Rule changes
- Thread starter hoosman
- Start date
Baseball has the worst replay system, in my opinion. There are challenges, but as far as I can tell, the teams get unlimited time to review the play before they decide to challenge. If there's a close play, the manager steps up on the dugout and the umps halt the game while the team reviews the play. If the manager thinks it's in their favor, he challenges.
It seems awfully silly to have a limited number of challenges, but give the teams all that time to review it internally before they challenge. They should have to decide on the spot if they want to challenge or not.
This was a fun thread to read through.
As many have said, my biggest gripe is about the fumble across the goal line automatically being a turnover regardless of if the defense recovers it or if it goes out of bounds. That happens no other place on the field. Return the ball to the spot of the fumble and give it back to the offense like normal. The act of forcing a fumble shouldn't be rewarded with defensive possession since it immediately becomes a 50/50 ball.
I'd also like to see running backs flagged with facemask or hands to the face when a stiff-arm is applied to the defenders facemask. It's just as dangerous to the defender who is coming in to make the tackle when his head gets snapped back or turned abruptly.
I don't really mind the other rules that are in place. Someone is going to manipulate the rules however they are applied.
As many have said, my biggest gripe is about the fumble across the goal line automatically being a turnover regardless of if the defense recovers it or if it goes out of bounds. That happens no other place on the field. Return the ball to the spot of the fumble and give it back to the offense like normal. The act of forcing a fumble shouldn't be rewarded with defensive possession since it immediately becomes a 50/50 ball.
I'd also like to see running backs flagged with facemask or hands to the face when a stiff-arm is applied to the defenders facemask. It's just as dangerous to the defender who is coming in to make the tackle when his head gets snapped back or turned abruptly.
I don't really mind the other rules that are in place. Someone is going to manipulate the rules however they are applied.
Question of curiosity, regarding the fumble-into/out of end zone rule — did that come about partly to discourage "fumble-rooskie" (or whatever it's called), deliberate fumbling by offense to advance the ball? Or was it something else? I dislike the touchback regardless, but my view of how to revise it hinges a bit on why it was established.
You have to notify the ump within 10 seconds and initiate the challenge within 30 seconds. Normally they stand up on the step while the bench coach calls back to the clubhouse to chat with the guy in the clubhouse who has the replay setup.
They don't have all the time they want. They have to notify the umpire within 10 seconds after the play if they are considering challenging and then they have 30 seconds after the conclusion of the play to challenge. Considering how slow of a game baseball is, I don't think 30 seconds is out of line.
Whoops, IcSyU beat me to it.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
Knight got a national title out of that hesitation in 87. Losing to LSU in the Elite Eight, Knight screamed about a foul call, went to the scorers table, screamed some more, grabbed their desk phone and slammed it down on the table, never saw a call go against Indiana the rest of the game.
Hoosiers pull off the win, march on to New Orleans and win the whole thing. None of that happens if they call the much-deserved T.
Sure. Working and hassling the refs isn't a new art or anything. I just don't like it. I think it's a cheap tactic.
Not calling the T doesn't really have much to do with it. Izzo got the T in ISU's Elite Eight game while ISU was in control but the tenor of the officiating changed anyway and Michigan State cruised to the win.
Sorry to bring that up...
I like the 6 guys in the booth idea. But expand it to give them an option to abstain if they decide they really don't see it (the touchdown) well enough to make a call. It still goes to majority or call on the field.
The challenge thing, I think most coaches would save it until the last few minutes of the game and use it for an extra time out to stop the clock. The solution would be to also lose a time-out if the challenge is not confirmed the coaches way.
We have one of the worst offenders in all of college BB right here in our conference. There is a certain team that plays a type of "basketball" that should draw about 50 fouls a game with several of their players fouling out. But instead of that happening their coach harangues the officials from the opening tip, griping about every call or non-call and points out the foul discrepancy - a discrepancy which is justified. I am floored when the officials fall for the same thing in just about every game.
I tend to agree with video review time limit. However, I think 1 minute is just not long enough. Think how long it can take just to initially look at 5 different angles, and then ask for it to be slow, stop, back up, frame-by-frame etc. If we care enough to have video review, at least give the people sufficient time to see all the angles, and then match up multiple angles so you can use multiple angles simultaneously to determine something. Right now it at least *seems* like the "indisputable" evidence must be from a single angle.
College football does have a coach's challenge rule but it is rarely used. The coach calls a timeout and asks for the play to be reviewed. If his challenge is successful he is not charged the timeout and he can challenge a maximum of one more time in the game. If not successful his challenge is lost for the remainder of the game and he is charged for the timeout. I believe a coach's challenge was originally added for the 2006 season. If I remember correctly coach's challenges were only used like 2 times in all of the Big 12 conference during the 2016 season.
Also, when a review takes a longer time it is often because they have determined that the ball must come back or be placed at another point (like where a ball carrier is down rather than where an assumed fumble ended or vice versa). It takes time to figure out on what yard line the ball belongs, where between the hash marks it belongs and how much time should appear on the clock.
If we can allow 6 minutes for a media time out, why not allow a couple of minutes to get the game right. Or even better, if there is a review take the next media time out and announce the result after the time out is over. Then the next time there would be a longer media time out only take a 30 second time out or something like that. There is plenty of down time already, why not make it work for the game's advantage?
Ah, neat. I guess they have a better system than I realized. I do think it's silly that they pause the game so the team can review the replay and figure out if they want to challenge. Though, I suppose football does the same thing, it's just not as visible as the thumbs up/down from the assistant manager as it is in baseball.
Yeah probably not fans. But maybe the media? It'd be interesting to read an article explaining how Montgomery's fumble passed the plane of the endzone was not a TD.
If that was the original intent, then it makes it worse IMO. The only reason I could envision an offensive player intentionally fumbling a ball forward into an end zone is on 4th down when they have already been stopped. Otherwise they are just gambling with points.
I'd be happy just knowing the coaches were getting that information, I honestly don't know if that happens now though.
Interesting but terrible idea. Interference is already very debatable as to whether it's offensive or defensive. Teams would end up getting screwed out of TDs all the time if their receiver even touches the DB. And you'd have DBs initiating contact to bait receivers into retaliating and causing a turnover.
If the offense is on the 1 yard line, there's a much higher probability that they are going to get a TD anyways, so why not try and get the WR to interfere with you and raise your chance to get a turnover exponentially.
It would lead to tons of controversial calls favoring one team or player more than others. Officials would have WAY more ability to impact the outcome of the game than they should as well. I think we should try to decrease the amount of impact bad officiating has rather than increase the impact.
