Isn’t this the old system where there was delay after delay while the refs sorted out call after call by replay?
The current system is set up (1) so there is a cap on the number of plays that can be challenged; and (2) if neither team cares enough to make a challenge, the play stands as called. The refs don’t waste time and energy on calls that teams don’t deem important enough to worry about. Seems pretty efficient to me.
No sarcasm intended. It was a legit question. It makes sense to bar coaching challenges after the two-minute warning to prevent coaches from interrupting urgent plays and momentum when it is often most important.
As far as the two-minute warning being idiotic, well, I don’t know why the two-minute warning was instituted in the first place. It was probably because there didn’t used to be a field clock that everyone could see, and offical time was kept by a game official. I imagine that it was simply to let everyone know the offical status of the clock because play-calling and clock management strategy often changes significantly in the final two minutes. It also gives teams an official time-out to regroup in light of this fact. It also allows for more TV commercials.
I’d be in favor of the an instant replay rule in baseball. BECAUSE THE GAME ISN’T LONG OR BORING ENOUGH!
I seem to recall a case in the 1990s where all umpires were blocked from seeing a call (a catch over the wall) so the crew chief used one of the game-level cameras and asked for replay.
The explanation was that replay has ALWAYS been a possibility in baseball. But it’s at the umpires discretion for plays that can’t otherwise observe.
But if you believe that the instant replay rule is a good idea, and that the ability of a coach to challenge the play is a good idea, then surely it’s just as important for a coach to be able to chaleenge at the very moment when the game is at its most crucial point?
And of you’re worried about the coaches fucking up the game by making unwarranted challenges, then why aren’t you worried about that for the other 58 minutes of the game?
Seems to me that, either way, your position is rather inconsistent.
Generally, I like the idea of a coach challenge as the default. This limits the number of potential reviews during a game and ensures reviews will be used wisely as there is a penalty for an unwarranted review. Thus, the game doesn’t get bogged down by an overly zealous replay official during the 56 minutes outside the two two-minute-warnings.
Inside the two-minute warning, the dynamics of a game change can radically. There is often an increased sense of urgency and micromanaging one second during the final two minutes can be more valuable than any one of the previous 56 minutes. Given the different time, momentum, and urgency dynamics in the final two minutes, the coach challenge lends itself to abuse by a coach who can make an unwarranted challenge simply to disrupt the opposition’s play. Thus, there is a need to carve an exception to the coach challenge during the final two minutes of each half by removing the power from the coaches and vesting the replay power solely in a replay official.
Under my cost-benefit analysis, there is a risk that the current system unjustly deprives a coach of the power to challenge a call during the critical final two minutes, but that risk is mitigated by the use of a replay official and offset by the fact that a coach will not be able to abuse the challenge power.
Can’t a coach abuse the challenge power during the other 56 minutes? Yes, but the negative impact is generally much less than it would be during the final two minutes.
Why not simply use a replay official for the other 56 minutes instead of coaching challenges? The coach challenge reduces the number of potential challenges and game delays to only those calls that matter the most. It’s very efficient. There would be nothing to stop a replay official from going hog wild and reviewing every little call during a game.
Can’t the replay offical go hog wild during the final two minutes and disrupt the play? Yes, but the impact of multiple reviews from an overly zealous replay official would be limited to review of just 4 minutes of game time instead of 56 minutes.
It’s not a perfect system, but I think the current system works well. Before coaching challenges, the replay officals were mucking up the entire game with delays. Now they can only muck up two minutes. Why should the replay officials be able to muck up the critical final two minutes instead of a coach? The replay offical is less likely to muck up the final two minutes than a coach. It’s a balancing act, and I think the NFL got it right.
But there is also a penalty for a review that turns out to be justified. Because a coach can only call for two reviews during a game, whether or not the review is successful. So, it’s perfectly possible that a coach will call for two reviews, be found correct on both of them, but still be out of challenges for the next time the umpires make a mistake.
Sorry, i don’t buy that at all. A touchdown scored at minute 17 is worth the same seven points as a touchdown scored at minute 59. If you are denied a touchdown in minute 17 due to a bad call, it’s still seven points less at the end of the game. The obsession with the last two minutes in football strikes me as completely irrational.They only seem more important because the game is coming to a close.
So, on the one hand we have the fact you don’t want to mess up the majority of the game due to “an overly zealous replay official,” but then you say that a replay official is “less likely to muck up the final two minutes than a coach.” Which one is it?
This is the type of logic, unfortunately, that makes the whole system such a joke, IMHO.
The integrity of the game as a whole remains intact, but the integrity of the result of the particular game you’re watching is compromised. It’s a truism that these things even out over the course of a season - maybe that’s so. I doubt there’s any way to tell. Not all games are equally significant, and not all bad calls are equally significant.
I forgot about that. If a coach only gets two challenges per game, regardless of the outcome, then the two-minute-warning is not very significant.
Rule change last year:
If a coach wins his two challenges, he gets a third that can be used anytime before the two-minute warning.
Thanks for the update. I guess i haven’t been paying enough attention.