Should Roughing/Spearing Penalties be Automatic Reviews

[cdumler7]

Is it really going to slow down the game if the upstairs booth that reviews all touchdowns and turnovers automatically looks at these kind of penalties? The refs after almost every penalty flag huddle for 30-60 seconds anyway to discuss the play and make a decision. Considering how quickly they can review plays today from the booth and even us as fans seeing it on the big board can see whether it was a penalty or not. To me this keeps the integrity of the game in the hands of the players to actually decide the football game.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

give the HCs another color flag & let them challenge two penalties a game. LOL

 

[Wolvie]

The league has to have these tough penalties to cover their asses from former players in lawsuits. This concussion stuff is the real deal, at least legally. If all of this talk picks up steam, the NFL could be in a world of hurt, and then the game that we have come to know and love would be a thing of the past. Especially once the bleeding heart politicians start to stick their noses into it and start grandstanding the issue for political points

 

[JDM]

Calling helmet to helmet on hits that aren't anything close doesn't cover anyone's asses.

 

[Breaker99]

LOL@Hawk fans still talking about that mediocre hit on Davis and showing youtube video's titles "the greatest hit of 2012"...




But seriously.......

Should this be a penalty? I don't think it should be. No way he could have stopped himself in time, how does he know he is going to drop it?

 

[Breaker99]

Calling helmet to helmet on hits that aren't anything close doesn't cover anyone's asses.

The problem is they aren't calling helmet to helmet contact, they are calling it every time a guys helmet snaps back, which can happen naturally if a guy takes a big hit to the chest/shoulders.


Like this...

whitner was fined 21,000 for that hit with his shoulder to a guys chest/shoulder area.... He pulls up and doesn't plow through the guy and they lowers his head into whitner causing it to snap back. B>S> if you ask me.

 

[Wazmankg]

no no no, fuck no.....are you guys for real?

I agree with rave. One of us must be drunk.

No penalty reviews. There are enough game stoppages as it is. The league reviews them later and if it's undeserving the player won't get fined. That's good enough. Why stop at roughing penalties ? You might as well review all PI as well. They often result in a lot more yardage and have a bigger impact on the game than a roughing penalty.

 

[cdumler7]

I agree with rave. One of us must be drunk.

No penalty reviews. There are enough game stoppages as it is. The league reviews them later and if it's undeserving the player won't get fined. That's good enough. Why stop at roughing penalties ? You might as well review all PI as well. They often result in a lot more yardage and have a bigger impact on the game than a roughing penalty.

Is it really that different timing wise for the refs to huddle together and talk for 30-60 seconds compared to just allowing the guy who is actually watching the video over and over from different angles to make the decision in the same amount of time?

 

[Wazmankg]

Is it really that different timing wise for the refs to huddle together and talk for 30-60 seconds compared to just allowing the guy who is actually watching the video over and over from different angles to make the decision in the same amount of time?

The same could be said of any penalty is my point. I don't see anything special about roughing/spearing/helmet-to-helmet, etc. with respect to allowing it to be reviewed. Fines are assessed, or not, by the league after further review. But those penalties themselves have no greater bearing on the outcome of the game than any other. Ejections are already reviewable. I just don't think that reviewing penalties is a line that should be crossed.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

The same could be said of any penalty is my point. I don't see anything special about roughing/spearing/helmet-to-helmet, etc. with respect to allowing it to be reviewed. Fines are assessed, or not, by the league after further review. But those penalties themselves have no greater bearing on the outcome of the game than any other. Ejections are already reviewable. I just don't think that reviewing penalties is a line that should be crossed.

yeah that would open pandoras box. because then the argument is well they review helmet to helmet hits so why not just review PI calls, which lead to reviewing this kinda call to that kinda call all the way down to reviewing a hold by a lineman!
Then Refs get worse at being a ref, because they don't really have to worry about making the right call because they have a fail safe in instant replay.

 

[Money]

The problem is they aren't calling helmet to helmet contact, they are calling it every time a guys helmet snaps back, which can happen naturally if a guy takes a big hit to the chest/shoulders.


Like this...

whitner was fined 21,000 for that hit with his shoulder to a guys chest/shoulder area.... He pulls up and doesn't plow through the guy and they lowers his head into whitner causing it to snap back. B>S> if you ask me.

Again...defenseless receiver. If he made a play on the ball, it wouldn't be a penalty. People can complain all they want, but eventually everyone will need to come to grips with the direction the NFL is going.

 

[JDM]

That does not resemble football any more.
You can't tell a defender he can't break up a pass.

 

[Money]

That does not resemble football any more.
You can't tell a defender he can't break up a pass.

There are different ways to break up a pass. On the Whitner play above, he could just as easily have made a play on the ball. He chose a different way, which happens to be a way the league doesn't want to see anymore.

 

[JDM]

Then it is not football. They have no right to pretend they are.

 

[Money]

Then it is not football. They have no right to pretend they are.

I hear you, but who exactly are you pissed at? Didn't the league just reach a $765 million settlement with thousands of ex-players about concussions? What the hell do you think the league is going to do?

 

[fastforward]

How many of the fines have occurred with the offending player attempting a wrap/tackle? How many of the fines have occurred with the offending player having both hands ahead of his own head? If a player hits a defenseless opponent in the head/neck area it's going to draw a flag, and likely a fine. The instructions given to officials are 'if in doubt - throw the flag'. If there were to be replays they would only be able to reverse calls if it was 100% certain that no foul had taken place. It's not worth the delay and the league reviews these penalties before sending out fines.

 

[JDM]

How many of the fines have occurred with the offending player attempting a wrap/tackle? How many of the fines have occurred with the offending player having both hands ahead of his own head? If a player hits a defenseless opponent in the head/neck area it's going to draw a flag, and likely a fine. The instructions given to officials are 'if in doubt - throw the flag'. If there were to be replays they would only be able to reverse calls if it was 100% certain that no foul had taken place. It's not worth the delay and the league reviews these penalties before sending out fines.

Less than a minute for a potentially game altering call. It should be absolute, but some of these are calls that one replay shows should get an official fired. They are that bad.

 

[Breaker99]

Again...defenseless receiver. If he made a play on the ball, it wouldn't be a penalty. People can complain all they want, but eventually everyone will need to come to grips with the direction the NFL is going.

OK, fine. But then how is this not a fine?

I don't think either of them should be a penalty. But no way that whitners hit was any more on a defenseless receiver than that hit on Davis, and the league came out and said it shouldn't have been a flag and didn't fine chancellor. Which I agree with, but if thats not a defenseless receiver, then either is Whitners...


I don't think there should be automatic review. I think a coach should be able to challenge it to give refs a chance to take a closer look. I think coaches should be allowed to use their allotted challenges on a lot more things..

 

[cdumler7]

The difference between this being reviewed and say a holding call or something along those lines is refs are never told to error on the side of caution when it comes to a holding call or pass interference. I don't mind those still standing. The league though has actually told officials "If in doubt throw the flag." Just like they are told with turnovers to error on the side of letting the play stand because all turnovers are reviewed now. If refs are told this then it should be up for review since they will call more plays because of the way the NFL wants to "protect" the players.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

OK, fine. But then how is this not a fine?

I don't think either of them should be a penalty. But no way that whitners hit was any more on a defenseless receiver than that hit on Davis, and the league came out and said it shouldn't have been a flag and didn't fine chancellor. Which I agree with, but if thats not a defenseless receiver, then either is Whitners...


I don't think there should be automatic review. I think a coach should be able to challenge it to give refs a chance to take a closer look. I think coaches should be allowed to use their allotted challenges on a lot more things..

both are illegal hits.
The whitner one was a penalty long before the helmet to helmet rule came in. You haven't been allowed to head the Receivers for awhile now. Not like the WR ducked into the hit. Shoulder to helmet elbow to helmet is all a penalty. Now this one on Davis was an actual Helmet to helmet hit that was missed by the refs. In fact what the defender did there is the epitome of the rule. A fine should have been levied. He launched himself with the crown of his helmet.