Commissioner gets it right

[HardCoreBlue]

25 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

Here's my proposal:

-Up to 3 coaches challenges per team.  If a coach loses a challenge, they are done for the game.  Need a timeout to challenge.  If a coach tosses a challenge flag to challenge something that isn't reviewable they are done, lose their timeout and are assessed a 10 yard objectionable conduct penalty.

 

-Coaches can challenge anything but penalties.

-Review of penalties (PI, illegal contact, UR, RTP) can only be initiated by the Command Centre.

-The Command Centre can initiate a review (not just scores/turnovers) at any time to correct significant on-field missed calls, wrong calls and improper application of rules.

I like what you propose all the way to where I bolded it. Don't like this part at all.  Gets at why even have refs on the field then. We have the technology nowadays for that to happen and I'm uneasy with that.

The bolded part can completely take the on field human aspect out of the game plus to much subjectivity and potential controversy with the word significant.

Well thought out proposal though.

Really like the idea of needing a timeout to call a challenge but I would still tack on a time limit for them to call a challenge (30 seconds seems appropriate).

Assess a ten yard delay of game for a failed challenge as well.

Also, how about taking the ipads off the field relying on old fashion vision in real time. Sure have in up in the press box but that 30 second rule to challenge will take care of that.

All of this maximizes whether a coach really feels he has a case to challenge.

[JuranBoldenRules]

31 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said:

I like what you propose all the way to where I bolded it. Don't like this part at all.  Gets at why even have refs on the field then. We have the technology nowadays for that to happen and I'm uneasy with that.

The bolded part can completely take the on field human aspect out of the game plus to much subjectivity and potential controversy with the word significant.

Well thought out proposal though.

Really like the idea of needing a timeout to call a challenge but I would still tack on a time limit for them to call a challenge (30 seconds seems appropriate).

Assess a ten yard delay of game for a failed challenge as well.

Also, how about taking the ipads off the field relying on old fashion vision in real time. Sure have in up in the press box but that 30 second rule to challenge will take care of that.

All of this maximizes whether a coach really feels he has a case to challenge.

The best system IMO is the NCAA one which relies on the booth to initiate reviews with coaches given minimal challenges.  I'd like to see the CFL move to that.  They don't call down to the field every five plays, but it gives the league a mechanism to get it right even if it isn't a scoring play or turnover.

Also I forgot to add my time limit which is 60 seconds to review and 90 total to have a decision to the field otherwise call on the field stands.

[Mr. Perfect]

8 hours ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

The best system IMO is the NCAA one which relies on the booth to initiate reviews with coaches given minimal challenges.  I'd like to see the CFL move to that.  They don't call down to the field every five plays, but it gives the league a mechanism to get it right even if it isn't a scoring play or turnover.

Best part of the proposal. I love the NCAA in large part because of this.

[SpeedFlex27]

Last night showed how well the new rule on coaches challenges works. Trestman blew it early challenging a PI call that was unlikely to get overturned & lost & then couldn't challenge any further. The Stamps ran away with the game & never needed a challenge. The game actually flowed as a fan watching. This was a good decision. 

Edited August 4, 2017 by SpeedFlex27

[Atomic]

3 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Last night showed how well the new rule on coaches challenges works. Trestman blew it early challenging a PI call that was unlikely to get overturned & lost & then couldn't challenge any further. The Stamps ran away with the game & never needed a challenge. The game actually flowed as a fan watching. This was a good decision. 

I'll wait for more than one game before I decide if I like it.  Right now I still don't think it was the right move, but I'm willing to wait and see.

[SpeedFlex27]

Just now, Atomic said:

I'll wait for more than one game before I decide if I like it.  Right now I still don't think it was the right move, but I'm willing to wait and see.

You're certainly entitled to feel the way that you do & I respect that. As a hater of coaches challenges, I welcomed the change & think it's great. Now, all they have toi do is get rid of two more coaches challenges per game & it'll be even better.  

[Mr Dee]

Listen, I yelled at Trestman to not challenge that play..but he ignored me. Where's the trustman?

[SpeedFlex27]

19 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

Listen, I yelled at Trestman to not challenge that play..but he ignored me. Where's the trustman?

I figured he'd wait. He must've got some bad advice from the booth. 

[Fatty Liver]

17 hours ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

The best system IMO is the NCAA one which relies on the booth to initiate reviews with coaches given minimal challenges.  I'd like to see the CFL move to that.  They don't call down to the field every five plays, but it gives the league a mechanism to get it right even if it isn't a scoring play or turnover.

Also I forgot to add my time limit which is 60 seconds to review and 90 total to have a decision to the field otherwise call on the field stands.

Sounds good but why not do this seamlessly and avoid time delaying reviews?  As the goal is to turn over only egregious errors the C.C. should be able to spot those within 10-15 secs. get in the refs. ear and keep play moving.

[Sard]

19 hours ago, HardCoreBlue said:

I like what you propose all the way to where I bolded it. Don't like this part at all.  Gets at why even have refs on the field then. We have the technology nowadays for that to happen and I'm uneasy with that.

The bolded part can completely take the on field human aspect out of the game plus to much subjectivity and potential controversy with the word significant.

Well thought out proposal though.

Really like the idea of needing a timeout to call a challenge but I would still tack on a time limit for them to call a challenge (30 seconds seems appropriate).

Assess a ten yard delay of game for a failed challenge as well.

Also, how about taking the ipads off the field relying on old fashion vision in real time. Sure have in up in the press box but that 30 second rule to challenge will take care of that.

All of this maximizes whether a coach really feels he has a case to challenge.

I don't think that the intention of the iPads was for challenges, I think it was to give the players the ability to review what they were doing and seeing on the field so that they can improve their play/exploit something that they see their opponent doing.

[HardCoreBlue]

Just now, Sard said:

I don't think that the intention of the iPads was for challenges, I think it was to give the players the ability to review what they were doing and seeing on the field so that they can improve their play/exploit something that they see their opponent doing.

Great point. I just wish that's all it is used for. 

[JuranBoldenRules]

3 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Last night showed how well the new rule on coaches challenges works. Trestman blew it early challenging a PI call that was unlikely to get overturned & lost & then couldn't challenge any further. The Stamps ran away with the game & never needed a challenge. The game actually flowed as a fan watching. This was a good decision. 

That game was a rout.  Challenges/reviews would have had zero impact on that.  Wait until a 20-17 game where there's a blatant missed call on the drive that would have turned the outcome.

[WBBFanWest]

2 hours ago, Sard said:

I don't think that the intention of the iPads was for challenges, I think it was to give the players the ability to review what they were doing and seeing on the field so that they can improve their play/exploit something that they see their opponent doing.

and Candy Crush

[SpeedFlex27]

4 hours ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

That game was a rout.  Challenges/reviews would have had zero impact on that.  Wait until a 20-17 game where there's a blatant missed call on the drive that would have turned the outcome.

No guarantee the Command Centre would get it right, anyway. 

[Tracker]

MUCH better flow to the game.

[deepsixemtoboyd]

19 hours ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

Sounds good but why not do this seamlessly and avoid time delaying reviews?  As the goal is to turn over only egregious errors the C.C. should be able to spot those within 10-15 secs. get in the refs. ear and keep play moving.

 Yes, it was too bad when O'Shea had to burn his only challenge on what should've been an obvious PI. 

[Mr Dee]

Loved the flow of the game after the challenges were exhausted, but I sincerely hope they tweak it again this week to allow more challenges if successful on the 1st. That is really all they have to do..

[Noeller]

5 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

Loved the flow of the game after the challenges were exhausted, but I sincerely hope they tweak it again this week to allow more challenges if successful on the 1st. That is really all they have to do..

there won't be anymore tweaks until the end of the season, I'm betting....

[Guest J5V]

2 minutes ago, Noeller said:

there won't be anymore tweaks until the end of the season, I'm betting....

Maybe not but you're right, the flow of the game was awesome last night. Huge improvement.

[Guest J5V]

33 minutes ago, Noeller said:

there won't be anymore tweaks until the end of the season, I'm betting....

MOS got the upper hand on Rick Campbell last night when O'Shea's challenge was won and Campbell's was lost. I really didn't think Campbell had a chance to win his challenge and I bet he wishes he had it when he needed it later in the game. Too bad, so sad ... NOT!

[TBURGESS]

1 minute ago, J5V said:

MOS got the upper hand on Rick Campbell last night when O'Shea's challenge was won and Campbell's was lost. I really didn't think Campbell had a chance to win his challenge and I bet he wishes he had it when he needed it later in the game. Too bad, so sad ... NOT!

I didn't think it was a bad challenge. During the initial play at real speed it was so close that I would have thrown the flag on it. Half a yard either way, with a turnover as the possible outcome, is worth a second look. 

[Guest J5V]

4 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

I didn't think it was a bad challenge. During the initial play at real speed it was so close that I would have thrown the flag on it. Half a yard either way, with a turnover as the possible outcome, is worth a second look. 

The thing is, when you have just one, you have to be sure you're going to get maximum value for it when you spend it.

[TBURGESS]

27 minutes ago, J5V said:

The thing is, when you have just one, you have to be sure you're going to get maximum value for it when you spend it.

I agree, but I think a turnover is pretty much the maximum you're going to get with a challenge.

[Tracker]

Maybe if they allowed three challenges but only if successful- one strike (denied challenge) and you lose all of them.

[Eternal optimist]

30 minutes ago, tracker said:

Maybe if they allowed three challenges but only if successful- one strike (denied challenge) and you lose all of them.

A disincentive is certainly an interesting idea, as it would prevent "phishing". Good coaches would still be able to spot incorrect calls and prevent their team from getting ousted by the refs. I think the big problem with any further changes to the system is too many changes in a short span of time means you don't get to see the impact the previous changes had made, also it'll make us look even more "bush league", and confuse some of the more layman fans.