Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Opinions: reviewable penalty/non-penalty calls


Jmac

Recommended Posts

Terrible officiating. Wouldn't it make sense to add reviewable penalty/non-penalty calls to the game ? Maybe one or two reviews per side per game. Letting the game be decided by terrible and missed calls is unacceptable. Not talking just about just the NFC playoff game, but many games are lost to terrible calls/non-calls.....what you got?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there should be a way to challenge penalties, but I'm not sure where we draw the line. Interference? Sure. Holding? They could call that almost every play.

I definitely think cameras on the first down markers for every game and there should be chips inside the footballs to determine where the ball is in the field of play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't make them reviewable. It's part of the game to have human error reffing and it generally all evens out. Would only slow the game down more and frankly wouldn't solve anything, there'd still be a ton of controversial stuff on review...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, GOOGLE JIM BOB COOTER said:

if you want reviewable penalties then why not just go all in and get the refs off the field and in a box with multiple camera angles to make calls in real time. the league certainly has the resources for it.

Box review every play, Imagine the potential commercial profits

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, GOOGLE JIM BOB COOTER said:

if you want reviewable penalties then why not just go all in and get the refs off the field and in a box with multiple camera angles to make calls in real time. the league certainly has the resources for it.

This is probably the first thing you have ever said that was not complete horseshit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jmac said:

Terrible officiating. Wouldn't it make sense to add reviewable penalty/non-penalty calls to the game ? Maybe one or two reviews per side per game. Letting the game be decided by terrible and missed calls is unacceptable. Not talking just about just the NFC playoff game, but many games are lost to terrible calls/non-calls.....what you got?

The game would last all day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet if you review penalties on every play,.. there are penalties on every play,. A lot of no calls would be called, a lot of calls might come back.

it would make for a 5 hour game though so they won’t— it would be slower than baseball,...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...