| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 212.1 | I think it's great, but ... | DECC::CARLSON | | Tue Mar 12 1996 13:32 | 7 |
| 212.2 | That is an interesting point... | HANNAH::WALL | | Tue Mar 12 1996 14:04 | 11 |
| 212.3 | | DECC::CARLSON | | Tue Mar 12 1996 14:22 | 5 |
| 212.4 | | ZEKE::CAMILLERI | | Tue Mar 12 1996 14:39 | 5 |
| 212.5 | It Won't Happen, Though. | SHRCTR::BLOUNT | Green as a pool table, twice as square | Wed Mar 13 1996 12:00 | 9 |
| 212.6 | Will experiment this season for use in next season | HANNAH::WALL | | Wed Mar 13 1996 12:51 | 8 |
| 212.7 | Instant replay approved by NFL Competition Committee.. | PCBUOA::WALLS | | Fri Feb 28 1997 16:28 | 38 |
|
The NFL Competition Committee has unanimously approved a proposal to
reinstate instant replay in the 1997 season, ESPN has learned.
The proposal will be presented by the committee to the NFL owners at
the league's annual meetings in Palm Springs, Calif., on March 9.
The proposal includes four types of reviewable plays:
1) Those in the end zone - all scoring plays.
2) Those on the sidelines - in or out of bounds as a player runs,
attempts to catch a pass or attempts to recover a fumble.
3) All questions regarding the number of players on the field.
4) All questions regarding fumbles or interceptions.
Under the approved proposal, each team would be allowed two challenges
per half to question a call, and if a play is not reversed on a
challenge, the team would forfeit a timeout.
One remaining question is whether a team would be allowed to challenge
a call if it were out of timeouts.
Replay would need 23 of the 30 owners' votes to pass. In 1992, it
failed, 17-11, but there seems to be far more support for instant
replay this time around.
ESPNet SportsZone polled its users on Feb. 25 about instant replay. Of
6,877 votes, 89 percent said they were in favor of instant replay
returning to the NFL.
The preseason experiment of allowing the on-field referee to review the
play and make the decision cut down on game delays. This was the main
reason most owners did not want to reinstate instant replay and the
main reason it was discontinued.
|
| 212.8 | | SNAX::ERICKSON | | Mon Mar 03 1997 09:33 | 9 |
|
I wouldn't mind if the ref that made the call reviewed the call
on the sidelines. Most missed calls are in three categorys, "Was he
down before he fumbled?", "Was his feet in bounds?", or "Did the ball
hit the ground, before he caught it?" The ref who made the original
call decided yes or no in a split second. All he would need to do was
verify what he saw.
Ron
|
| 212.9 | | RTL::ROSE | Steve Rose | Mon Mar 03 1997 09:47 | 1 |
| Is instant replay really back? Or did the NFL just decide to vote on it?
|
| 212.10 | Not yet but its on the ballot.... | PCBUOA::WALLS | | Mon Mar 03 1997 11:27 | 14 |
|
The NFL competition committee voted "Yes" to put it on a ballot for
the owners to vote on.
Unless it is approved by a certain percentage of the owners, it won't go
into affect. But supposedly a lot of the owners who voted "no" in past
years want it back considering the number of calls blown in recent
years, some affecting the outcome. Also public(or fan) polls have shown
a majority in favor of bringing back instant replay.
So I would'nt be surprised to see it this year.
Sean
|
| 212.11 | Some more info... | PCBUOA::WALLS | | Tue Mar 04 1997 16:52 | 8 |
|
By the way, that certain percentage is the approval of 23 of the 30
owners to pass.
And the annual owners meeting where it will be voted on is in Palm
Desert, California from March 9-13.
Sean
|
| 212.12 | No instant replay in 97....... | PCBUOA::WALLS | | Thu Mar 13 1997 09:29 | 29 |
|
As you've probably heard, instant replay was voted down by a vote of
20 to 30 votes, short of the 23 votes needed to pass.
Under the rule, each team was to get a maximum of two replays per game,
but each challenge would result in the removal of a timeout, regardless
of whether the play was overturned.
And it was because of the fact that asking for a replay would have
cost a team a timeout that most of the owners who voted no voted the
way they did. Even many coaches who liked the previous proposals did'nt
like the final proposal presented at the meeting.
Many had said that if a team was'nt penalized a timeout for asking for
a replay that they would have changed thier votes.
My opinion is that I can't blame some of the coaches and owners for
turning down this recent proposal. Previous proposals did'nt penalize
a team a timeout for asking for a replay if the call was overturned.
The 3 timeouts are much too important in a game, and the Patriots
themselves had scored alot of points within the two minutes before the
halves, utilizing the timeouts. I believe they added this unconditional
timeout penalty to keep the game short, within the normal 3 hour limit.
Sean
|