[Ztcgtqvb]

I wouldn't call it a new phenomenon.

LL Cool J is awesome.

[yxn2dC07]

So..."all"...doesn't mean..."all". It actually means, "some" or "most", right? I'm supposed to assume that finite words are not what they seem? There wasn't even a modifier to the turnovers for fucks sake like "controversial" or "debateable".

All turnovers are subject to review. Headlines are often truncated just to get a point across, even if it means sacrificing technical accuracy.

[Nundduedola]

So I'm blind too, can I now become a ref since they have absolutely no responsibility?

Well, for some reason they still have to walk to the sidelines, talk to the guys in the booth, watch the replay, watch it again, step out, talk on the headset some more, and then finally go to midfield and give his decision.

[cajonnmu]

The NFL doesn't sell ad space, and the TV contracts are already set.

But when the contracts are renewed, it will be for more money.

[Ztcgtqvb]

All turnovers are subject to review. Headlines are often truncated just to get a point across, even if it means sacrificing technical accuracy.

Thank you sir for explaining this. As I did not click the link in the OP, I only went off the headline and thread title where this is not implied.

[Nundduedola]

It will be interesting to see how officials handle it. Some would argue that officials will be more likely to rule something a turnover or a score since it will be automatically reviewed. On the other hand, that thinking ignores the standard of proof that must be there in order to overturn a call on the field.

Which makes me wonder -- in cases where officials cannot determine what happened (and it will likely go to review anyway) -- why not just let the booth reviewer determine it rather than even making a call. Is this where we're headed?

It's where we should've been this season.

A ref in the booth, in charge of all reviews. Or at NFL headquarters, like hockey does, even.

[Nundduedola]

But when the contracts are renewed, it will be for more money.

This would be true with or without more ad time.

However, it could be said that the networks would rather not have to preempt all of their programming...they'd prefer games to last between 3 hours and 3 hours and 15 minutes. Scheduling is a bitch as it is, and ads are usually sold with the programming in mind. It's hard to sell theoretical ad space in hopes that there will be a few extra reviews to fit them in to.

And the prune juice ads won't have the impact during football that they would for people who watch 60 Minutes, so it's not like they can just shift commercials over...

[nakeseireo]

Thank you sir for explaining this. As I did not click the link in the OP, I only went off the headline and thread title where this is not implied.

Seriously. I adore you.

[freeringsf]

As often as they get fumbles wrong, and coaches have to burn challenges to get them right, I don't see this as a bad thing

Probably brought up by now, but this doesn't help the true fumbles that aren't called on the field similar to how they don't help actual touchdowns that aren't called touchdowns.

Did they make the new rule that the booth guy decides all challenges? I heard that rule was going to be voted on. I definitely think an impartial booth official would be better at challenges than the guy who made the call on the field. The booth officials should also not be connected to the crew. Not sure if that is already a rule or not.

[Nundduedola]

"All turnovers to be reviewed"

Honestly. It has a finite word in it. "All".

I don't see how there is gray in the sentence at all.

I'll help you.

There's a booth official that will be monitoring all scoring plays(as was done last season) and turnovers.
If they feel that a turnover was questionable, they'll buzz the on field official for further review.

So rather than coaches having to challenge, they are being reviewed in the booth, and the game isn't stopped unless the result of the play was questionable.

Pretty simple, really.

[vNZsk39B]

Probably brought up by now, but this doesn't help the true fumbles that aren't called on the field similar to how they don't help actual touchdowns that aren't called touchdowns.

Did they make the new rule that the booth guy decides all challenges? I heard that rule was going to be voted on. I definitely think an impartial booth official would be better at challenges than the guy who made the call on the field. The booth officials should also not be connected to the crew. Not sure if that is already a rule or not.

You realize that you probably just made STW's head asplode, right?

[nakeseireo]

Probably brought up by now, but this doesn't help the true fumbles that aren't called on the field similar to how they don't help actual touchdowns that aren't called touchdowns.

Did they make the new rule that the booth guy decides all challenges? I heard that rule was going to be voted on. I definitely think an impartial booth official would be better at challenges than the guy who made the call on the field. The booth officials should also not be connected to the crew. Not sure if that is already a rule or not.

My guess is you are correct.

[Ztcgtqvb]

I'll help you.

There's a booth official that will be monitoring all scoring plays(as was done last season) and turnovers.
If they feel that a turnover was questionable, they'll buzz the on field official for further review.

So rather than coaches having to challenge, they are being reviewed in the booth, and the game isn't stopped unless the result of the play was questionable.

Pretty simple, really.

Now it is, thanks for explaining that link to me!

[Nundduedola]

Did they make the new rule that the booth guy decides all challenges? I heard that rule was going to be voted on. I definitely think an impartial booth official would be better at challenges than the guy who made the call on the field. The booth officials should also not be connected to the crew. Not sure if that is already a rule or not.

They unfortunately voted this down.

[Ztcgtqvb]

You realize that you probably just made STW's head asplode, right?

I don't read links and I barely read posts(as evidenced by the Sully/Vegas BOTP thread), so no, it didn't.

More than 1 line will usually get a skim from me.

[vNZsk39B]

I don't read links and I barely read posts(as evidenced by the Sully/Vegas BOTP thread), so no, it didn't.

More than 1 line will usually get a skim from me.

Then how is it you and I clash so often? Many, if not most of my posts are more than one line long.

[yxn2dC07]

Then how is it you and I clash so often? Many, if not most of my posts are more than one line long.

That's probably why. More than one line he skims the post and just takes out of it what he wants to take out of it.

[Ztcgtqvb]

Then how is it you and I clash so often? Many, if not most of my posts are more than one line long.

Who don't I clash with here? I usually jump into a convo based a one liner and then the fire starts.

[Ztcgtqvb]

That's probably why. More than one line he skims the post and just takes out of it what he wants to take out of it.

Yea probably this.

[freeringsf]

They unfortunately voted this down.

I'd love to hear an argument as to why they would vote against this.