That's pretty much exactly my stance.

 

:So I guess you never get mad when we lose because of a bad call or non-call. Got it.

---

:So I guess you never get mad when we lose because of a bad call or non-call. Got it.

I do not.


I'm enough of a grown up to realize that life ain't fair and that sometimes things go wrong. When it does, is up to me to do the best I can with what I have.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

:So I guess you never get mad when we lose because of a bad call or non-call. Got it.

 

We don't get many beneficial calls so I don't worry about it.  When you slow down live action it makes some of the plays look far far worse.  The reason we have these stupid football action to justify catches is a worse situation than the PI calls.

---

Birth of the Franchise - November 30, 1993
Death of the Franchise - November 29, 2011

Fans deserve better. Thanks for all the good times too many are in the past.

We don't get many beneficial calls so I don't worry about it.  When you slow down live action it makes some of the plays look far far worse.  The reason we have these stupid football action to justify catches is a worse situation than the PI calls.

 

I asssume your last statement refers to the Dez Bryant non-catch. The NFL will talk about that issue in the offseason.

---

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.

---

IT WAS ALWAYS THE JAGS

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.

---

I asssume your last statement refers to the Dez Bryant non-catch. The NFL will talk about that issue in the offseason.

Yes I mean this.  Kinda of sad that it will only be looked at because it is big D.

---

Birth of the Franchise - November 30, 1993
Death of the Franchise - November 29, 2011

Fans deserve better. Thanks for all the good times too many are in the past.

Yes I mean this.  Kinda of sad that it will only be looked at because it is big D.

 

Not true. The same thing was looked at several years ago because of Calvin Johnson, whose Lions sucked at the time.

---

did the rules get changed after they looked at the Calvin Johnson play? Nope got worse. My point stands. When the big league boys are impacted, rules get changed. Kill our QB over the last few years on offsides, nada just the 5 yard stuff.

 

league of inequity.

---

Birth of the Franchise - November 30, 1993
Death of the Franchise - November 29, 2011

Fans deserve better. Thanks for all the good times too many are in the past.

Did the rules get changed after they looked at the Calvin Johnson play? Nope got worse. My point stands. When the big league boys are impacted, rules get changed. Kill our QB over the last few years on offsides, nada just the 5 yard stuff.

 

League of inequity.

 

My point is they decided to talk about it because of a Lions player. I never said anything about actually changing the rule because of him.

---

How will the refs fix the games now if there is no pi called in the last 3 mins

---