Instant replay for penalties

[18IsTheMan]

If there was ever a game that supported having penalties be subject to instant replay, it was our game against LSU. There were so many penalties called at critical junctures that directly impacted the game.

I have been consistently opposed to instant replay. Don't think we should have it at all. However, each time I've voiced opposition, I've been told instant replay is needed because they need to "get the call right". If it truly is about getting the call right, then penalties need to be included in some form or fashion. They will spend 3 minutes reviewing whether a 5 yard catch was made in bounds or out of bounds. In that context, it just doesn't make sense that penalties which impact scoring plays aren't reviewed.

At the least, they could go back to the original way of doing it for instant replay and give each coach 2 penalty challenges/game or something along those lines.

Again, for the people who say we need instant replay because the most important thing is to get it right, penalty calls can be, and often are, some of the most impactful calls made in a game, so why not make sure to get them right?

I should also add, I'm not in the camp of blaming or loss on the refs. We just made too many mistakes. But there were a number of questionable calls.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

Who exactly is going to review penalty calls ? The same crew on the field ?, Sending challenges to Conference HQ for video review ? Try to imagine every game on a given Saturday having every questionable call being challenged, the review crews would be inundated with reviews further delaying games.

Hard Pass

 

[18IsTheMan]

Who exactly is going to review penalty calls ? The same crew on the field ?, Sending challenges to Conference HQ for video review ? Try to imagine every game on a given Saturday having every questionable call being challenged, the review crews would be inundated with reviews further delaying games.

Hard Pass

Who reviews plays now? Nobody minds delaying a game for 5 minutes to review a potential targeting penalty on an otherwise inconsequential play. Why would you mind reviewing a penalty which negates a game-winning play?

It's just ironic to me that the "get it right" crowd is also adamantly against reviewing calls which can have the biggest impact on the actual outcome of a game.

 

[KingWard]

Who exactly is going to review penalty calls ? The same crew on the field ?, Sending challenges to Conference HQ for video review ? Try to imagine every game on a given Saturday having every questionable call being challenged, the review crews would be inundated with reviews further delaying games.

Hard Pass

Ungainly. I have to reluctantly agree.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

Who reviews plays now? Nobody minds delaying a game for 5 minutes to review a potential targeting penalty on an otherwise inconsequential play. Why would you mind reviewing a penalty which negates a game-winning play?

It's just ironic to me that the "get it right" crowd is also adamantly against reviewing calls which can have the biggest impact on the actual outcome of a game.

You're assuming that a HC has not used up his 2 challenges (your proposal). And how would one know what is game changing,
A PI, a holding call on a long run, a block in the back on a long KO/PR return.
If your going to introduce your proposal, then it should punitive if a challenge is not overturned. Charged T.O., if not T.O's available then a 15 yard penalty.
Not that I recommend your proposal or my counter.

 

[18IsTheMan]

You're assuming that a HC has not used up his 2 challenges (your proposal). And how would one know what is game changing,
A PI, a holding call on a long run, a block in the back on a long KO/PR return.
If your going to introduce your proposal, then it should punitive if a challenge is not overturned. Charged T.O., if not T.O's available then a 15 yard penalty.
Not that I recommend your proposal or my counter.

Beats me. Greater (or lesser) minds than mine cooked up the current replay situation, so I assume they could cobble something together to consider penalties as well.

Again, I simply go back to the argument that's consistently put forth to defend the use of instant reply: to get it right. In that context, it makes zero sense that non-targeting penalties are non-reviewable across the board, regardless of situation or impact.

I must hasten to reiterate, I'm anti-replay. They should take it completely out of the game. However, if we must have it, I simply can't see any rationale for having it, but then excluding some of the most impactful calls in a game from being reviewable.

Besides, they already do review targeting penalties, so they've already demonstrated that there is some ability to carve out exceptions for penalties.

If the push is to get it right, why not get it ALL right? Why just SOME right? And if they're not really trying to get it all right, then just scrap it altogether and quit pretending.

I don't need to have all the answers for how it would work, but anyone can see on the face of it that it makes no sense at all to claim to want to get it right but then completely ignore what can potentially be the most impactful calls in the entire game.

 

[PrestonyteParrot]

The SEC Conference office should be concerned when officials have this much impact on a game!

 

[Gamecock Jacque]

Who exactly is going to review penalty calls ? The same crew on the field ?, Sending challenges to Conference HQ for video review ? Try to imagine every game on a given Saturday having every questionable call being challenged, the review crews would be inundated with reviews further delaying games.

Hard Pass

I volunteer

 

[Gamecock Jacque]

There were so many penalties called at critical junctures that directly impacted the game.

And all of them went one way.

 

[Piscis]

The blocked punt would have been reversed if the play was reviewed. The rusher cannot jump over the blockers in front of the punter. The law of unintended consequences would really come into play if penalties, called or not called, were able to be reviewed by request of a coach.

I'm not sure the officials affected the outcome of the game as much as Kennard did. If he doesn't horse collar tackle the LSU player and leaves the qb, who is not really involved in the play in any way on the pick six, we win. Neither call was a "phantom" call.

 

[18IsTheMan]

At the least they could review 15 yarders. It would not be hard or time-consuming to do.

 

[will110]

I'd be in favor of the NFL replay system: two coach's challenges, with a 3rd if the first two uses are correct, then booth review inside of 2 minutes left in the game.

The NFL tried the pass interference review but scrapped it because it was such a judgment call.

I'd be in favor of expanding the coach's challenge ability to specific penalty calls. For example, the offensive pass interference that negated a 30+ yard gain for us in the 4th quarter. It couldn't be a general challenge though, where the coach wants the refs to just relook at a play for potential penalties.

 

[muscleknight]

Each referee crew's calls should be reviewed after each game. Their pay gets docked for each incorrect call.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Each referee crew's calls should be reviewed after each game. Their pay gets docked for each incorrect call.

It would be nice if there was some kind of independent oversight for quality control.

Problem is, refs need to know when to throw flags and when not to vs just calling penalties by the book 100% of the time. Much like refs in basketball calling ticky tack foul at a critical moment in the game.

 

[92Pony]

I just want to take this opportunity - since the subject has been broached - to say that the first penalty review category should be for fights/shoves/punches. Use review to get the FIRST guy for ONCE! It's ALWAYS the one who retaliates! (Just a pet peeve of mine )

 

[Uscg1984]

If there was ever a game that supported having penalties be subject to instant replay, it was our game against LSU. There were so many penalties called at critical junctures that directly impacted the game.

I have been consistently opposed to instant replay. Don't think we should have it at all. However, each time I've voiced opposition, I've been told instant replay is needed because they need to "get the call right". If it truly is about getting the call right, then penalties need to be included in some form or fashion. They will spend 3 minutes reviewing whether a 5 yard catch was made in bounds or out of bounds. In that context, it just doesn't make sense that penalties which impact scoring plays aren't reviewed.

At the least, they could go back to the original way of doing it for instant replay and give each coach 2 penalty challenges/game or something along those lines.

Again, for the people who say we need instant replay because the most important thing is to get it right, penalty calls can be, and often are, some of the most impactful calls made in a game, so why not make sure to get them right?

I should also add, I'm not in the camp of blaming or loss on the refs. We just made too many mistakes. But there were a number of questionable calls.

I think the only way to keep such a proposal practical would be to limit challenges/reviews to penalties called on the field. No-calls would not be reviewable. Otherwise, every scoring play would be scrutinized until a holding call was found - since it happens practically ever play.

But, to your point, that wouldn't completely satisfy the "get it right" requirement either.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I think the only way to keep such a proposal practical would be to limit challenges/reviews to penalties called on the field. No-calls would not be reviewable. Otherwise, every scoring play would be scrutinized until a holding call was found - since it happens practically ever play.

But, to your point, that wouldn't completely satisfy the "get it right" requirement either.

Yes, I was speaking to penalties that were called on the field.

And, you're correct, there is no way to get it 100% right without a review of every single play. However, the total omission of penalties (aside from targeting for some reason) seems odd when you're trying to get it right.

For those who are saying it will make games much longer, that's probably not the case. Our game had a lot of penalties, 22 to be exact. But of those 22, there would be maybe 5 or 6 that would be worth of review. In a normal game there are far fewer penalties so I suspect you're talking about 3ish penalty reviews/game.