Instant replay is no 'panacea' says the NFL

The league wants to make officiating crews more consistent by keeping the rules more subjective.

PHOENIX -- The NFL wants to improve the state of the game on the field. They just don't want to do it with instant replay. Owners have yet to vote on the 13 different proposed rule changes related to instant replay, but the competition committee made it perfectly clear on Monday afternoon that it "does not support the extension of the instant replay system to include a review of penalties," according to a statement.

That effectively nixes most of the proposals dealing with replay, including a submission from the Patriots that would allow coaches to challenge any officiating decision except for turnovers and scoring plays. Such changes to the replay process would, in the words of the competition committee, "have unforeseen negative effects for on-field officiating."

The one replay rule that the competition committee does support is using it to review the status of the game clock on the final play at the end of the first half, the end of the game or in overtime. That is the only recommendation the committee will send to the owners for a vote this week.

Why is the committee so opposed to it? There's a feeling that it would replace the referees who make a judgement call as to what warrants pulling the flag out of their pocket. In the eyes of the men who shape the rules of the game, replay has a narrow purpose, specifically to correct mistakes related specifically to "objective facts, involving goal lines, end line, sidelines, the line of scrimmage, possession and touching."

Steelers general manager Kevin Colbert boiled it down to layman's terms: "It's a human game with human officials."

Those humans tasked with making the calls could create a whole new layer of confusion by bringing replay into the mix. What looks like holding on the field could entirely different upon review by another official (which is actually kind of the point of instant replay). That person would lack the "in-game context" for the flag and could see the the play differently than the ref on the field did.

Two officials, two different opinions on what was or wasn't a foul. One decision happens in real time; the other decision gets made based on what a person sees on video. The competition committee believes that would lead to two different standards for how the rules are read, adding to the confusion rather than clearing it up.

If that doesn't leave your head spinning, the next part of the committee's stance on expanded replay rules will.

Years of instant replay has led to a "more technical application of playing rules," the statement says. Such an interpretation isn't always consistent with how the rules are applied to a "real-time athletic performance." Context is apparently everything to the competition committee, at least when it comes to instant replay. Refs on the field control the game, in part, by warning players about something that they'll call a penalty. Subjecting those calls to review would undermine their ability to do that on the field, a second, less efficient layer of officiating that would compromise the league's ultimate goal of making officiating more consistent from game to game and crew to crew.

Let's review. The NFL competition committee wants to make officiating more consistent. In order to do that, they cannot allow replay officials to review penalties on the field. Reviewing penalties could create more confusion even as it creates a more "technical" application of the rules. Got it?

Heed the competition committee's warning here, people, even as you marvel at its perfectly crafted bureaucratic verbiage:

"While instant replay was designed to be an aid to on-field officiating, it is not the panacea that some believe it to be."

The future is a frightening place.

Source SBNation.com - All Posts http://ift.tt/1CSmKrZ