Down by contact.

[Daseal]

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.

That's what I doubt.

[John Hasbrouck]

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

[offiss]

Originally Posted by 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.

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!

[John Hasbrouck]

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

[Uncle Kracker]

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.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by 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!

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?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Daseal

That's what I doubt.

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.

[FRPLG]

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.

[Daseal]

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.

[FRPLG]

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.

[SmootSmack]

Here's an update for you guys:

http://sportsline.com/nfl/story/8320716

[Daseal]

Christ, a good majority and still failed. BOOOOOO

[offiss]

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.

[FRPLG]

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?

[John Hasbrouck]

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