I'm not going to lay any blame for yesterday's debacle on the officiating. Lord knows the Bears deserved to lose that game after blowing at least a dozen chances to ice it. Zero sacks in sixty-plus pass attempts pretty much says it all. But I do have some general advice for officials:
When in doubt about a fumble, DON'T BLOW THE PLAY DEAD. The Bears have been screwed twice already this season when clear fumbles on opponents' kickoff returns were ruled down. If there's any doubt about whether a fumble occurred, let the play go on until a ruling can be made on who has recovered. Rule that the play wasn't a fumble after the fact if you wish. Then the play may be challenged and if you were wrong and it was a fumble (as with those kickoff returns, or with the Hochuli play), the ball may given to the proper team. This is so obvious, that I can't believe it isn't already policy in NFL.
Immaculate Grid: Rarity Score 5 Edition
8 months ago
3 comments:
Hey you -- How are you?
I've taken the liberty of adding you (and Mr. Z.J. Mugildny) to my blog roll. Yay.
I was discussing this very subject with the other Sunday barflies this past weekend. I agree wholeheartedly. I believe that referees are supposed to blow non-fumble plays (down-by-contacts, incomplete passes, etc.) dead immediately. But as you point out, this is a stupid policy for borderline-fumble plays. Let the play finish, grant possession, and then THEN make a ruling. It might seem strange at first to, say, give the D possession on a fumble only to call an incomplete pass, but everybody would get used to it, and it would be far superior to the current system in which there is no way to challenge bad calls.
On another football note, OT rules need to be changed, pronto. It is SO anti-climatic to watch teams drive 40 yards, or so, run a few dives into the line and then put up the 45 yard FG attempt. Overtime is the ultimate letdown for what are usually great games. It is a completely outdated system. The advances in field goal kicking over the past 50 years have made overtime weak.
Instead of the current system, I suggest either playing an abbreviated quarter, or playing first team to 5. This would force teams to go for the end zone, which would make it much more exciting.
Reg- I'm doing well. In the middle of another busy semester with the added issue of a job search thrown in. Thanks for the link.
ZJ- The Internets seem to believe that the receiving team wins barely a majority (52%) of the time in overtime games. For me, uncertainty about who will win makes any game exciting, even if the win comes on a field goal. I agree that first to 5 would make overtime even more compelling, but it would also lengthen games, which probably isn't too good for the players' health.
Post a Comment