ShareThis Page
Tim Benz: Potential NFL replay changes make no sense | TribLIVE.com
Breakfast With Benz

Tim Benz: Potential NFL replay changes make no sense

Tim Benz
930455_web1_1086109258
Getty Images
The Steelers’ Joe Haden attempts to intercept the ball over the Saints’ Alvin Kamara on a play that was ruled pass interference on Haden on Dec. 23, 2018, in New Orleans, La.

I don’t understand the NFL competition committee’s approach to its replay expansion proposals.

One proposal up for debate at this week’s owners’ meetings suggests the league should allow the review of pass-interference calls for a year on an experimental basis.

A second proposal suggests adding replay review for roughing the passer and unnecessary hits against a defenseless receiver.

Where it gets sticky is that the competition committee is not advancing the idea of challenging calls that weren’t made on the field.

In other words, the non-call on the obviously missed pass interference at the end of the Saints-Rams NFC Championship Game would still not be subject to review.

And that’s ironic because, well, that’s the play that got the conversation going as to whether penalty flags should be challengeable in the first place.

Translation? Mike Tomlin could’ve challenged the Joe Haden penalty in New Orleans. But Sean Payton still couldn’t have challenged the one missed against Los Angeles’ Nickell Robey-Coleman in the same building.

As committee chairman Rich McKay told ESPN.com, “there remains a ‘real reluctance’ for replay to ‘put a foul on the field.’ ”

OK. But then why are we are talking about this at all? What’s the difference between being reluctant about correcting a judgment non-call, yet being willing to correct a judgment penalty?

The other three sports now have a mechanism to use replay for infractions that have gone uncalled. In hockey, coaches can challenge for offsides and goalie interference that may have been missed in the act of an opponent scoring a goal.

In basketball, officials go to the monitors to look for flagrant fouls that may have been missed. And managers in baseball can ask for reviews of blocking the plate and illegal slides on the base paths.

I get the concern. Where do you stop, right? If you challenge missed pass-interference calls, why not challenge missed false starts …

… missed blocks in the back

…. or missed holding calls?

My answer to that would be you shouldn’t stop. Because any missed call for pass interference could be as punitive as any other missed call that results in a pivotal outcome.

It should be one or the other. Keep the review of penalties ineligible, or allow non-calls to be reviewed, as well. It’s intellectually inconsistent to do so otherwise.

Here’s how I would do it. Allow coaches to challenge penalties as they would any other play that’s currently challengeable.

The one tweak I’d make is that the league shouldn’t allow the booth to review all penalties within the last two minutes. If the booth is looking for an infraction on every play, they’ll find one. The last two minutes will last two hours.

Once the last two minutes hit, coaches should be allowed one challenge flag specifically for penalties on potentially blown calls that are so egregious, the team feels they must be reviewed.

If the team has no timeouts remaining, the penalty for an upheld call would be 15 yards instead. If a club is trying to get into position for a field goal, that may be enough of a punitive threat to keep the challenge flag in the coach’s pocket, unless he feels the call was absolutely missed.

That’s not perfect. None of this is. Officiating will never be perfect and neither will the use of replay.

At least adding the review of non-calls would be more consistent.

Tim Benz is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tim at tbenz@tribweb.com or via Twitter. All tweets could be reposted. All emails are subject to publication unless specified otherwise.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.