Booth review question...

[cycloner29]

You wouldn’t hear anyone talking, just the sound of money counting machines in the background.

 

[cyfanatic13]

I think it would help with all reviews if the reviewer doesn't know what the ruling on the field is. Tell them what they are reviewing (catch, fumble, tageting, etc) and let them tell you what they see.

I’ve had this same thought for awhile. I get really annoyed when a ref clearly guesses on a call because they have to make a call. Then when they go to review there’s not enough to overturn so it stays that way.

I have two unrealistic ideas that I think would help replay. 1) each conference has a three man crew replay command center. Whatever 2 or all 3 of the 3 think is the correct call is what the call is. Take out indisputable video evidence

2) on plays that you can’t tell if a ball hit the ground, ask the receiver “did you catch it?” If he says no, move on. If he says yes, go to review. If he didn’t catch it, 15 yard penalty for lying. I don’t actually think this is a good idea but would be funny

 

[SouthJerseyCy]

No. The replay official should be in the dark about what is happening in the game and what the call on the field is.

That's just dumb. Camera angles don't pick up everything. It's entirely possible the ref on the field had a better view than what the cameras showed. That's why it's the default if the cameras are inconclusive.

 

[Raiders70]

I have trust issues...
We should be able to hear the headset conversations between booth and official...Or anyone else communicating on the officials headset. Sometimes I get the sneaky suspicion the "powers that be" are telling officials which way to call a review to fit their agendas. Am I paranoid?
...Like I said, I have trust issues.

I would love to hear the conversation between the replay booth and the officials during the review of the targeting call. The mental gymnastics and thought process during that conversation to decide that wasn't targeting had to have been completely ridiculous.

 

[Clonefan32]

Even if it's just a reporter that has access to the rules official. Just have them observe or paraphrase to give some kind of insight into what the thought process was. All the current set up does is breed suspicion, which benefits no one.

 

[Isualum13]

That's just dumb. Camera angles don't pick up everything. It's entirely possible the ref on the field had a better view than what the cameras showed. That's why it's the default if the cameras are inconclusive.

And if the replay official can't definitively make a conclusion using the information available. They go with the call on the field.

 

[SouthJerseyCy]

And if the replay official can't definitively make a conclusion using the information available. They go with the call on the field.

I guess I understand what you are suggesting and sorry if I came across a bit harsh with my response. I guess I just feel that having the replay official know what the field official called and where they were positioned gives another point of reference. To take it even further, I would hope there is communication between the field official and the replay official to discuss what each were able to see.

That said, I'm not as much of a conspiracy theorist as many on here.

 

[Isualum13]

I guess I understand what you are suggesting and sorry if I came across a bit harsh with my response. I guess I just feel that having the replay official know what the field official called and where they were positioned gives another point of reference. To take it even further, I would hope there is communication between the field official and the replay official to discuss what each were able to see.

That said, I'm not as much of a conspiracy theorist as many on here.

I feel knowing the call on the field can influence how they view the replay. They could still talk to the official on the field about what they are seeing.

I dont know how it could happen though as the replay official I beleive is the one who buzzes down to initiate the replay process.