Steelers do not plan to vote for extending replay at next week's league meetings

[RuthlessBurgher]

Steelers opposed to replay expansion

Posted by Josh Alper on March 22, 2019, 12:06 PM EDT

The NFL Competition Committee unveiled proposed changes to the way replay reviews are implemented on Thursday and they’re expected to be voted on at next week’s league meetings.

There are two proposals. One would allow for review of pass interference penalties while the other covers pass interference, roughing the passer and unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture. Neither would allow for replay to look at a missed call like the one from the NFC Championship Game.

Passing a rule change would require votes from 24 of the league’s 32 teams. Steelers owner Art Rooney II indicated his team would not be a yes vote when it comes time to pick sides.

“I’m not really excited to have replay expanded, and we’ll approach it with that in mind,” Rooney said.

Rooney did say he would be open to a proposal for adding a “sky judge” to the officiating crew, but was not in favor of an eighth on-field official. There is no proposal of that nature at the moment and Falcons president/Competition Committee chairman Rich McKay said there was no support for the idea when the committee met to discuss potential changes.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/03/22/steelers-opposed-to-replay-expansion/

[RuthlessBurgher]

By Mike Florio
Mar 26, 2019, 8:15 PM EDT
Rooney: Expansion of replay for pass interference only was “a compromise”

The expansion of replay review to include pass interference (offensive and defensive) means that replay review won’t expand to include roughing the passer and illegal contact with a defenseless receiver, at least for now.

As explained by Steelers owner Art Rooney II, the decision to limit the growth of replay to one foul and one foul only was aimed at getting any expansion through.

“It was pretty narrow and from our perspective,” Rooney said after the session culminating in the new rule, via Mark Kaboly of TheAthletic.com. “We weren’t that interested in having a lot of expansion of replay. It kind of represented a compromise.”

That’s good. It’s also a first step that could, in time, result in more fouls being included within the replay system. Which would be even better.

The goal should be to get everything right, and to ensure that all clear errors made in real time by game officials can be fixed. As teams, media, and fans realize that expanding replay for pass interference won’t lead to four-hour games and other supposed “unintended consequences,” maybe more types of fouls will be added to the list of obvious mistakes that can be fixed — because they should be fixed.

[SteelBucks]

Nice! The NFL finally enters the 21st century.

[Steel Maniac]

Games will be six hours long now. Pack a lunch.

[Oh wow]

This is a good rule.

[flippy]

One of the great variables in sports is the refs. Some call more fouls/penalties, others let people play. It creates uncertainty and players/coaches need to adjust on the fly. As fans, it's fun arguing calls. It feels triumphant overcoming bad officiating.

Getting everything right over sanitizes a sport imho. I don't want to see perfection. I want people to call what they see. Some errors are so bad that I don't mind correcting obvious mistakes. But instant replay for close calls is annoying. Let the players play and refs use their best judgement.

Sometimes, I see the pursuit of perfection as a mental disease that impacts the majority. The true spice of life is disorder.

[Oh wow]

This is about gambling. I would hate to lose a grip of money because refs made a blatant mistake that impacts a game.

When calls are missed like the Saints call it really makes it hard to defend the legitimacy of some of these refs. It truly appeared like the money men would’ve lost their shirts if the Saints won that game.

[Northern_Blitz]

Anybody have thoughts on the 4th and 15 rule: instead of onside kicks, you opt have a 4th and 15 on your own 35 to get the ball back.

Heard about this rule for the first time today...my gut reaction is that we shouldn't implement it.

[Steel Maniac]

This is about gambling. I would hate to lose a grip of money because refs made a blatant mistake that impacts a game.

When calls are missed like the Saints call it really makes it hard to defend the legitimacy of some of these refs. It truly appeared like the money men would’ve lost their shirts if the Saints won that game.

It did; and the fact that the foul was so egregious, yet NOT ONE ref anywhere threw a flag when we've seen multiple flags come out on infractions that were less egregious. That made it look like the fix was in.

[RuthlessBurgher]

Games will be six hours long now. Pack a lunch.

Coaches will still have the same number of challenges as they've had in previous years. They just have an option to challenge something else that they were not allowed to challenge before. It shouldn't alter game lengths one way or another one iota.

[Northern_Blitz]

Coaches will still have the same number of challenges as they've had in previous years. They just have an option to challenge something else that they were not allowed to challenge before. It shouldn't alter game lengths one way or another one iota.

I would prefer to get rid of replay all together.

But, I think that implementation of this will be fine as long as they continue to hold the line on not allowing replay to be used as a tool to look for penalties that weren't called.

[SteelBucks]

Could you imagine if the Steelers were on the wrong side of that blown Saints/Rams call? We’d all be screaming for this. I think it’s a good move. Let’s get the calls right.

[Steel Maniac]

I would prefer to get rid of replay all together.

But, I think that implementation of this will be fine as long as they continue to hold the line on not allowing replay to be used as a tool to look for penalties that weren't called.

Boom..little bit longer games.

[Steel Maniac]

Could you imagine if the Steelers were on the wrong side of that blown Saints/Rams call? We’d all be screaming for this. I think it’s a good move. Let’s get the calls right.

Yeah; well it's definitely worth a try. Getting it right is the bottom line. Hopefully.

[Northern_Blitz]

Could you imagine if the Steelers were on the wrong side of that blown Saints/Rams call? We’d all be screaming for this. I think it’s a good move. Let’s get the calls right.

I think that this new rule can't be used to examine calls that were not made.

If so it wouldn't have made any difference in the Saints / Rams game.

If they opened it up so you could challenge calls not made, you'd basically just hold onto your challenges for big plays. Because there's probably a holding on every play.

Edit: looks like I was wrong about challenging non calls? I think that allowing that is stupid.