This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2014/oct/18/nfl-decisions-faw-away-atlanta-falcons-detroit-lions-wembley

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
NFL officials can correct decisions from on high and far away NFL officials can correct decisions from on high and far away
(35 minutes later)
Next Sunday, when Atlanta Falcons play Detroit Lions at Wembley, a team of officials will be watching the game at a control centre in the National Football League’s headquarters, 3,000 miles away in New York. If there is a contentious decision that goes to replay, the NFL’s vice-president of officiating, Dean Blandino, will intervene from his Park Avenue perch and discuss the pros and cons of the call with the referee and replay official in London.Next Sunday, when Atlanta Falcons play Detroit Lions at Wembley, a team of officials will be watching the game at a control centre in the National Football League’s headquarters, 3,000 miles away in New York. If there is a contentious decision that goes to replay, the NFL’s vice-president of officiating, Dean Blandino, will intervene from his Park Avenue perch and discuss the pros and cons of the call with the referee and replay official in London.
It’s a markedly different system to the one employed in football, where a team of TV pundits studies every contentious decision with forensic attention, but the referee has no replay to refer to, much less a watching president of officiating in a hi-tech HQ.It’s a markedly different system to the one employed in football, where a team of TV pundits studies every contentious decision with forensic attention, but the referee has no replay to refer to, much less a watching president of officiating in a hi-tech HQ.
In the NFL, coaches have the right to make two challenges a game (three if they get both right) about refereeing calls (as long as it’s not a scoring play or a turnover), which are then sent to review. On top of that, the replay official subjects every scoring play and turnover to review. This season, for the first time, those reviews are also looked over by Blandino and his co-officials in New York.In the NFL, coaches have the right to make two challenges a game (three if they get both right) about refereeing calls (as long as it’s not a scoring play or a turnover), which are then sent to review. On top of that, the replay official subjects every scoring play and turnover to review. This season, for the first time, those reviews are also looked over by Blandino and his co-officials in New York.
Last month the Fifa president, Sepp Blatter, announced plans to trial a TV replay system for football, which may happen as early as next year. Last month I went to look at the NFL’s system to see how it works, and whether it has any lessons to teach football. Last month the Fifa president, Sepp Blatter, announced plans to trial a TV replay system for football, which may happen as early as next year. A few days later I went to look at the NFL’s system to see how it works, and whether it has any lessons to teach football.
When I arrived in New York, a video replay of an NFL player was the talking point in bars across town. It featured the Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice, but it was not from the field of play. Instead, it was CCTV footage from a lift and showed Rice knocking out his then girlfriend (now wife) with a vicious left hook.When I arrived in New York, a video replay of an NFL player was the talking point in bars across town. It featured the Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice, but it was not from the field of play. Instead, it was CCTV footage from a lift and showed Rice knocking out his then girlfriend (now wife) with a vicious left hook.
This was one video, however, the NFL showed little interest in reviewing. And apparently without examining the footage, it handed Rice a mere two-game suspension – a punishment that was widely viewed as almost criminally lenient. Set against that negligence, the forensic analysis of NFL matches I witnessed at the Gameday Central studio in Manhattan could have appeared a little excessive. But leaving aside the Rice controversy, Americans take their sport seriously and, when it comes to the rule book, they can be sticklers for due process.This was one video, however, the NFL showed little interest in reviewing. And apparently without examining the footage, it handed Rice a mere two-game suspension – a punishment that was widely viewed as almost criminally lenient. Set against that negligence, the forensic analysis of NFL matches I witnessed at the Gameday Central studio in Manhattan could have appeared a little excessive. But leaving aside the Rice controversy, Americans take their sport seriously and, when it comes to the rule book, they can be sticklers for due process.
Like some 21st century version of Nasa’s Mission Control, Gameday Central hums with screens and computers and earnest men talking quietly into chin microphones. Every few minutes you hear the imperial announcement “New York confirms” as ratification of one of the many decisions given in games being played across the country.Like some 21st century version of Nasa’s Mission Control, Gameday Central hums with screens and computers and earnest men talking quietly into chin microphones. Every few minutes you hear the imperial announcement “New York confirms” as ratification of one of the many decisions given in games being played across the country.
In the middle of the room with his hands folded behind his back, legs firmly planted apart, is Blandino, an imposing figure whose every movement bespeaks judicious authority. American football seems to rejoice in its stop-start rhythm, which is perfectly suited to the interruptions of a review system. Like tennis and cricket, which have also made use of the replays, it’s a game that is broken down into distinct, separate plays.In the middle of the room with his hands folded behind his back, legs firmly planted apart, is Blandino, an imposing figure whose every movement bespeaks judicious authority. American football seems to rejoice in its stop-start rhythm, which is perfectly suited to the interruptions of a review system. Like tennis and cricket, which have also made use of the replays, it’s a game that is broken down into distinct, separate plays.
Typically, there are between 150-160 plays in an NFL game, of which Blandino says three are called wrong. That’s a rate of 98% accuracy. Most football referees would be proud of that record. But like many statistics, it’s misleading. Pass interference is not subject to review because it’s deemed “too subjective”, which rules out a lot of fouls, both seen and unseen.Typically, there are between 150-160 plays in an NFL game, of which Blandino says three are called wrong. That’s a rate of 98% accuracy. Most football referees would be proud of that record. But like many statistics, it’s misleading. Pass interference is not subject to review because it’s deemed “too subjective”, which rules out a lot of fouls, both seen and unseen.
So it is the major calls, the ones that have a concrete objectivity: for example, either the ball crossed the line or it didn’t; either someone grabbed a player’s facemask or didn’t. This presumably is the type of area that Fifa is looking at. At present, thanks to Gary Neville and co, we can see just how often football referees, working without the benefit of technology, make major and, indeed, critical errors. Sometimes it seems that half the penalties that are awarded should not be, and half those turned down, should be given.So it is the major calls, the ones that have a concrete objectivity: for example, either the ball crossed the line or it didn’t; either someone grabbed a player’s facemask or didn’t. This presumably is the type of area that Fifa is looking at. At present, thanks to Gary Neville and co, we can see just how often football referees, working without the benefit of technology, make major and, indeed, critical errors. Sometimes it seems that half the penalties that are awarded should not be, and half those turned down, should be given.
The four arguments that have traditionally been employed against using technology are a) it would slow the game down; b) it would undermine the position of the referee; c) it would drive a wedge between the professional and amateur game; d) it would remove the element of human fallibility that is a key talking point.The four arguments that have traditionally been employed against using technology are a) it would slow the game down; b) it would undermine the position of the referee; c) it would drive a wedge between the professional and amateur game; d) it would remove the element of human fallibility that is a key talking point.
In the first case, players pretending to be injured slows the game down. A review decision would add suspense and its own dramatic pace. In the NFL, the reviewers have 60 seconds to come to a decision. I have seen goalkeepers take longer to take a goal‑kick.In the first case, players pretending to be injured slows the game down. A review decision would add suspense and its own dramatic pace. In the NFL, the reviewers have 60 seconds to come to a decision. I have seen goalkeepers take longer to take a goal‑kick.
In the second instance, what undermines the position of the referee is that they are continually shown to get it wrong by TV. Why not use TV, therefore, to get it right?In the second instance, what undermines the position of the referee is that they are continually shown to get it wrong by TV. Why not use TV, therefore, to get it right?
In the NFL, the referee still has the final decision – even if the advice he bases his decision on comes from the replay box and a man in New York.In the NFL, the referee still has the final decision – even if the advice he bases his decision on comes from the replay box and a man in New York.
Third, a whacking great canyon already exists between the elite game and everything else.Third, a whacking great canyon already exists between the elite game and everything else.
Finally, no it wouldn’t. No system completely removes human fallibility, if only because, as things stand, it’s still going to involve humans. The NFL continues to get things badly wrong, only less often.Finally, no it wouldn’t. No system completely removes human fallibility, if only because, as things stand, it’s still going to involve humans. The NFL continues to get things badly wrong, only less often.
Two years ago a game between Green Bay Packers and Seattle Seahawks ended in an infamous dispute dubbed the Fail Mary. On the final play of the game the Seahawks were awarded a touchdown that television replays showed should not have been given and, as a result, won the game 14-12. The match took place during a referees’ strike, and the failure of the replacement referees to do the job in the Fail Mary case was cited as a reason the NFL brought the referee lockout to a prompt end.Two years ago a game between Green Bay Packers and Seattle Seahawks ended in an infamous dispute dubbed the Fail Mary. On the final play of the game the Seahawks were awarded a touchdown that television replays showed should not have been given and, as a result, won the game 14-12. The match took place during a referees’ strike, and the failure of the replacement referees to do the job in the Fail Mary case was cited as a reason the NFL brought the referee lockout to a prompt end.
I was impressed by what I saw in New York. And the following evening I saw Chicago Bears at New York Jets. It was a tight game, although the Bears ran out 27-19 victors. But the Jets had a touchdown incorrectly ruled out, and another point-scoring position denied by a poor decision.I was impressed by what I saw in New York. And the following evening I saw Chicago Bears at New York Jets. It was a tight game, although the Bears ran out 27-19 victors. But the Jets had a touchdown incorrectly ruled out, and another point-scoring position denied by a poor decision.
If there’s one thing technology will never do, it’s put an end to talking points.If there’s one thing technology will never do, it’s put an end to talking points.