POLL Does Instant Replay make Refs worse?

[Schmoopy1000]

Do Refs just make a non call & rely on Instant Replay to straighten it out for them?
For instance
Turnovers with returns
Did he step out of bounds
Was the player down? (but kept running) Etc....

 

[Balljim55]

There would be way - way more bitching about the refs if instant replay were not around to correct mis-calls.

 

[Debbie Does]

Back when it was just a TV gimmick and not used for challenges or reviews, pretty much all the time the replay showed that the refs made the correct call. Now, I think a lot more calls are reversed, which tells me the refs are not as good as they used to be.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

There would be way - way more bitching about the refs if instant replay were not around to correct mis-calls.

not really my point. I am all good with letting a play extend so if need be use instant replay. But when a ref lets a turnover count or a TD or whatever. If there isnt inconclusive evidence to over turn they cant over turn it.
Let the play run its course if a ref isnt sure, but after talking or whatever call it like they think they should have, not just giving the turnover or the TD & simply hope for the best that Instant replay catches it.
I mean the refs have been god awful all year, but I really think they are just using Instant replay as a crutch to do their jobs for them.

I am all for Instant Replay, but I am also for the refs doing their actual job as well.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

Do Refs just make a non call & rely on Instant Replay to straighten it out for them?
For instance
Turnovers with returns
Did he step out of bounds
Was the player down? (but kept running) Etc....

Refs have been advised not to blow a play dead that could come with some question

Too many times in the past we have seen a fumbled returned for a TD, but the ref blows the play dead cause he felt that player was down

Replay shows he got it wrong, but the TD cant be granted

I think its the one good thing the league has done, any confusion, eat the whistle

 

[YankeeRebel]

I voted no I think it makes fans worse.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

Refs have been advised not to blow a play dead that could come with some question

Too many times in the past we have seen a fumbled returned for a TD, but the ref blows the play dead cause he felt that player was down

Replay shows he got it wrong, but the TD cant be granted

I think its the one good thing the league has done, any confusion, eat the whistle

like I said in the other post. I am all for letting the play extend if they are not sure.
the fumbled return for a TD lets say. then the refs get together & say no he was down. if that is what they really thought, that should be the call. Then it is up to the other team to challenge.
Let the play extend, but call what they really think.
So many times whatever the call on the field is will stand (not be confirmed) so to me it is important to call what they really think.

 

[Balljim55]

not really my point. I am all good with letting a play extend so if need be use instant replay. But when a ref lets a turnover count or a TD or whatever. If there isnt inconclusive evidence to over turn they cant over turn it.
Let the play run its course if a ref isnt sure, but after talking or whatever call it like they think they should have, not just giving the turnover or the TD & simply hope for the best that Instant replay catches it.
I mean the refs have been god awful all year, but I really think they are just using Instant replay as a crutch to do their jobs for them.

I am all for Instant Replay, but I am also for the refs doing their actual job as well.

In all honesty, the refs are in an impossible position. The rule book makes War and Peace look like a pamphlet, the game is being played faster than ever and we expect them to have the wisdom of Solomon combined with a superhuman ability to see through players.

Yeah they make some bonehead calls from time to time, and yeah the don't always seem to be consistent from game to game but that is one tough job if you look at it objectively.

 

[DutchBird]

Do Refs just make a non call & rely on Instant Replay to straighten it out for them?
For instance
Turnovers with returns
Did he step out of bounds
Was the player down? (but kept running) Etc....

I think it is the right decision - by and large - to let the play develop and rely on instant replay to see whether a player was down or not. In the past way too many occasions where the refs blew the play dead prematurely/incorrectly, costing teams points (and victories) as well as turnovers).

Even the blatant ones, where most observers are of the 'how did you not see that?!' opinion, would be no different than in the past. The big difference is that they now can be corrected.

 

[DutchBird]

like I said in the other post. I am all for letting the play extend if they are not sure.
the fumbled return for a TD lets say. then the refs get together & say no he was down. if that is what they really thought, that should be the call. Then it is up to the other team to challenge.
Let the play extend, but call what they really think.
So many times whatever the call on the field is will stand (not be confirmed) so to me it is important to call what they really think.

Problem is that often there are contradictory opinions (since all have different views), and the whole thing ends up being the ref with that is most forceful gets to decide the outcome, rather than the ref that is correct. One only has to look at Agholor's non-TD last night, only one ref (probably) was in a position to decide on the spot as the knee touching down could have been in his field of vision. Others were in NO position to see whether the knee touched down or not, and would have relied on supposition rather than fact.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

Problem is that often there are contradictory opinions (since all have different views), and the whole thing ends up being the ref with that is most forceful gets to decide the outcome, rather than the ref that is correct. One only has to look at Agholor's non-TD last night, only one ref (probably) was in a position to decide on the spot as the knee touching down could have been in his field of vision. Others were in NO position to see whether the knee touched down or not, and would have relied on supposition rather than fact.

perfect example of what i am saying.
I am pretty sure a ref was wanting to call him down there, but didnt. So let him run into the endzone but instead of hoping Instant replay can over rule it, why not after entering the endzone say no he was down way back there.
Letting a play extend just in case I dont have a problem with. Flat out calling against what they think just because they have instant replay is where the problem is. All it takes is the one ref to say no I saw his knee touch after the fact & they get the call right or atleast what they think is right. Instead they said let replay sort it out. Which in this one case was so obvious it didnt matter, but in many cases the call on the field does matter.

 

[Wolverine830872]

refs are just as incompetent with instant reply.

Just yesterday in the Cleveland Jacksonville game the ref blew a play dead as a defender was running a fumble back for an unopposed touchdown (seemingly, the guy was fat and probably pretty slow). The call on the field was then down by contact that was later overturned by replay. I watched it live and immediately thought that the ref fucked up big time.

Giving a ref instant replay is like giving an idiot a college education. It doesn't make them smarter, just gives them something to try to make them look competent.

 

[The Derski]

They think too much in general. Most the time the announcers can come to the correct conclusion in 1/10th the time it takes the refs.

They feel the pressure no doubt.

 

[VikingFan2k2]

They suck equally either way.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

I think it makes them second guess themselve's.