Down by contact.
 

According to John Clayton's latest article ([url]http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2016392&num=2[/url]) the NFL owners plan on changing down by contact. Personally I hope it's challengable because we've lost some key fumbles because of this rule. I think if you can change the play to be correct, do it!

[QUOTE]2. Instant replay: Now that replay is locked in for five years – this is officially year two of the five-year commitment – it's time to improve the system. The Competition Committee wants to eliminate the buzzer system between the head coaches and the referee. Too many times, the buzzer goes off and the ref has to stop the game and see if the coach has "buzzed" him. So, the committee wants to junk the sideline buzzer and stick with the red flags thrown by coaches. Makes sense. The buzzer is more of a distraction than an asset. That should pass simply. The trickier talk is whether to expand the types of reviewable plays. Coaches have been frustrated by the inadvertent whistles by officials for years. What the committee wants owners to consider is expanding replay to include "down by contact" plays. As the rule stands now, any time an official rules a player down by contact the play is dead, and can't be reviewed, even if it was an obvious fumble. By reviewing the down-by-contact plays, referees can make sure the right team ends up with the ball in case of fumbles. Advancement of the ball after a down-by-contact play won't be allowed, but an adjustment such as this would be an upgrade.[/QUOTE]

Re: Down by contact.
 

now we need pass interference as challengeable and we'll be set... quite possibly could have gone 8-8 if it was challengeable last year.

Re: Down by contact.
 

I have been saying it since they started it down by contact rule is a sham, and should be done away with.

Re: Down by contact.
 

The down by contact rule makes total sense. The problem is that the refs are too moronic and stuck in their ways to enforce the rule appropriately. There are way too many of them blowing whistles when they should let the play come to an obvious end before blowing the whistle. If they could be trusted not to negate at least one fumble a game this way then the NFL wouldn't need to enact some rule that might blow up in their faces.

Re: Down by contact.
 

Why shouldn't you be able to challenge any play you want? Considering you have 2 (or 3 if you get the first two correct) challenges it won't slow the game down any more. Plus, some of the most crucial plays in the game are down by contact plays and PI calls.

Re: Down by contact.
 

I wish we could have challenged the play calling when S......r was here.

Re: Down by contact.
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]Why shouldn't you be able to challenge any play you want? Considering you have 2 (or 3 if you get the first two correct) challenges it won't slow the game down any more. Plus, some of the most crucial plays in the game are down by contact plays and PI calls.[/QUOTE]
I agree... I'll never understand why exactly they are willing to admit that the refs make mistakes but only some of those are fixable. People like to say that there are judgement calls, like PI for example. True, at full speed PI is pretty subjective. But the rules on PI are pretty straight forward and at review speed it is usually very easy to determine whether a guy was intereferred with or not. It is only subjective at full speed.

Re: Down by contact.
 

Everything should be challengeable. The game would be much more of a chess game. You only get two so you have to use them wisely. I don't about you guys but I thought Gibbs and company were horrible when it came to challenging calls last year.

Re: Down by contact.
 

[quote]I wish we could have challenged the play calling when S......r was here.[/quote]

Because the playcalling last year made Spurriers pale in comparison!

Re: Down by contact.
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG]The down by contact rule makes total sense. The problem is that the refs are too moronic and stuck in their ways to enforce the rule appropriately. There are way too many of them blowing whistles when they should let the play come to an obvious end before blowing the whistle. If they could be trusted not to negate at least one fumble a game this way then the NFL wouldn't need to enact some rule that might blow up in their faces.[/QUOTE]


What you have to understand about the DBC rule FRPLG is that it's not caused by an early whistle it's a judgement call by the referee on when he want's the play stopped. In other word's he's given the ability to essentially control the outcome of a game by whom he award's the ball to anytime something happen's that he may not like he can stop the play and say down by contact. As well he can blow the whistle after a turnover and and stop the play and because he stopped the play can overturn the turnover, if they take away the ability to do that the only way to overturn a big play is if he actually blow's the whistle to soon which is a common misconception, because when you watch the replay's with full audio most of the time the ref's are pretty good at making sure the play is fully over before blowing the whistle, and even if they blow the whistle prematuraly if it's deemed that the ball came out before the whistle the recovery should stand, advancement of the ball should be disallowed but taking away turnovers can break a team and change the outcome of a game in a hurry, let them play let instant replay sort it out if need be.

I also wouldn't punish a team by taking away a time out when a particular replay is inconclusive, it's not the challenging team's fault if the camera angle is not sufficient, they could very well be right it's just not visible by replay. I would give each team 2 challenges and so long as you are right you can continue to challenge as many play's as you want, even during the final 2 minutes, I am very leary of that rule and why at the most crucial part of the game the NFL say's sorry no challenges we will take it from here? So long as you have a time out you should be able to challenge.

Re: Down by contact.
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]now we need pass interference as challengeable and we'll be set... quite possibly could have gone 8-8 if it was challengeable last year.[/QUOTE]

Amen. IMO the PI calls in the NFL need the most immediate attention. Pass interference is a totally subjective call and the consequences are huge and game altering (see 1st Dallas game 2004).

Re: Down by contact.
 

[QUOTE=offiss]What you have to understand about the DBC rule FRPLG is that it's not caused by an early whistle it's a judgement call by the referee on when he want's the play stopped. In other word's he's given the ability to essentially control the outcome of a game by whom he award's the ball to anytime something happen's that he may not like he can stop the play and say down by contact. As well he can blow the whistle after a turnover and and stop the play and because he stopped the play can overturn the turnover, if they take away the ability to do that the only way to overturn a big play is if he actually blow's the whistle to soon which is a common misconception, because when you watch the replay's with full audio most of the time the ref's are pretty good at making sure the play is fully over before blowing the whistle, and even if they blow the whistle prematuraly if it's deemed that the ball came out before the whistle the recovery should stand, advancement of the ball should be disallowed but taking away turnovers can break a team and change the outcome of a game in a hurry, let them play let instant replay sort it out if need be.

I also wouldn't punish a team by taking away a time out when a particular replay is inconclusive, it's not the challenging team's fault if the camera angle is not sufficient, they could very well be right it's just not visible by replay. I would give each team 2 challenges and so long as you are right you can continue to challenge as many play's as you want, even during the final 2 minutes, I am very leary of that rule and why at the most crucial part of the game the NFL say's sorry no challenges we will take it from here? So long as you have a time out you should be able to challenge.[/QUOTE]
Not exactly sure what you are getting at with that first paragraph versus what I said???
What the owners are discussing is specifically tied to early whistles. DBC in a broad sense is reviewable as it is often difficult for referees to determine DBC in a large crowd of players. In these situations refs are genrally good at letting the play come to a complete end. What we are talking about here is early whistles that theoretically end a play BEFORE it should have been ended. Everyone knows the play was ended early but there is nothing to be done because the thought goes that once a whistle is blown the players stop playing and the play is irrevocably changed in an undeterminable fashion. The new rule would allow for a fumble to occur after a whistle and still be awarded to the recovering team. Sounds great but what happens when some players start ignoring the whistle and others dont? They'll be injuries. The whistle is there to stop everything immediatley for a reason. SO that everuone knows to lay off the full bore action. If officials could do a better job of not ending plays prematurely then there would be little need for a rule which could lead to increased injuries.

Re: Down by contact.
 

I doubt that, FRPLG. Even with the whistles you see guys struggling on the bottom of the pile for a ball. The refs have to come peel them off one at a time. When it's an obvious fumble (any time we've played Tiki Barber or Stephen Davis) then it should be returnable. I agree with Offiss when they come back and say they didn't have the correct shot to view a play, the team should NOT be charged a time out. I've seen so many bad calls unchallengable because of down by contact it made me sick!

Re: Down by contact.
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]I doubt that, FRPLG. Even with the whistles you see guys struggling on the bottom of the pile for a ball. The refs have to come peel them off one at a time. When it's an obvious fumble (any time we've played Tiki Barber or Stephen Davis) then it should be returnable. I agree with Offiss when they come back and say they didn't have the correct shot to view a play, the team should NOT be charged a time out. I've seen so many bad calls unchallengable because of down by contact it made me sick![/QUOTE]thats a damn good idea..do not charg a team a to for "inconclusive evidence"

Re: Down by contact.
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]I doubt that, FRPLG. Even with the whistles you see guys struggling on the bottom of the pile for a ball. The refs have to come peel them off one at a time. When it's an obvious fumble (any time we've played Tiki Barber or Stephen Davis) then it should be returnable. I agree with Offiss when they come back and say they didn't have the correct shot to view a play, the team should NOT be charged a time out. I've seen so many bad calls unchallengable because of down by contact it made me sick![/QUOTE]
What do you doubt? Does anyone read around here? My point is not neccesarily that the rule shouldn't be implemented but that a better fix would be to get better officals who don't suck donkey balls. Two people have now made arguments that have basically nothing to do with what I posted...jeez.

Re: Down by contact.
 

[quote]Sounds great but what happens when some players start ignoring the whistle and others dont? They'll be injuries. The whistle is there to stop everything immediatley for a reason. SO that everuone knows to lay off the full bore action. If officials could do a better job of not ending plays prematurely then there would be little need for a rule which could lead to increased injuries.[/quote]

That's what I doubt.

Re: Down by contact.
 

The buzzer should be done away with. Bown by contact fumbles plus pass interference both should reviewable..

Re: Down by contact.
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG]What do you doubt? Does anyone read around here? My point is not neccesarily that the rule shouldn't be implemented but that a better fix would be to get better officals who don't suck donkey balls. Two people have now made arguments that have basically nothing to do with what I posted...jeez.[/QUOTE]


Here's the problem down by contact is not caused by an early whistle which is what you keep stating, because the ruling would be a premature whistle or stoppage of play which is not what takes place, it's the ref making a bogus judgement call essentially saying he just decieded that the play was over and not allowing a replay, circumventing instant replay, down by contact is the most ridiculous rule imaginable, reason? What player is not down by contact? So if the ball is fumbled obviously the player wasen't down by contact, the biggest problem with this is I see time and again the ball comes out, there's a mad scramble with no whistle and the ref's deciede to call the play down by contact instead of allowing the outcome to stand for no particular reason other than take a play away from someone, as daseal stated when have you ever seen the ball come out and there's no mad scramble for it regardless of the whistle? Never! And how many pile up's have you seen where the play was blown dead but the ref's still don't know who has possession because they can't see to the bottom of the pile, shouldn't the ball go back to the offense under that circumstance because posession hasen't been determined before the whistle has blown? So there is no disadvantage to either team regardless if the whistle has been blown early or not both team's are going after that ball, so if the ball comes out before the player is down then it should be reviewable, the ref's almost never blow the whistle until the player is obviously down which mean's almost all fumbles happen before the whistle blow's, so even if a whistle blow's after a fumble and before a recovery the recovery should still stand, I agree with you that the ref's are horrible but there is a reason that a 50 or 60 year old man who's eyesite and reflexes are on the decline, along with a rule that circumvent's a replay that would get the call right exist, the NFL wants it that way, remind's me of the WWF!

Re: Down by contact.
 

Down by contact is stupid. Suppose to hold ball all the way through play.

Re: Down by contact.
 

I would like to see the NFL to go to the 15 yard penalty on pass interference calls. Like the do in college.

The downfall would be that CBs would mugg the WR if they thought they were getting beat. But still, its better than a fricken 45 yard penalty.

Re: Down by contact.
 

[QUOTE=offiss]Here's the problem down by contact is not caused by an early whistle which is what you keep stating, because the ruling would be a premature whistle or stoppage of play which is not what takes place, it's the ref making a bogus judgement call essentially saying he just decieded that the play was over and not allowing a replay, circumventing instant replay, down by contact is the most ridiculous rule imaginable, reason? What player is not down by contact? So if the ball is fumbled obviously the player wasen't down by contact, the biggest problem with this is I see time and again the ball comes out, there's a mad scramble with no whistle and the ref's deciede to call the play down by contact instead of allowing the outcome to stand for no particular reason other than take a play away from someone, as daseal stated when have you ever seen the ball come out and there's no mad scramble for it regardless of the whistle? Never! And how many pile up's have you seen where the play was blown dead but the ref's still don't know who has possession because they can't see to the bottom of the pile, shouldn't the ball go back to the offense under that circumstance because posession hasen't been determined before the whistle has blown? So there is no disadvantage to either team regardless if the whistle has been blown early or not both team's are going after that ball, so if the ball comes out before the player is down then it should be reviewable, the ref's almost never blow the whistle until the player is obviously down which mean's almost all fumbles happen before the whistle blow's, so even if a whistle blow's after a fumble and before a recovery the recovery should still stand, I agree with you that the ref's are horrible but there is a reason that a 50 or 60 year old man who's eyesite and reflexes are on the decline, along with a rule that circumvent's a replay that would get the call right exist, the NFL wants it that way, remind's me of the WWF![/QUOTE]
DAMNIT! I AM TALKING ABOUT EARLY WHISTLES! Read the damn article and read my posts. I don't give a flying f%^$ about DBC contact as YOU are talking about. I am talking about early whistles. Are you all just trying to start arguments?

Re: Down by contact.
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]That's what I doubt.[/QUOTE]
What do you doubt about it? You're being naive if you think that this is not going to happen. Officials already have trouble getting play stopped with the whistles. Imagine when the players have REASON to continue battling after the whistle. Chaos.

Re: Down by contact.
 

I'll tell you where you all are not understanding the points being discussed.
"Coaches have been frustrated by the inadvertent whistles by officials for years. What the committee wants owners to consider is expanding replay to include "down by contact" plays. As the rule stands now, any time an official rules a player down by contact the play is dead, and can't be reviewed, even if it was an obvious fumble."
His use of 'down by contact' is misleading. DBC in general is the term used to determine when a player is down and cannot fumble anymore. In absence of an early whistle a play can, and often is, reviewable under current rules as long as the play and fumble wre allowed to continue. It is OFTEN that a whistle is blown that ends a play prematurely and renders the ensuing fumble invalid. My point is that officials should do a better job of letting plays move foward and always err on the side of the fumble becasue that is reviewable. Making a rule that will potentially create more room for player injury is a bad idea when the problem can be fixed with better performance.

Re: Down by contact.
 

Ref shouldn't touch the whistle till whoever had the ball is clearly down with possession. I've seen so many times someone falling down, dropping the ball, and they are on their whistles right away. The guy's down, sure. Too bad he didn't have the ball. It should be reviewable in every case.

Also, FRPLG. You're the one getting upset and bent out of shape, don't blame us for trying to start arguments.

Re: Down by contact.
 

When people are clearly either ignoring the point of discussion or are too aloof to even notice and I am trying to make a point I am going to try and set them straight. I made several posts pointing out what the basis of discussion was and that point was subsequently ignored. I have no problem with the discussion taking full shape and expanding but when I am being challenged on something I want to make sure at least we're talking about the same thing. In every instance where someone challenged me they were talking about something entirely different than I was and when I pointed this out it was ignored. What other conclusion am I to derive than that people are simply trying to argue. If you want to discuss INADVERTENT WHISTLES I am all for it. I would even say our brief mentions of the injury aspect was a solid discussion but the other stuff is out of the realm of what I was trying to converse about. If people want to challenge me that is great. It was I like about this place. Everyone can discuss and have different opinions and it makes everyone of us more informed and better able to understand our favorite team and league. But please don't challenge me for something I am not saying.

Re: Down by contact.
 

Here's an update for you guys:

[url]http://sportsline.com/nfl/story/8320716[/url]

Re: Down by contact.
 

Christ, a good majority and still failed. BOOOOOO

Re: Down by contact.
 

I would like to know who actually would vote against it? Someone out there enjoy's the stupidity of these officials and doesn't want a rule to overide their mistakes.

Re: Down by contact.
 

There are I think 5 teams who automatically vote against anything replay related because they are opposed to the entire idea of replay. They can usually convince at least 4 other teams to voe with them. I guess that's what they did in this case. Mainly it sounds like they were worried about injuries. Wonder where I have heard that before?

Re: Down by contact.
 

The owners who voted aganist it have there heads up thier ,<.>?/

Re: Down by contact.
 

I suppose the bottom line is they strickly offense minded. Anything for the offense to keep the ball and get points. It just seems things have been getting strange since the Arena league started.