The call that started it all. <object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1gCFx5jC_q4?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1gCFx5jC_q4?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
Common misconception - replay officials are there, primarily, to navigate logistics for the on-field ref; they do not make decisions on replays. Only the referee is responsible for reviewing and reversing/confirming the call on the field. (This is different in college football where the replay official *does* have the authority to overturn a call.)
All scoring plays are reviewed and can be overturned. Are you sure it's the on field official doing the overruling/overturning on those automatic reviews? I don't recall seeing the field judge go under the hood on those most times. Do they buzz him and tell him to review it on the field if they notice something questionable?
For confirmations, there's no fornal review. If there's a question, the referee goes under the hood. (IIRC)
Constantly updating chart that illustrates most polled peeps don't think they're doing such a bad job.
They do a formal review of every scoring play. They have to confirm the call by either seeing network television replays or asking for a review of the play. If they cannot confirm the call as correct they have to stop the game and call the head official to a conference. With that said, the report out of Monday's game was that the replay official in the booth agreed with the call.
Exactly. 99.999999999% of all TDs are no-brainers. If there's a question, he notifies the referee and from there, the decision belongs 100% to the referee. He goes under the hood and makes the final call. The replay official might offer consultation (not sure) - but the referee can choose to ignore whatever insight they might provide.
The head referee always makes the final decision. Reportedly, the replacement refs have been able to ask the reviewers upstairs for input during official reviews this year, but that wasn't the case with the regular refs.
So what is he saying about the back judge working with him that called it an interception? This guy doesn't know the rule, and it is as simple as that.
The one good thing about this whole experience is that disproves the idea that anybody can be a referee.
Remember that time when Jerome Bettis called tails in overtime, the replacement official said he called heads, flipped the coin it landed on tails and the Lions went on to win the game? Those replacement officials! Jokers since the 90s.
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d80cc8200/Bettis-calls-tails yes, yes I do. those dang replacement refs!
Not sure if my sarcasm meter is broken or not. Took the real refs several decades to make a mistake like that, meanwhile, it took the replacement refs only 3 games to make one of the worst calls in the history of the sport. If not srs, nvm
Yep. Until that call the refs had never made horrible mistakes like calling touchdowns when a receiver was out of bounds, awarding fumbles when they didn't happen, calling catches when the receiver never had possession, etc. It's why the NFL has never felt the need to add replay to their games until this year with the replacement refs.
Have fun making the case that the replacement officials are just as good as the real refs. I'm sure everyone is going to be sympathetic to that line of thinking.
I never said they were as good. They were awful. All I said was that call wasn't the worst in history.
Yup - just look how many calls, over a single weekend, get overturned by replay and then consider that for most of the NFL's history, all of those calls were final without a replay system.
