God bless instant replay...

CurtisEdmonds · #1 01-20-2002, 09:30 AM

The ESPN commercial said it best, "Not one game has ever been ruined by instant replay. Not one."

Did the Patriots-Raiders game finally make the case for instant replay? And was Brady's arm really moving forward?

kurt_messick · #2 01-20-2002, 11:20 AM

I suppose whether or not the game was 'ruined' depends upon which team you're on, and whether the decision is in your favour.

**soxfan**[$] · #3 01-20-2002, 03:12 PM

Right now, I love instant replay.

Ailsa

stephen_murray · #4 01-21-2002, 09:30 AM

In the Raider Nation (across the bay; I'm a 49er fan), it is generally believed that officials are prompted by the NFL front office to persecute the Raiders, making calls against them to punish Al Davis. This has always sounded paranoid to me, but many things that sounded paranoid in my youth (the late 1960s) turned out to be true...

I think instant replay is good, especially since tv broadcasts are going to include replays and second-guessing of calls. However, there is supposed to be indisputable visual evidence, and this seems to me to have been lacking in the case of Brady's arm and overturning the call on the field of a fumble.

cyndilouwhoo · #5 01-21-2002, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by stephen_murray
However, there is supposed to be indisputable visual evidence, and this seems to me to have been lacking in the case of Brady's arm and overturning the call on the field of a fumble.

Au Contraire, Mon Frere...

I think that the replay showed pretty clearly that the ball was knocked out of his hand before he could pull the ball into the tuck--which in my opinion was where the ball was going, no matter what Brady (who is currently #1 on my list of disengenuous people) says.

I think you can argue that the rule itself is more controversial than the call in this case.

But that's easy for me to say. I'm a Patsies fan.

Cyndi

Still pretty darn happy two days later

CurtisEdmonds · #6 01-21-2002, 12:47 PM

But the call didn't ruin the game. The Raiders still had the chance to stop the tying drive and the winning drive and didn't do it. The referees made the right choice to let the players decide the outcome, not the bad call.

**mrisch**[$] · #7 01-21-2002, 01:57 PM

1. I disagree about ruining the game. That the Raiders still had a chance is irrelevant. A bad call is a bad call.

2. That said - this was NOT a bad call. The rule is crystal clear. If the quarterback is moving his arm forward intentionally, and the ball falls out, WHETHER OR NOT HE IS TRYING TO TUCK THE BALL IN, then it is an incomplete pass.

The rule was new in 2000. Why did they put it in? So that debates like these would never occur, at least not among those who are familiar with the rules and certainly not for the referee. They don't want the referee to have to decide when and if the forward motion has stopped, when and if the quarterback is tucking the ball in, etc.

If the arm is moving forward, and the ball falls out at any time before it is fully into the body, then it is an incomplete pass. This call was a no brainer.

Now, if you don't like that rule, that's another story.

stephen_murray · #8 01-21-2002, 04:09 PM

The rule, dubious.

Instant replay, good in theory, fallible in practice.

Indisputable visual evidence that Brady's arm was moving forward before the ball came loose? Missing, which so well feeds the persecution complex of the Raiders and Raider fans. I'm not particularly a Raiders fan, but do think that they are penalized regularly for offenses that are overlooked when committed by other teams.

That the 45-yard field goal was made from the field covered in fresh snow is remarkable. It took more than a dubious call to give the Patriots the chance to go and lose in Pittsburgh next week, but I don't think there was compelling visual evidence for reversing the fumble call.

**mrisch**[$] · #9 01-21-2002, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by stephen_murray
Indisputable visual evidence that Brady's arm was moving forward before the ball came loose?

Uh, yeah, it was undisputable. I will argue all sorts of borderline calls. The picture was clear from every angle. The arm was back, then he pulled it forward, and as he did, the defender's arm came down on it. There is simply no question about it.

What is disputable is whether he was pulling his arm in or whether the defender pulled his arm in, but the rule makes that dispute immaterial.

stephen_murray · #10 01-22-2002, 03:06 AM

It DOES matter if the Woodson knocked arm and ball forward and the evidence is much disputed, so fails to meet the "undisputable" criterion. I just heard John Gruden say he'd go to his grave believing it was a fumble. I don't know whether it was or not, but that was the original call and I don't think there was evidence to overturn it.

But getting rid of instant replay is not a solution. That WAS the original question, right?