Messaggio
da chinasky » 18/02/2006, 21:54
Uppo questo topic su tattica, tecnica e regolamento per proporre questo articolo che mi trova d'accordo in molti punti:
Playoffs highlight rule changes that should be considered
Da PFW
By Glenn Dickey
The NFL has a great game, but there are some changes I’d like to see made which could improve it.
For instance: Instant replay. There will no doubt be those who will call for it to be abolished after the embarrassing incident in the Indianapolis-Pittsburgh playoff game, when referee Pete Morelli overturned an on-field ruling. Steelers SS Troy Polamalu made a diving interception, fumbled when he got up and then recovered his own fumble. Had the ruling stood, the Steelers would have had the ball on their own 48 with an 11-point lead. Morelli overturned it, and the Colts then drove to a touchdown which closed the gap to three points.
That was such a stinker that Mike Pereira, the league’s vice president of officiating, issued a statement that Morelli should have let the on-field ruling stand, a startling departure from Pereira’s usual “the officials can do no wrong” position.
Nonetheless, instant replay will not go away. The trend in other sports, even baseball, is to use more electronics as an officiating guide. The NFL, which pioneered this after a 1977 AFC championship game in which Denver was awarded a touchdown despite a fumble in the field of play, is not going to go backward.
The decisions, though, should be taken out of the hands of both the coaches and the officials.
The current system of allowing a coach “challenges,” with a timeout charged if the decision is upheld, has serious drawbacks. Coaches like Mike Martz often make whimsical decisions, challenging when they shouldn’t and not challenging when they should. A coach who has used all his timeouts can’t challenge even a glaringly bad call. If the other team runs a play before a coach gets word from those watching the monitors upstairs, a coach can’t make his challenge.
The other problem is that the referee on the field is called upon to review the calls he and his crew have made. In some cases, they’ve seemed reluctant to overrule their calls. In others, they seem to bend over backward to reverse them, to keep them from being criticized for bias.
The replay decisions are made by officials upstairs in the final two minutes of a half and game, and I think it would make sense for those officials to make the decisions throughout. They’re watching the monitors, so they can call for a replay before another play can be run. They don’t have to be concerned about timeouts, and they wouldn’t be making frivolous replay calls. They couldn’t be accused of bias.
As for Morelli, the league shouldn’t give him another playoff assignment until he proves he can pass an eye exam.
The other change I’d like to see in instant replay is an expansion on critical calls and a reduction of less significant ones.
The most critical call in any given game is likely to be pass interference, yet it’s not among those which can be reviewed. This is a difficult call for officials because they’re moving, as are the receiver and defensive back, who are often jostling each other as they do. On long pass plays, an interference call can give the offense the ball near the goal line while an incompletion leaves the ball at midfield. It’s ridiculous that this call can’t be replayed.
At the same time, the replays to determine ball placement should be eliminated, or at least reduced to calls inside the red zone. Yes, replays often show that the ball should be placed a half-foot one way or the other. Yes, that can sometimes affect whether a team gets a first down. But they’re seldom game-deciding calls, as pass interference often is, and it’s irritating to fans to have to wait for a replay on that call.
Another area where I’d like to see changes to the rules is in overtime. Most people agree that the current overtime system is a bad one because it gives too much of an advantage to the team that wins the coin flip. The coin-flip winner has the opportunity to drive down the field far enough to kick a winning field goal without the other team having the ball.
There is a better system — the one the colleges use. In college ball, each team gets an equal shot. Teams are given the ball on the other team’s 25. If they score an equal number of points (or both go scoreless), they play another “quarter,” until one team gets an edge. Interestingly, the last game USC lost before starting on the win streak that was ended by Texas in the national championship game last month was a triple-overtime loss to Cal at Berkeley in 2003.
The only advantage of winning the coin toss is strategic: The team that wins the toss always chooses to defend because then it knows how many points it needs when it goes on offense.
The college overtime games are very exciting because teams get the ball just outside the red zone, a great edge to the offense. In contrast, in a pro overtime, it’s almost always a field-goal game because a team that gets close enough for a field goal isn’t going to chance losing the ball on a fumble or an interception while going for a touchdown.
Of course, it’s a college system, and the NFL is reluctant to admit that anything colleges do can be superior. But the object should always be to improve the game, no matter how it’s done. Fans don’t care where an idea comes from, just whether it’s good or bad.
The good news is that the NFL has always been willing to make changes to improve the game for the fans, unlike a sport like baseball, whose one significant change in the past 35 years — the designated hitter — is still rejected by the National League, though it’s used in the minors and colleges, as well as in the American League.
I hope that when the NFL Rules Committee meets this spring, it will consider these changes.
D'accordo sulle interferenze e, lo dico da un po', sull'over time. In NCAA il supplementare è migliore, più giusto ed equilibrato. Trovo che la NFL dovrebbe cambiarlo.
Like
0
Share