Re: NFL Replays

On Stardate 11/18/2003 11:42 PM, the following keys were mysteriously
typed at Scott Taylor's keyboard...
> "Paige Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Months ago we discussed whether or not, during a replay challenge,
> > a referee could view some other infraction (not the part of the play
> > challenged by one team) and reverse it. As I recall, we never had an
> > authoritative answer.
> >
> > Jerry Markbreit may not provide an official answer, but I consider his
> > answer to be from someone who is as well informed on the rules as
> > anyone.
>
>
> Ha!
>
> How quickly we forget when the clock stops on a successful Field
> Goal near the end of the 4th period of a Super Bowl, when somebody
> pulls the confetti string too soon.  :^D
>
>
>
> > Thus, I provide my question to Mr. Markbreit and his reply,
> > next. (See http://tinyurl.com/vlen)
> >
> >
> > When a team issues a challenge of an on-field ruling, must they specify
> > exactly which part of the play is being challenged? If the referee,
> > while viewing the replay, sees some other reversible error (not the part
> > of the play challenged but some other part), can the referee correct
> > this other reversible error? --Paige Miller, Rochester, N.Y.
> >
> > When a team challenges a ruling on the field, they must specify what is
> > being challenged. If the referee, while reviewing the play, sees some
> > other reversible error, the referee can correct the other error, even
> > though the team did not originally challenge it. If the original team
> > challenge is not reversed, the team is charged with a time out; however,
> > in the above situation, when some other part of the play is reversed,
> > the team is not charged with a time out.
>
>
> So, a team *could* screw themselves by not intending to
> reverse some other part of the ruling, but they would NOT
> be charged a time-out for the privilege of doing so.

I look forward the hearing the screams of protest the first time this 
happens. I might even predict that the rule gets changed during the 
offseason if this ever happens.

> This seems fair, as well as believable.  Let's give Mr. Whistle
> the benefit of the doubt on this one.

I agree, if you want the replay to be used so that the call is based on 
what actually happened on the field, this is fair.

--
Paige Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.rochester.rr.com/djpaige/blogger.html

It's nothing until I call it -- Bill Klem, NL Umpire
If you get the choice to sit it out or dance,
  I hope you dance -- Lee Ann Womack