Skip to content

Bill Belichick: Why not let coaches challenge everything?

belichickref AP

Patriots coach Bill Belichick has a simple solution for the NFL’s often impenetrable rules about which plays can be reviewed on instant replay and which plays can’t: Just let coaches challenge everything.

Belichick notes that coaches only get two challenges anyway (and a third if the firs two are successful), so it’s not like coaches could throw their red challenge flags after every play. As Belichick sees it, if a coach is confident that replay will show indisputable evidence that the officials got something wrong on the field, that coach should be allowed to initiate a replay review.

“When you have two challenges, I don’t see anything wrong with the concept of ‘you can challenge any two plays that you want,’” Belichick said, via Mike Reiss of ESPN. “I understand that judgment calls are judgment calls, but to say that an important play can’t be reviewed, I don’t think that’s really in the spirit of trying to get everything right and making sure the most important plays are officiated properly.

“If you get a situation where they call a guy for being offside, and you don’t think he was offside and you’re willing to use one of your challenges on that to let them go back and take a look at it — I understand if the evidence isn’t conclusive that the call stands. If it is [conclusive] than they’d overturn it.

“If it’s offensive holding, if you think one of the offensive linemen tackles your guy as he’s rushing the quarterback, and the ball hasn’t been thrown, they go back and look at it and if it’s that egregious of a violation they would make a call. If it wasn’t, they wouldn’t. We have to live with that anyway but now it’s only on certain plays and certain situations.

“It’s kind of confusing for me as to which plays are, and which plays aren’t challengeable. I’m sure it’s confusing to the fans to know what they all are. There are multiple pages explaining what you can and can’t challenge. Then you have the officials come over to you in a controversial type of play and say, ‘Well, you can challenge this, or you can’t challenge it’ which is helpful. But I’m just saying the whole idea of simplifying the game and trying to get the important plays right, I wouldn’t have any problem if any play was open to a challenge, understanding that if it’s not conclusive, then it’s not conclusive and the ruling on the field would stand. That’s the way it is anyway. You have to make it a lot simpler in my mind.”

As I wrote last week, there are a lot of obviously bad calls that could easily be corrected if only the referee were allowed to use replay. For instance, when Packers linebacker A.J. Hawk blatantly grabbed and twisted Adrian Peterson’s facemask before forcing Peterson to fumble, the play was automatically reviewed because it was a turnover — but the officials weren’t allowed to call the obvious facemask they had missed, even though it was right there in front of them on the video monitor, because facemasking isn’t reviewable.

Members of the competition committee have said in the past that they don’t want judgment calls like holding and pass interference to be subject to replay reviews, but that doesn’t make a lot of sense considering that the league office uses replay reviews during the week to grade officials on those same judgment calls. If replays are going to be used to say whether an official got a call right or wrong during the week, why not let the referee use the replay right then and there when the call is made to get it right at the time?

Belichick makes a good point. Instead of byzantine rules that allow certain elements of certain calls to be reviewed, while forcing referees to ignore other things they see on replay, it would make more sense to simply tell every coach that he has two challenges, and he can challenge any call that he thinks replay can correct.

Permalink 122 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: New England Patriots, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
122 Responses to “Bill Belichick: Why not let coaches challenge everything?”
  1. ingraven says: Dec 3, 2013 2:12 PM

    For once, I agree with him.

  2. harrisonhits2 says: Dec 3, 2013 2:13 PM

    Great idea. Too bad it makes so much sense, which means the NFL is unlikely go with it.

  3. h3min1230 says: Dec 3, 2013 2:13 PM

    Best coach in NFL history.

    No debate.

  4. coutre says: Dec 3, 2013 2:14 PM

    Too bad the competition committee won’t do anything unless forced to act by the press.

  5. hypnotiqnico says: Dec 3, 2013 2:14 PM

    I said this a while ago. Keep the # of challenges the same but open up what can be challenged.

    There have been some pretty egregious calls made this year across the NFL and these are things that could have been easily corrected with a challenge.

    I don’t know why the competition committee and Mr. “God”ell is so insistent that the referees are infallible.

    Some of these calls have changed games.

  6. bringbackkosar says: Dec 3, 2013 2:14 PM

    I like it. The rulebook is so convoluted that even the zebras can’t get a handle on it anymore

  7. marima07 says: Dec 3, 2013 2:14 PM

    That’s about as fair as it can get.

  8. thestrategyexpert says: Dec 3, 2013 2:15 PM

    Because it’s silly. The system should have oversight that naturally challenges every play as well as monitors everything that is going on out there. The NFL should have a team of people that do this so the players and the coaches can focus on playing a clean and fair game.

    Nobody has developed a better officiating system than the one I conceived of that leaves nothing to complain about and takes all the unprofessionalism out of the mix to make it into a professional league. Then we can take football seriously and enjoy it. Some day they will listen to my ideas. Or at least I continue to hope so!

  9. Neftali Ramos says: Dec 3, 2013 2:15 PM

    Perfect sense.

  10. logicalvoicesays says: Dec 3, 2013 2:16 PM

    Why cheat and burn the Spygate footage? #ZeroLegitSuperbowls

  11. raiderufan says: Dec 3, 2013 2:17 PM

    I agree. Simplify and get the calls correct.

  12. daysend564 says: Dec 3, 2013 2:17 PM

    He went on to say that he also believes that opposing teams shouldn’t be able to run plays that he hasn’t had a chance to tape in their walkthroughs.

  13. goplayonthetracks says: Dec 3, 2013 2:17 PM

    Goodell: I agree Bill, that’ll give us an extra 45 minutes of advertising each game.

    It’s right around the corner.

  14. raideralex99 says: Dec 3, 2013 2:19 PM

    We all get it … the games are fixed.

  15. longhorn28 says: Dec 3, 2013 2:19 PM

    It hurts me to agree with Belichick but its a pretty good point and well thought out.

  16. hines86for6 says: Dec 3, 2013 2:19 PM

    if a coach wins a challenge, he shouldn’t lose one of his challenges.

  17. deelron says: Dec 3, 2013 2:20 PM

    He’s totally right, there’s been at least 3 fumbles the past two weeks that’d be overturned if the officials had seen the egregious facemask penalties that occurred on the ball carrier.

  18. ewjjrj says: Dec 3, 2013 2:20 PM

    Uh oh….get your checkbook ready Bill…I see a fine coming. Never question the almighty rules committee!

  19. aggp11 says: Dec 3, 2013 2:20 PM

    Don’t we always talk about how replays make the game slow down? Just imagine how much time it would take in challenging and reviewing holding/pass interference calls. I understand something like the Adrian Peterson fumble be reviewed and overturned, but I don’t think holding calls make much sense.

    Michael David Smith: As long as the coaches only have two challenges per game, Belichick’s proposal wouldn’t make the games longer.

  20. rodneyharrisonstruckstick says: Dec 3, 2013 2:20 PM

    Love it. At a boy Bill. I agree.

    My favorite quotes from him are when he mocks Jeff fisher and the Competition Committee. Like a parent telling kids to “go play kitchen upstairs while I cook dinner”.

  21. kate773 says: Dec 3, 2013 2:22 PM

    100% agree with this. The replay rule is, like everything else, getting WAY too complicated.

    Calls like PI, where you can be penalized the entire length of the field, need to be able to be reviewed. They’re happening too fast, with the ref having a bunch of things he has to look for all at once. They’re going to miss a bunch, and with what’s at stake as far as penalty yardage, its only fair to have it reviewed.

    The only time I see a problem is when a coach challenges offensive holding on game winning TD’s. He holds a challenge in his pocket in a tight game so he can throw it if the opposing team scores. There’s holding on every play right? Game winning TD will be called back on the reg.

  22. watermelon1 says: Dec 3, 2013 2:23 PM

    Vegas has to have SOME way to control the points.

    Don’t be so naive, people!

  23. p1stol34 says: Dec 3, 2013 2:23 PM

    The bigger question to me, is why a team is limited in challenges, if the challenged calls are determined to be incorrect.
    You get the first two right, and awarded a third. But why stop there? If you’ve proven three consecutive bad calls, why should you be punished by having no more opportunities?
    I understand the popular response will be it slows the game down, but the goal is to get it right, and if the refs keep getting it wrong, the team shouldn’t be punished.

  24. posmoo says: Dec 3, 2013 2:23 PM

    clearly, that’s simply not convoluted enough.

  25. wishingtonredslur says: Dec 3, 2013 2:26 PM

    Scientifically the ball is only in play for like 11 minutes out of 3.5 hours so could you just snap it so I can hurry up and survive 35 minutes of replay and 2.75 hours of commercial breaks already.

  26. danielmcintosh81 says: Dec 3, 2013 2:26 PM

    I truthfully believe that coach should be able to challenge personal fouls and pass interference penalties. Those type of penalties change the momentum of the game. If they got a personal foul penalty like a face mask call wrong, that should be looked at.

  27. ijahru says: Dec 3, 2013 2:27 PM

    Put a referee in a booth in front of a TV monitor. Those of us watching at home can see a replay from 5 different angles and make the right call within 30 seconds. Why not have a ref in a booth do the same thing with the ability to buzz down and have the refs on the field correct a bad call. The reason I have heard this doesn’t happen is because the Ref on the field doesn’t want to delegate the replay rsponsibility to someone not on the field. They want to keep total control and don’t want to be second guessed.

  28. Stupid Lions Fan says: Dec 3, 2013 2:28 PM

    Agree 100%

  29. uwsptke says: Dec 3, 2013 2:28 PM

    Actually, I think he’s going in the wrong direction with this one. “Challenges” should be eliminated and reviews should be 100% handled by the officiating team, like the NCAA has set up. It takes the extra onus off of the coaches (who have plenty to worry about without having guys upstairs in his ears about challenges while trying to call the next play), and puts it on the officials (the guys that are paid to get the calls correct in the first place). That’s the simplest and best solution.

    MLB is implementing more instant replay next season, and they too missed the boat by introducing a “challenge” system when the obvious review alternative makes so much more sense.

    The challenge system just removes all responsibility from the officiating team for getting the calls correct. It’s insane.

  30. listenupcupcake says: Dec 3, 2013 2:28 PM

    An excellent idea – one that has occurred to me often in these last few seasons, as Goodell the regulatory fan-boy and risk/litigation manager has increased both the number of rules and the pace of change in the rules. It’s what lawyers do reflexively – making needless complexity and then “devoting resources” to untangling it is the lawyers’ path to money and power. And it makes for an unmanageable mess, just like the DC that Roger grew up in.

    Since Roger isn’t going away, unfortunately, the best way to manage the mess that he hath wrought is to open up challenges to any play, and to let the coaches decide how to use them.

    And I’d increase the number of challenges to at least 3, and maybe more. There would still be fewer stoppages for review, and more equity in those that do occur.

    But I think Roger, wearing his striped shirt at home, would prefer still more regulation and review. :/

  31. steelerchicken says: Dec 3, 2013 2:28 PM

    Dumbest Idea ever!

    Why not have do overs for plays that do not work?

  32. zam0854 says: Dec 3, 2013 2:30 PM

    How bout them Redskins!!!!!!

    Best damn team since the 2012 Chiefs

  33. brazzz01 says: Dec 3, 2013 2:30 PM

    I’d like to agree with Bill but I don’t like the idea of reviewing penalties. Leave that as is.

    Maybe tweak DPI to be a 10 yard penalty if incidental and only a spot foul if flagrant.

  34. allseeingone says: Dec 3, 2013 2:30 PM

    To take literary liberty with a quote from Homeland…The NFL is both the smartest and dumbest organization I’ve ever known.

  35. t8ertot says: Dec 3, 2013 2:31 PM

    He does have the best camera crew in the league after all….

    Sorry couldn’t help myself. But seriously, it would slow down the game too much. Besides, if we had some reliable officials, we wouldn’t be talking about this

  36. keepounding1234 says: Dec 3, 2013 2:33 PM

    watermelon1 says:
    Dec 3, 2013 2:23 PM
    Vegas has to have SOME way to control the points.

    Don’t be so naive, people!

    ___________________________________
    Vegas controls the spread before the game getting equal betting on each side. They keep the vig and win everytime no matter what.

    Don’t be so naive.

  37. patriotwayspygate says: Dec 3, 2013 2:33 PM

    Tom Brady hasn’t won a Super Bowl since Spygate. If they don’t win another Super Bowl with Brady, with Belichick, their three Super Bowls that they did win are going to be tainted. It’s going to be like Barry Bonds. You’re going to look at those three Super Bowls with an asterisk because of Spygate.

  38. brazzz01 says: Dec 3, 2013 2:33 PM

    He holds a challenge in his pocket in a tight game so he can throw it if the opposing team scores. There’s holding on every play right? Game winning TD will be called back on the reg.

    —-

    Which is why I don’t like the idea of reviewing penalties or what-should-have-been a penalty…

  39. kingpel says: Dec 3, 2013 2:33 PM

    It takes just as long for the officials to explain to the coaches why they cant challenge certain plays so you might as well just let them challenge it. All I care about is increasing the flow of the game and that means I want LESS penalties.

    The illegal contact, defensive holding and pass interference calls for automatic first downs on 3rd and long are getting ridiculous. Have these calls always been such a problem?

  40. uwsptke says: Dec 3, 2013 2:34 PM

    Also, the challenge system just slows the game down even further in the NFL than the simple review system the NCAA employs. You rarely even go to commercial while a play is being reviewed in college. The official feels his pager buzzing in his pocket, stops play, and someone brings him a headset to communicate to the “eyes in the sky” that have likely already come to a conclusion. It’s over in less than 90 seconds.

    In the NFL, it usually takes 20 seconds for the coaches to get enough information to challenge. Then they have to throw the flag and wait for the referee to jog over before explaining what they want challenged. Then the referee has to tell the crowd what is being challenged, and then the referee has to jog over put his head under the hood. 2 minutes have passed since the end of the play and he hasn’t even looked at the play yet. Then they go to commercial.

    I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!

  41. lightcleric says: Dec 3, 2013 2:35 PM

    Challenging a no-call is much worse than challenging calls. It’s one thing to challenge whether someone was offsides because that’s factual.How are you going to determine what’s egregious on the challenge with judgement calls? We complain enough about players being flagged for “heat of the moment” stuff like roughing the passer; do we want to let coaches throw a flag to get that called? Does the ref have to acknowledge “technically there was holding but it wasn’t bad enough so we’re not calling it”?

    This seems to be inviting nitpick challenges, because coaches rarely use both or even one. They use them even less now that turnovers and scoring plays, some of the most important plays in the game, are automatically reviewed so challenges could be used on this more often.

  42. buckybadger says: Dec 3, 2013 2:35 PM

    Why not use the college system that doesn’t put the judgement on the coaches? Why should teams be forced to call out mistakes and not have a separate team in the booth that takes the burden off the coaches. Why have the ref go off the field and take all that time when a guy in the booth could do it just as well and quicker? Oh cause it doesn’t allow for more commercials, OK I get it. The current system is flawed and the only reason I don’t see them using what I think is a far superior one is because of commercials. They have sped the game up not to make it too long and have replaced it with instant replay. That is just what I want to watch.

  43. ryanb66 says: Dec 3, 2013 2:36 PM

    I’ve said for years…..let coaches have unlimited challenges. BUT, and a big but….as soon as they get a 2nd challenge wrong, they are done for the game.
    If the ref’s are making mistakes or missing calls, isn’t the goal is to get the call correct?

  44. kingpel says: Dec 3, 2013 2:36 PM

    kate773 says: Dec 3, 2013 2:22 PM

    The only time I see a problem is when a coach challenges offensive holding on game winning TD’s. He holds a challenge in his pocket in a tight game so he can throw it if the opposing team scores. There’s holding on every play right?
    ………………………………………………………………………

    If they could challenge non-calls on holding and pass interference this will get aggravating.

  45. justintuckrule says: Dec 3, 2013 2:37 PM

    Better idea. Get rid of replays altogether and live with the rulings on the field. What goes around comes around on screwups anyway. System worked beautifully this way for the 80 years before the advent of replay. Games are already too long as it is with all the nonsense penalties and t.v. timeouts after every other play. Do we really need to stop the flow of the game to challenge what may or may not have been an innocent glance of the facemask?

  46. jmac1013 says: Dec 3, 2013 2:38 PM

    Why have coaches challenges at all. If the booth can review plays during the last two minutes of each half, why not have them reviewing during the other 56 minutes?

    If shouldn’t be about a coach having enough timeouts, having challenges left, or having a good view, etc. It should be about getting the calls correct. Period.

  47. harrisonhits2 says: Dec 3, 2013 2:39 PM

    aggp11 says:

    Don’t we always talk about how replays make the game slow down? Just imagine how much time it would take in challenging and reviewing holding/pass interference calls.
    ___________________________

    It should take no more average time than it takes to review any other play and the coaches already have and do use the challenges most games.

    On any given play there might be good luck and the primary camera shot shows whatever is in question clearly. On other plays they might have to look at 2, 3, 4 even more angles before they find one that shows a clear shot of what’s being challenged.

    This will make zero difference to the length of the games.

  48. alewatcher says: Dec 3, 2013 2:43 PM

    With the number of poor judgement calls being made on a weekly basis, this makes sense.

  49. thatwasntsological says: Dec 3, 2013 2:43 PM

    This is such a great idea that there’s no way they would ever use it. It makes way to much sense.

  50. pleazenufalready says: Dec 3, 2013 2:46 PM

    this would never work….and here’s why……offensive holding occurs on almost every play, it’s just more blatant on some plays than others…….IF you are allowed to challenge for things like penalties that weren’t called on a play, then every time a big play happens, the opposing coach is going to challenge it….AND…if they look hard enough and long enough, they will find either a holding violation, or hands to the face, or something else that will nullify the play. Do we really want that going on?

    Michael David Smith: They can’t challenge “every time a big play happens.” They only get two challenges per game.

  51. patsfan1820 says: Dec 3, 2013 2:46 PM

    This idea makes too much sense for the NFL to do.

  52. chaseutley says: Dec 3, 2013 2:47 PM

    Why not hire team lawyers whose job it is to argue every call?
    Perhaps we could have a courtroom right there in the stadium, challenge every play, and televise it on the jumbotron.
    Exciting stuff! Where do I sign up?

  53. patriotinvasion says: Dec 3, 2013 2:49 PM

    As much as I love BB, reviewing penalties is a terrible idea – because it works both ways. After every big touchdown, you’d have coaches throwing challenge flags to make the ref check to see if there was holding on the play. Since holding can sometimes be very subjective, allowing for this would open up a whole new can of worms and could ruin games.

    I actually think the NFL replay system is ok as is. It gets the call right >90% of the time which is certainly better than it was pre-replay. Biggest problem with the game are the automatic first downs from ticky-tack PI, illegal contact, and defensive holding calls. It feels like the NBA these days.

  54. myeaglescantwin says: Dec 3, 2013 2:50 PM

    The NFL should see this as a great opportunity for more TV timeouts.. with that rational, it’s bound to pass.

    disgusting greed machine..

    “we now interrupt these commercials for some football”

  55. mathomp3 says: Dec 3, 2013 2:50 PM

    How about just getting rid of this defenseless receiver nonsense?

  56. bennyb82 says: Dec 3, 2013 2:51 PM

    Also the network that televises each game should be better about showing instant replay. I am mainly talking about the NFL network…who for some reason would rather show meaningless footage when a controversial play occurs.

  57. ianwetpantscom says: Dec 3, 2013 2:51 PM

    Mike Tomlin will think about it

  58. FoozieGrooler says: Dec 3, 2013 2:54 PM

    h3min1230 says:
    “..Best coach in NFL history.
    No debate…”

    Most heavily fined cheater in NFL history.
    No debate.

  59. shayeezy says: Dec 3, 2013 2:54 PM

    belichick is on the money with this. there was an intentional grounding call against alex smith on sunday when he was clearly just outside of the tackle box. it’s not even a judgment call, because you can clearly delineate where the tackle box is at the snap, and where the quarterback is when he throws the ball, yet that penalty is not reviewable. the NFL needs to get it together.

  60. telldatruth says: Dec 3, 2013 2:54 PM

    Probably take about 12 hours for one game

  61. brutus9448 says: Dec 3, 2013 2:55 PM

    If NFL allowed that then the NFL wouldn’t be able to control the outcome of the games.
    They’re a business too. Having brady playing in the playoffs is good for business. So he gets the calls.

  62. brazzz01 says: Dec 3, 2013 3:01 PM

    Having brady playing in the playoffs is good for business. So he gets the calls.
    ———-
    I can tell Brady gets the calls. Just ask the Panthers.

  63. bleedgreen says: Dec 3, 2013 3:03 PM

    aggp11 says:
    Dec 3, 2013 2:20 PM
    Don’t we always talk about how replays make the game slow down? Just imagine how much time it would take in challenging and reviewing holding/pass interference calls. I understand something like the Adrian Peterson fumble be reviewed and overturned, but I don’t think holding calls make much sense.

    ———————————

    What difference does it make WHAT’S reviewed? You have 2 challenges. It takes the same amount of time to review a spot of the ball as it would to review for PI. Its just that the burden of proof is much different. Its still a judgement call, but maybe seen in a different angle from where the ref was, he could see that there was a facemask or that the guy got armbarred.

  64. beerndrums says: Dec 3, 2013 3:07 PM

    If they challenged all the plays the cheaters would be in 2nd place in the AFC East

  65. birds4ever says: Dec 3, 2013 3:09 PM

    The reason they don’t do that is because there are “penalties” on every play. On any play a coach could throw the red flag and ask for a holding call. If they did this, Coaches are going to throw the flag on any game-changing play, and then the NFL is going to have to explain why a hold isn’t really a hold, why a receiver didn’t really “push off” enough to warrant a penalty, or why a “block in the back” was close enough to the side. Nobody wants to be in the business of explaining that.

    There’s a reason they’re judgement calls. Its because if they weren’t, there would be penalties on every play.

  66. cursedvikings1998 says: Dec 3, 2013 3:10 PM

    This may be the only time I will ever love Bill Belichick.

  67. shayeezy says: Dec 3, 2013 3:10 PM

    “telldatruth says: Dec 3, 2013 2:54 PM

    Probably take about 12 hours for one game”

    maybe read the article, or just understand the rules before commenting next time. coaches still only get two challenges per game. allowing them to use those on a wider variety of plays will not increase the length of games.

  68. CKL says: Dec 3, 2013 3:12 PM

    WHY do people think that if a coach can use their current amount of challenges, just have the whole array of plays to use them on, that it will add more time to a game?

    BB is really a guy who should be on the competition committee if people want common sense, but either they will never ask him or he will never agree to it.

    The way you’d stop coaches from using it on TDs is that coaches wouldn’t be allowed to challenge anything called a TD, just like now. The refs would then simply review the whole play.

  69. justintuckrule says: Dec 3, 2013 3:13 PM

    Get rid of replay, the defenseless receiver rule, the what constitutes a catch rule, the defensive holding past 5 yards rule (i.e. the Ty Law rule), and the QB helmet contact rule (unnecessary roughness covers it all).

    Injuries and poor officiating is up despite these abominable machinations.

    Do what I said and you will get rid of 90% of the crap plaguing (or what Goodell thinks is plaguing) the league today.

  70. peoriaviking says: Dec 3, 2013 3:17 PM

    Try as I might, I can find absolutely nothing wrong with that. I must (gasp for air) . . . agree with Belichick.

  71. wayconthemexican says: Dec 3, 2013 3:17 PM

    I understand where Bill’s coming from, but this is only putting a Band-Aid on a broken leg. Being able to challenge everything sounds great, but the increasing number of missing/awful calls in each game could potentially cost a team all of their challenges by halftime. Coaches being able to challenge everything sounds good, but the referees need to be able to review more situations and penalties for any real difference to be made.

  72. quentinsands says: Dec 3, 2013 3:21 PM

    Zero Superbowl wins since Spygate for the Bengals, Browns, Bears, Lions, Vikings, Texans, Colts, Jaguars, Titans, Falcons, Panthers, Buccaneers, Bills, Dolphins, Jets, Cowboys, Eagles, Cardinals, 49rs, Seahawks, Rams, Redskins, Broncos, Chiefs, Raiders and Chargers.

    Oh, and the Patriots as well.

  73. richardcolvinreid says: Dec 3, 2013 3:23 PM

    John and roger will not like this.

  74. sportsguy3434 says: Dec 3, 2013 3:23 PM

    The refs aren’t always sure which calls are challengable. Let the coaches have the challenges.

    And while we are at it, move the challenges upstairs like the college game. Much better system.

  75. foxboro87 says: Dec 3, 2013 3:24 PM

    Can’t agree to this. The NFL won’t allow it. Bill is so much smarter than all the other coaches it would give the Pats an “unfair advantage” and thus create even more haters.
    In BB We Trust

  76. jagsandliquor says: Dec 3, 2013 3:24 PM

    OMG I feel sorry for you guys…Let just change it…Lets have a black flag that coaches throw in order to change 1 rule per game…forget it lets give em 10 black flags…the problem is we keep changing the rules…STOP IT… stop complaining and watch the game…. you spoiled american children….

  77. sadviking says: Dec 3, 2013 3:28 PM

    My only concern is on plays that are blown dead. How will players actually know when to stop killing each other? That was the original reason a lot of the plays aren’t challengeable in the first place. Do the players get coached to not stop even after the whistle? Also, if a player is offsides, and the qb chucks it downfield for an interception, does the int stand? The qb wouldn’t have otherwise thrown the ball…

  78. redvenomweb says: Dec 3, 2013 3:28 PM

    Horrible idea.

    Belichick seems to be conveniently ignoring that all challenges after te 2-min warning are from upstairs, and that all turnovers/scoring plays are reviewed. This would turn replay into a fishing expedition for any hold (evaluated in slo-mo, mind you) that would negate whatever big play just happened.

  79. savocabol1 says: Dec 3, 2013 3:28 PM

    I have always said you should be able to challenge any personal foul penalty. They change the game more than turnovers sometimes.

  80. metintodd says: Dec 3, 2013 3:32 PM

    People posting about the bogus Spygate really need to get a life. Every team was videotaping because it was legal. Goodell sent that memo about videotaping to every team in the NFL, not just the Pats, because every team was videotaping, not just the Patriots. People need to get off the idea that somehow the Patriots Superbowl wins are tainted because of this. People are just desperate to knock off #1 because they’ve been an NFL dynasty for so long. Deal with it.

  81. mizzousooner says: Dec 3, 2013 3:36 PM

    If coaches can challenge anything and everything, games will soon be 48 hours long!

    Dumb!

  82. flash1283 says: Dec 3, 2013 3:41 PM

    mizzousooner says:
    Dec 3, 2013 3:36 PM
    If coaches can challenge anything and everything, games will soon be 48 hours long!

    Dumb!


    Read first!!!!

    He’s saying you still only get 2 you should just get to use them on whatever you want.

  83. weepingjebus says: Dec 3, 2013 3:48 PM

    Once Belichick gets tired of running laps around the rest of the league, he should be Commissioner. You know the Bills, Jets, and Dolphins will get behind it just to get him out of the division.

  84. hehateme2 says: Dec 3, 2013 3:52 PM

    h3min1230 says:
    Dec 3, 2013 2:13 PM -Best coach in NFL history.

    Pfft. What a homer, new to football? He has a long way to go to reach Don Shula’s world.

  85. patfanken says: Dec 3, 2013 3:56 PM

    Some comments on the comments:

    1. BB is right on the money with his idea. As long as the HC only has 2 challenges, he might as well be able to challenge whatever 2 plays he wants

    However I would make 2 additions. First is general. That being that it should be a game official in the booth or truck or whereever who makes the review. Having the ref make the review just simply takes too long. The second is on reviewing offensive holding. Coaches and refs both should be advised that for an offensive holding call to be imposed it has to be both blatant and affecting the play. Same goes for defensive holding. Nothing marginal should cause a change.

    2. I find it interesting that the smartest, most knowledgeable, and experienced HC in the league has NEVER been asked to be on the “rules committee. Kind of tells you all you want to know about that “august body”.

    Guys like Shula and Polian shaped the rules to benefit THEIR teams for years

  86. 49erfan44 says: Dec 3, 2013 3:57 PM

    What a shocker, Bill wants to use video.

  87. sactogary says: Dec 3, 2013 4:00 PM

    I’m definitely for reviewing PI calls. These are often major, game-changing penalties. When clear pass interference should have been called but wasn’t (as the NFL admitted on the Fail Mary), or when a bad call is made, it should be challengeable.

  88. rikker12 says: Dec 3, 2013 4:08 PM

    The NFL should hire FULL TIME referees first, before they start making more and more changes… Years ago, referees had less to worry about during a game than they do now…Thats why there are soooo many blown calls, thay have to view so many things during a play that they miss the most obvious calls…. With all the money they get from the fines they give out, maybe they should take that money and pay the referees year around… Have an off season program for these guys.. Thats how you make the system work better… Also since they took away the hard hits on defense, maybe they should let the DB’s play more aggressively on the receivers.. Can’t watch a game without aleast 4 PI’s..

  89. theblakfox says: Dec 3, 2013 4:09 PM

    How would there be more commercials if you were still only allowed the same number of challenges?

  90. rpmcanes says: Dec 3, 2013 4:09 PM

    Tom Brady hasn’t won a Super Bowl since Spygate. If they don’t win another Super Bowl with Brady, with Belichick, their three Super Bowls that they did win are going to be tainted. It’s going to be like Barry Bonds. You’re going to look at those three Super Bowls with an asterisk because of Spygate

    Why don’t you at least make an accurate statement, like they haven’t won a Super Bowl since 2004, which incidentally is the same year both coordinators left for head coaching jobs, Tedy Bruschi had a stroke (clearly not the same player afterwards), Ty Law left, etc. Oh and by the way they lost the next two years. Some advantage.

  91. kate773 says: Dec 3, 2013 4:24 PM

    kate773 says:Dec 3, 2013 2:22 PM

    The only time I see a problem is when a coach challenges offensive holding on game winning TD’s. He holds a challenge in his pocket in a tight game so he can throw it if the opposing team scores. There’s holding on every play right? Game winning TD will be called back on the reg.
    __________________________________

    I guess the answer to my own question would be that you can’t challenge a non-call, only called penalties.

  92. thegregwitul says: Dec 3, 2013 4:27 PM

    Greg Schiano said almost the exact same thing in his most recent press conference, and I believe a third coach brought up this idea. How many more games need to be blown by the refs in order for logic to sink in?

  93. 49erfan44 says: Dec 3, 2013 4:30 PM

    As long as its still only two per game, I don’t see the big deal with it.

  94. blindshootist says: Dec 3, 2013 4:50 PM

    Conspiracy theorists will tell you why all sports will never take the “human element” out of them.

    Control and influence, the just in case policy for those in control. Ratings or cash, ivory tower corporate to private investors… college or pro… any sport…. anyone who doesn’t believe an influence is present at some point in every season is ignorant or blissfully blind.

  95. sportnorcal says: Dec 3, 2013 4:54 PM

    “Best coach in NFL history.

    No debate.”

    ===

    Lombardi, Walsh, Noll and Shula are laughing at you.

    Thanks for answering the age-old question of just why people hate NE and its fans so much.

  96. soaringeagle13 says: Dec 3, 2013 4:56 PM

    savocabol1 says: Dec 3, 2013 3:28 PM

    I have always said you should be able to challenge any personal foul penalty. They change the game more than turnovers sometimes.
    ——————————————————-
    For the most part, I agree. But I think pass interference calls affect the game a little more

  97. redvenomweb says: Dec 3, 2013 5:08 PM

    Again, unless this rule specifically states that holds, PIs, etc. are only reviewable on coaches’ challenges (and not the automatic review after score/turnover or last 2min of half), it isn’t “only 2 per game.” Every single score/turnover (or big play in last 2min) will become a fishing expedition for any infraction, and anything not called will elicit howls of rage.

    And even if the above were the case, what do you do if there’s a turnover on downs (with a question of PI) at the end of the game? Coaches are not permitted to challenge in the last 2min. So what happens?

  98. bamafan63 says: Dec 3, 2013 5:11 PM

    the coaches should have the right to challenge any play,regardless of whether it is a penalty or not.the refs should also have the right to enforce penalties they did not see the 1st time when reviewing plays.

  99. kisstherings says: Dec 3, 2013 5:24 PM

    @patriotinvasion says: Dec 3, 2013 2:49 PM

    As much as I love BB, reviewing penalties is a terrible idea – because it works both ways. After every big touchdown, you’d have coaches throwing challenge flags to make the ref check to see if there was holding on the play. Since holding can sometimes be very subjective, allowing for this would open up a whole new can of worms and could ruin games.

    —————————————————————

    1. They wouldn’t be throwing them after every big Touchdown, because they only get two challenges.

    2. Much like replay now, they couldn’t just “review the entire play” The official walks over to the coach that threw the flag and asks what he saw that should be reviewed, and they review THAT aspect of the play, not the whole play. i.e. They can’t just say, review the entire play for holding…..they would have to say, review the play because #72 held #99.

    This idea makes total sense and would not slow the game down any more than the current challenge system, which is ineffective.

  100. granadafan says: Dec 3, 2013 6:18 PM

    Is that the most Belichick has ever said at one time?

  101. tmb333 says: Dec 3, 2013 6:33 PM

    I am not sure the NFL actually wants to get it right 100% of the time. All replays should be conducted by the booth. The booth should signal that a replay is being conducted and play stopped by activating a light on each goal post. That way officials cannot ignore the booth’s request.

    Coaches should be given two replays and every play should be reviewable. If the coaches is successful on two replays, he gets another and keeps getting replays as long as he is correct. Why should it be limited to correcting three calls a game. If the officials error 10 times, let’s get it right. Perhaps this pressure will require the league to improve officiating and get new, younger officials involved. They could easily add two additional on each side line fives yards down field from the LOS. This would clean up all the picks and holding on pass routes. They could also add an additional back judge.

    If the NFL wanted it to get better, it would.

  102. corvusrex96 says: Dec 3, 2013 6:38 PM

    There is holding on basically every play , the refs usually call egregious ones that directly effect the play (or to the benefit of the favorite teams) so if a team scores a TD the video geeks find some lineman holding and call the thing back ???? Ugh

  103. cgsuddeath says: Dec 3, 2013 6:44 PM

    As much as I despise this guy,I am in 100% agreement with him.

  104. baltimoresnativeson says: Dec 3, 2013 6:45 PM

    You should definitely be able to challenge qb hits. That part of officiating is bordering on lunacy.

  105. vusnu says: Dec 3, 2013 7:00 PM

    Why not allow replay review of penalties? If anything, it makes the game more interesting.

  106. bgibson8708 says: Dec 3, 2013 7:26 PM

    They should just get rid of the challenge all together. It takes away from the excitement of the game, slows down the pace, and they still miss half the calls anyway, so its really not fair to fix some and not all. Just let all calls stand as initially called.

  107. iwpalmer81 says: Dec 3, 2013 7:37 PM

    No replay on judgement calls, opens up to much can of worms. What they need to do is make most of the penalties less severe. If its 3rd and 10 and there is illegal contact for 5 yard penalty and automatic first down. Get rid of the automatic first down, and replay the down, now its 3rd and 5. In fact get rid of the automatic first down on everything except personal fouls and pass interference, even on PI if the foul is before the first down marker just place the ball there and replay the down. It is fair for both offense and defense. What I think should be reviewed if penalties on plays that had no effect on the outcome. These mostly happen kick returns, if it is obvious the guy who had hands to the face or a block in the back 20 yards away from the runner and wasn’t in any position to make a play then let the td stand and access the penalty on the kickoff.

  108. dabears7190 says: Dec 3, 2013 7:52 PM

    As long as coaches are winning their challenges, they should be able to challenge as many times as the incompetent refs make bad calls.

  109. bingobrown12 says: Dec 3, 2013 8:15 PM

    Didn’t read all above so it might have been mentioned
    The only reason this won’t happen is because of one
    word “Gambling” Refs can influence a few points here
    a few points there. If you don’t believe me,then your very naive.

  110. davida765 says: Dec 3, 2013 8:30 PM

    To All the Patriots Haters who think Belichick is a cheater: He got fined because he was told that cameras could not be on the sideline, only in approved locations. So let’s get this right: It WAS okay to film, just not from the sidelines. Bill made a choice to ignore the NEW rule because it made no sense considering that filming was ok, why adjudicate where the cameras could be? Roger God-ell fined him to show him why.

    At the time, every team in the league was doing exactly the same thing. In fact, some teams paid college kids to film from the stands.

    Now that that is out of the way: His proposal makes perfect sense and wouldn’t delay the game any longer than the present system does. It keeps the refs honest and allows for dubious non-challengeable calls to be a thing of the past.

  111. bcgreg says: Dec 3, 2013 8:32 PM

    I agree. Let the coaches challenge any 2 plays getting a 3rd if they get the first 2 right. Also, I say get rid of the automatic challenges for all TDs and all turnovers. Wastes too much time. If a coach wants to challenge the play, then let him initiate the challenge.

  112. jasonculhane says: Dec 3, 2013 8:57 PM

    The reason why its subjective is simple…The NFL still want’s their officials to control the outcomes of games. If coaches could challenge “everything” that would mean NBC would have to replay a horrible holding call after another, it would literally expose the whole useless machine which is the reason why the NFL ref is there in the first place, which in my opinion isn’t to ref games but to rather “keep it flowing”.

    These “rules” like holding, defensive holding, P.I, offensive P.I are put in place to keep momentum in games, they could be called at any time. Just like personal fouls in the NBA that force free throws. Often you hear John Madden say “Theres holding on every play”…He’s right, just like in the NBA there’s a foul on every play. But why is holding 10 yards?? Why not just 5 yards? I’ve never seen anyone get hurt on a holding penalty, so why so many yards? Makes no sense to me. Why not make every penalty that isn’t a personal foul just 5 yards?…Keep it simple…HMM

    But because it can be called on every play, the officials can use it on any play…Hmmm, maybe to cover spreads, keep drives going, kill drives. So having replay on those specific calls would kill its product…

  113. perfect1972 says: Dec 3, 2013 9:09 PM

    If there is an authority on videotape issues, it’s Belichick.

  114. bigjimatch says: Dec 3, 2013 9:21 PM

    the answer is simple, the refs don’t call every foul, so the NFL doesn’t want them to have to review an intentional non call. Any example is holding that has no impact on the play. if a coach challenging the holding non call, the ref will either have to call the non impact holding, or explain that even if there was holding, they are not going to enforce it.

  115. ravens533 says: Dec 3, 2013 9:29 PM

    I think the bigger problem should be addressed. Officials are making bad calls or not making calls they should. What would happen if we had a few more officials. Like 2 on each side. One to watch on one side of the line of scrimmage and the other to watch the other line of scrimmage on both sides of the field. Then add a monetary penalty to an official for each wrong call during the game. Since they review the calls anyway, this would give officials more reasons to get it right. I do agree that officials should be full time with lots of time for training. To me that stands a better chance of keeping the game moving and reducing bad calls. Take away the coaches challenges all together. Let the automatic reviews stand.

  116. sejwick says: Dec 3, 2013 10:04 PM

    FoozieGrooler says:
    Dec 3, 2013 2:54 PM
    h3min1230 says:
    “..Best coach in NFL history.
    No debate…”

    Most heavily fined cheater in NFL history.
    No debate.

    ———-

    Not that your comment has anything to do with the topic of this post but since we are down the path…
    Sean Payton was fined $5.8 million when he was suspended for the 2012 season as he forfeited his salary. The Saints paid an additional $500k and lost a draft pick.

    Therefore you are wrong.

  117. der6495 says: Dec 3, 2013 10:09 PM

    “Challenges” should be eliminated and reviews should be 100% handled by the officiating team, like the NCAA has set up.

    Yeah, because that is a great system. Remember when the officials called an extra point good in the Toledo/Syracuse game? And they went to review it, and still called it good?

    Sounds great!

  118. 3taintedchampionships2biglosses says: Dec 3, 2013 10:32 PM

    Why not let every coach cheat too?

  119. redvenomweb says: Dec 3, 2013 11:34 PM

    sejwick, if a suspension is the same thing as a “fine” for your paychecks, then being fired/cut must mean you were “fined” for the rest of the money in your contract, right?

    A fine is when you hand back money you earned. A suspension means you don’t get to earn that money. They are not the same thing.

  120. RE LEE says: Dec 3, 2013 11:56 PM

    Sounds like the Jedi is pissed.

  121. easywolf says: Dec 4, 2013 12:45 AM

    Bellichick for president

  122. easywolf says: Dec 4, 2013 12:48 AM

    If they don’t do this than this proves games can be fixed at any moment

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!