What is becoming of the NFL?

[pittbull]

The "Ice Bowl" was one of the NFL's legendary games. There have been many such games over the past 50 years, but this is the second week in a row a game was decided by a controversial call, and just two of many, many over the past few years. Year-in, year-out we can go down a list of terrible, confusing, controversial calls.

How do you create excitement, stoke rivalries, draw in new fans and not lose existing fans when officials decide the outcomes of games as much as the players on the field.

I really think this is a huge problem for the NFL. As a lifelong fan going back before our very first SB...I've lost much interest. I'll never totally tune out the Steelers because I have invested so much of my life into them, the game is a part of me...but my interest and dedication have taken a serious blow. But how do you draw in the young kid that's still trying to figure out if he likes baseball, basketball, hockey, or even...God forbid, soccer more than this game that isn't always decided by the players.

The NFL needs to shape up. They're still reaping the benefits and pulling massive profits at the expense of the future.

I've ALWAYS been a supporter of instant replay, but I really think just eliminating it completely would be a positive improvement.

 

[bmoritz]

How would instant replay being eliminated be an improvement? Overturning it was the RIGHT CALL! It was not a catch!

 

[TDX27]

Replay helped make the right call based on Goddells current NFL. The rule sucks *** and should be changed back but then you make the officials have to make a decision on each catch.

 

[pittbull]

I'm not disputing any call. Not the point. Without instant replay the refs make split decision calls, and that's that. There is no more countless reviews and second guessing. It wouldn't make the calls any more right or wrong, but you live with the official word and move on.

How many games...prior to instant replay can you say the refs decided the outcome of the game?

 

[pittbull]

Again, not about any one play. The point is officials deciding the outcome of games. I would also argue, without instant replay the original rules for what is and what isn't a reception wouldn't have been changed. The ability to slow the action down to frame by frame examination HAS NOT made the game better.

 

[Supersteeler]

How would instant replay being eliminated be an improvement? Overturning it was the RIGHT CALL! It was not a catch!

Only in Roger's new, bullshit, ****** up league is that not a catch. Anywhere else in America it is.

 

[stillwright]

I'm not disputing any call. Not the point. Without instant replay the refs make split decision calls, and that's that. There is no more countless reviews and second guessing. It wouldn't make the calls any more right or wrong, but you live with the official word and move on.

How many games...prior to instant replay can you say the refs decided the outcome of the game?

I was saying the exact same thing to my brother today about getting rid of the instant replay. I never thought I would say that. I also am losing interest in the game. I use to watch any game that was on the TV. Anymore it is just the Steelers. I caught a few plays of each game this week end but really don't care who wins or losses anymore. The game is drawing in the casual fan while losing the die heart fan. The NFL is making more money now so they don't care.

 

[stillwright]

Only in Roger's new, bullshit, ****** up league is that not a catch. Anywhere else in America it is.

In College? Yep. I have never really been a big College football fan but I would love it if the NFL adopted most of there rules for the game. Even the the one foot thing.

 

[Supersteeler]

In College? Yep. I have never really been a big College football fan but I would love it if the NFL adopted most of there rules for the game. Even the the one foot thing.

It's a catch in High School ball too.....and Middle School ball for that matter. Only the NFL with their high and mighty "reinvent the wheel" blowhards, they have managed to **** up common sense plays.

 

[SteelerSask2]

I don't like when a play is made and then you have to wait 10 seconds to 7 minutes to enjoy it between the penalties and the reviews. I thought it was the correct call according to the rules. I just think they are looking to hard at this stuff and ruining the product. That was a spectacular catch overturned on a technicality. There was a ref in perfect position to make the call but apparently he doesn't know the rule I guess.

 

[pittbull]

Instant replay also gave us the tuck rule. I don't think there was a person in America (including Pats fans) that would have disputed the original fumble call. But again...in what might have been the beginning of a new area...the refs changed the outcome of that game.

 

[Coryea]

how about we change the rule, not instant replay?

 

[Confluence]

Back when the ground couldn't cause a fumble, it was much easier to determine what a catch really was.....

 

[Coryea]

Going by the rule that was not a catch, but IMO the rule should be, in this case, Bryant caught the ball, was touched by the defender, came down and his elbow hit the ground while he still had possession of the ball, so he should be down right there. Similar to a RB getting hit, his elbow touching down, then the ball coming out. He's ruled down by contintact.

 

[Coryea]

Of course we all saw this 9 years ago, when Troy picked off Manning, had the ball did a complete roll on the ground, had one foot down and a knee down when he dropped the ball, incomplete.

 

[Punxsutawney]

Of course we all saw this 9 years ago, when Troy picked off Manning, had the ball did a complete roll on the ground, had one foot down and a knee down when he dropped the ball, incomplete.

Troy actually completed, by the rules, the process of the catch. He lost control only after he attempted to get up and run with the ball.

Bryant did not.

The Polamalu play may have been the worst call, relative to situation in the game, in NFL history.

 

[Steeltime]

I don't like when a play is made and then you have to wait 10 seconds to 7 minutes to enjoy it between the penalties and the reviews.

Arguably, the 2 greatest plays in Super Bowl history?

2. The Stonio catch - took forever, due to replay, thereby stealing the magic of the moment.
1. The Harrison interception return - took forever, due to replay, thereby stealing the magic of the moment.

@#$% replay, in the ***, with a barb-wire wrapped cactus.

 

[insaniti]

I'm not disputing any call. Not the point. Without instant replay the refs make split decision calls, and that's that. There is no more countless reviews and second guessing. It wouldn't make the calls any more right or wrong, but you live with the official word and move on.

How many games...prior to instant replay can you say the refs decided the outcome of the game?

So replay gets the call right according the rules, HOWEVER you think that it was decided by the refs because they got the call right? Had there been no instant replay with the same rules we have now, and they don't reverse the call, wouldn't the game still have been decided on the refs?

Fact of the matter is that game was over the instant DeMarco Murray fumbled the ball in the third quarter. It changed everything. That one call didn't decide the game, how the cowboys had played prior to that call is what decided the game.

 

[bmoritz]

Respectfully, I don't get the logic. So you trust the refs to make the right call to begin with, with nothing to check them? Doesn't make sense to me. I think the catch rule is stupid, that has nothing to do with replay. Frankly, I agree with Belicheat (UGH!) that EVERYTHING should be reviewable. Instant replay is not the problem, stupid rules and incompetent refs are.

 

[antdrewjosh]

If it was a catch in the 50's 60's 70's 80's 90's should be a catch now. He caught it and put it away. Catch. I hate the cowboys and glad they lost the way they did. But that was a catch.. Roger and his bullshit.

 

[pittbull]

So replay gets the call right according the rules, HOWEVER you think that it was decided by the refs because they got the call right? Had there been no instant replay with the same rules we have now, and they don't reverse the call, wouldn't the game still have been decided on the refs? .

No. The point I was trying to make without writing a book is...in a theoretical way, yes the call/non call has the same impact, but that's not what the game is remembered for. Replay has created an NFL that games are now remembered for the impact of a call. That's why I mentioned the original Ice Bowl...when we look back at the annals of the NFL we remember great games for the games, the conditions, for the events of the game. Replay has created the reality that games are now being remembered more and more for the controversy rather than the play. The diehards now go to work on Monday and the conversation is more about the calls and lack of calls instead of the virtues of the game.

Even the Immaculate Reception...although there is no conclusive evidence that the ball didn't touch Frenchy Fuqua, or hit the ground before Franco caught it...given the refs track record, it's quite possible the call would be different today. Today we remember that play for the improbability, the magic, the excitement that launched the Steelers from perennial losers to a dynasty. Today, the game would be dissected over and over again losing the (as steeltime said) "magic of the moment."

I don't watch many games not involving the Steelers, but a quick list of game I remember for controversy created by instant replay or the refs affecting the outcome regardless of whether the call was right or wrong.

The Tuck rule
Troy's interception against the colts
The game...I think it was the Chargers and Bronco that Hochuli made a terribly wrong call, but it couldn't be overturned because the play was already called dead. (now this kinda make my point...I don't remember anything about the details of the game, but I remember there was a huge controversial play)
Santonio's SB catch
The Calvin Johnson rule
Last week's Cowboys/Lions game

The list could go on and on and on. It's impossible for many fans to think about those games without remembering the controversy. It should be about the game, not the officiating. THAT is the point of the post.

 

[GRBman]

First of all the rule is dumb...used to be the ref looked at the play, determined if he had control of the ball (yes) and if he got two feet down (yes)... yep, it's a catch...

Now it is, did he catch it, did he get two feet down, did he make a "football move", did he go to the ground, did he control the ball all the way to the ground, did the ground cause the ball to move, did he use the restroom, did he have a sammich before the game?

Too damn complicated. Dez Bryant caught the ball, took THREE steps then lunged toward the goal line. At that point he was a RUNNER, not a receiver. IMO, it should have been a completed ball (even with the rules)...first and goal Dallas.


There are a lot of rules the NFL needs to eliminate, and they need to just apply basic rules at the discretion of the officials. You don't need "targeting" penalties, if the CB or Safety launches into a receiver's head, then it is unnecessary roughness. You don't need to say "head or neck area." You know when a guy is intentionally trying to injure another player. You don't need "illegal contact" rules...if the CB's are holding the receivers...just call holding. Not that complicated.

The ONE RULE that I absolutely hate the most is the "down by contact" rule. In every other level of football when you go to the ground you're down. Only in the NFL do you need to be hit while on the ground to be considered "down." I understand that people want to be able to see their players stumble, roll around, get up and continue playing...but these are pros...don't stumble and trip over the 30-yard-line. Stay on your feet. I absolutely despise watching QB's be able to slide without contact, but RB's get drilled on every play... I've even seen WR's go down on a diving catch and get back up, but upon further review...oh, the defender's shoe-lace brushed his backside...he's down right there. Stupid rule.

 

[insaniti]

No. The point I was trying to make without writing a book is...in a theoretical way, yes the call/non call has the same impact, but that's not what the game is remembered for. Replay has created an NFL that games are now remembered for the impact of a call. That's why I mentioned the original Ice Bowl...when we look back at the annals of the NFL we remember great games for the games, the conditions, for the events of the game. Replay has created the reality that games are now being remembered more and more for the controversy rather than the play. The diehards now go to work on Monday and the conversation is more about the calls and lack of calls instead of the virtues of the game.

Even the Immaculate Reception...although there is no conclusive evidence that the ball didn't touch Frenchy Fuqua, or hit the ground before Franco caught it...given the refs track record, it's quite possible the call would be different today. Today we remember that play for the improbability, the magic, the excitement that launched the Steelers from perennial losers to a dynasty. Today, the game would be dissected over and over again losing the (as steeltime said) "magic of the moment."

I don't watch many games not involving the Steelers, but a quick list of game I remember for controversy created by instant replay or the refs affecting the outcome regardless of whether the call was right or wrong.

The Tuck rule
Troy's interception against the colts
The game...I think it was the Chargers and Bronco that Hochuli made a terribly wrong call, but it couldn't be overturned because the play was already called dead. (now this kinda make my point...I don't remember anything about the details of the game, but I remember there was a huge controversial play)
Santonio's SB catch
The Calvin Johnson rule
Last week's Cowboys/Lions game

The list could go on and on and on. It's impossible for many fans to think about those games without remembering the controversy. It should be about the game, not the officiating. THAT is the point of the post.

Your argument still doesn't make sense. What are you against? Replay? The refs? The game Hochuli made the call had nothing to do with instant replay, that was just a human error that he fessed up to immediately! The Lions Cowboys game was again not an instant replay thing. Controversy is what sells, it's what generates hits to websites, the media drives this and makes things larger than they actually are. Has nothing to do with the game itself, but how the media and instant news has changed the way the game has looked.

There has always been controversy in the game, but before twitter, instagram, facebook, and other social media there wasn't the outlet for it to be as widespread. Just go with Steelers history, and you don't need to go back to the 70's, just the 90's during Cowher's coaching era. You had several controversial calls, think of Cowher shoving the pic of 11 men on the field in the refs pocket as he ran off. Think of all the apology letters he received the monday after games.

It's not the game, it's not instant replay, it's not even the refs... it's social media and the domino effect that come with having news instantly to millions of people. I was away and not able to watch the game, but the moment that play happened, I had several tweets, facebook posts, and text messages. I knew what happened before I had even seen the play.

 

[Drink IRON City]

IT's both. The instant replay is a form of social media as to the nfl twitter ect. Both are electronic outlets of the game. Instant replay, has morphed the game, the bigger the game & play, the bigger the memory of the outcome. Without one, you wouldn't have the other. No wife, no alomony check as to no alomony check, no wife. Kapish????



Salute the nation

 

[pittbull]

Controversy is what sells, it's what generates hits to websites, the media drives this and makes things larger than they actually are. Has nothing to do with the game itself, but how the media and instant news has changed the way the game has looked.

THAT! That is precisely my argument. Hence the title of thread, "What has the NFL become". You think controversy is a good thing. I don't. We disagree on this point. I want to watch the game for the pureness of the sport, not the twitter hits, talking head commentaries, fantasy stats or the increased web-traffic. I'm old school when it comes to football. Give me a muddy field, a slippery ball, hard hits, and low scores.

My argument makes perfect sense. You just disagree with my premise.