How the NFL can improve the broadcast and Transperency

pay the bills

I think the better answer would be to do like the NFL and give the definitive look to the broadcast feed if a call is Confirmed or Reversed. However, that does nothing for the real issue that the powers that be are too into "call stands."

It’s not great TV to watch frame by frame while the players are standing around. Avoid the TV timeouts, go to commercial when you can, and report back the results.

It is so much more informative. I was watching that in the college game and it takes some getting used to but you will understand OL play much better.

same reason they do not show you what is going on behind the camera unless they think its entertainment and they can make money.

already show enough replays of the close plays to see what the likely outcome will be? Take the dropped INT by the Chiefs that was originally called a INT. What more did we need to see except the ball hitting the ground?

Was more discussion or analysis necessary? To me, the ex-refs just muddy the broadcast because they will say what they think the call will be and if the opposite one is made, they'll support that too.

In comment 14786802 mdc1 said:

Quote:

same reason they do not show you what is going on behind the camera unless they think its entertainment and they can make money.

. I think the BS Al Rivera and his crew of dopes would be entertaining. Or give access post game

And put fewer on. Just explain to those being sold the product how much more likely it is that, with fewer ads (needs to be part of the promise), their pricey new ad will actually get more attention than before, lost in a swarm of unwelcome intrusions on the game-flow.

less rules, less penalties, less f*cking talking about penalties, more football.

In comment 14786812 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

already show enough replays of the close plays to see what the likely outcome will be? Take the dropped INT by the Chiefs that was originally called a INT. What more did we need to see except the ball hitting the ground? Was more discussion or analysis necessary? To me, the ex-refs just muddy the broadcast because they will say what they think the call will be and if the opposite one is made, they'll support that too.

The only thing of value they say is their initial comment. They usually give their opinion of the play/interpretation of the rule in question. They end up altering that point of view based on what transpires during replay, always finding a way to defend the final decision, even when their initial analysis was completely opposite.

In comment 14786738 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

pay the bills

That's true but the bills were still paid pre video review. Unless of course the league is counting on making the extra revenue they'd get from them.

They probably are but it seems like there are variables in play. Eg,how many challenges coaches actually use during a game.