Fedya:
Except of course, when a referee overturns an obvious fumble that he called a fumble on the field, and then says it was an incomplete pass, as the referee in the Steeler/Packer game did.(The officials didn’t call a bunch of blatant holding by the Steeler OL, either, but that’s not subject to review.)

The solution for that isn’t in fiddling with replay, it’s with fixing the incomplete pass rule. If the quarterback loses the ball while a defender’s in contact with him, it should be a fumble unless it crosses the line of scrimmage, period. The whole idea of “his arm was moving forward, so the ball that went out of his hand sideways while the linebacker’s hand was on his throwing elbow is an incomplete pass” is ludicrous – but it’s in the rules right now.

Chad:
However, are you certain the present system hasn’t steadily eroded toward a de novo standard in practice?I remember when referees would either reverse the call or they would say “there is insufficient video evidence to reverse the call on the field.”Now they either reverse the call or they say “the call on the field is confirmed,” usually adding specific reasoning for their call.Although I’d prefer that this be codified in the rulebook, it seems though the way the referees are actually behaving now is pretty close to your stated preference.

I think the change in policy comes from the Steeler-Charger regular-season game last year, when Pittsburgh, leading 11-10, returned a fumble for a touchdown on the final (desperation on the part of the Chargers with multiple laterals) play, only for the referee to go into review and call one of the laterals an illegal forward pass.

It didn’t change the outcome of the game (the Steelers would have won in either case), but a lot of people were irritated because the reversal changed whether or not the Steelers covered the point spread.

I remember getting an earful on one football board because I said how happy I was that people stupid enough to wager on football were jobbed out of their money. :-)

However, are you certain the present system hasn’t steadily eroded toward a de novo standard in practice? I remember when referees would either reverse the call or they would say “there is insufficient video evidence to reverse the call on the field.” Now they either reverse the call or they say “the call on the field is confirmed,” usually adding specific reasoning for their call. Although I’d prefer that this be codified in the rulebook, it seems though the way the referees are actually behaving now is pretty close to your stated preference.

basher20:
One problem not addressed:In many cases, the referee is reviewing calls that e himself made, most often QB fumble/incompletion on the tuck rule or grounding/incompletion on QB in the tackle box.What I would like to see, since under NFL policy all officials are in theory equally qualified, that the umpire be called into the review booth when challenges are made to calls made by the referee.

Except of course, when a referee overturns an obvious fumble that he called a fumble on the field, and then says it was an incomplete pass, as the referee in the Steeler/Packer game did.

(The officials didn’t call a bunch of blatant holding by the Steeler OL, either, but that’s not subject to review.)

The previous system used in the late 80s gave more discretion to the reviewing official. The result was constant breaks in the game so the ref could spend 10 minutes examining a play only to announce “after further review the play stands.” It was a huge waste of time and became a running joke. The current system is designed so that the game gets underway in a couple of minutes. If the call was truly that bad, they should be able to figure it out in a minute. If not, play ball.

There are arguably some flaws in the current system as far as when challenges can be made and the penalties for losing a challenge. But IMHO, the standard of review is one thing the NFL got right with the new system.

Duffy Pratt: The quest for accuracy in football never ceases to amaze me.Think about the lengths they go to with the chains to determine whether a team has made a first down or not.Then think about the margin of error when the chains are first put down (probably plus/minus six inches), and the margin of error every single time the officials spot the ball (more like plus/minus two feet).But when it comes to whether there’s a first down or not, the measurement is done to with a thousandth of an inch.

Yes there is an element of error and chance in spotting the ball and placing the chains. But, in the end, there has to be a decision made which benefits one team or the other. What are they going to do, eyeball it and declare if it looks close enough for a first down? Who gets the benefit of the doubt? There needs to be more closure than that, so the spot and chains are used imperfect as they are.

Daniel Chapman: Would a touchdown be worth 8 points under a de novo standard?

Well, if they used it to determine a successful two-point conversion. :-).

My understanding is that the purpose of moving to a de novo standard would be to make the calls more correct. Allowing a call of pass interference while reviewing a catch would furthur that goal, no? But I’m not sure how making a touchdown worth 8 points would.

Daniel Chapman: Pass interference is not a reviewable issue, Basher. So the answer to your question is “no.”

Not under the current system. But why not, under a de novo standard?

The other issue I have with a strict de novo standard is that there is no limit on the referee to the challenged issue; that is, if the question is reciever inbounds at the time of the catch, could the referee decide there was pass interference?

It’s similar to an appellate court’s assumption that the trial judge was there to observe things like the demeanor of the defendant. It doesn’t make much sense to overrule a decision based on less information than the original decision-maker had.

“Getting the call right” is taking it a little too seriously.

1. The percentage of successful challenges is likely to reflect the expected payoff of a challenge, not the accuracy of the standard of review.

2. I’m not sure it’s worthwhile to try to determine whether or not the official in real time or the official looking at the camera has a greater or lesser level of uncertainty. So it may boil down to this: If the call of the guy looking at the instant replay is a guess, and the call of the guy on the field may be certain or may be a guess, we go with the guess of the guy on the field. Not terribly unreasonable.