers and scoring plays, followed by the Jim Schwartz Rule - permitting reviews even if the coach challenges an automatically reviewed play. So I expect to see more kinds of play rulings become reviewable.

 

Other penalties already are reviewable: too many men, illegal forward pass, and out of bounds kickoff. So are tipped balls negating pass interference. So why not add face mask, which is not a judgment call? Why not add helmet hits, which often are accidental, and pass interference, which often is obvious but not called? I think all live-ball penalties that result in automatic first downs should be reviewable.

---