1. That hitting a player above the shoulder (helmet hit) should be reviewable.

I don't know why it is not. An official sees it in real time speed and often will call a shoulder hit a helmet hit. No reason to me why it should not be reviewable.

2. If a fumble occurs a) BEFORE THE WHISTLE IS BLOWN and then b) is immediately pounced on BY ONLY ONE MAN FROM THE DEFENSE as it lies on the ground, then regardless of whether the whistle is blown BETWEEN the two events, the play should be reviewable. If the fumble occurred BEFORE THE MAN was down then as long as there is only one man from the opposite team that first jumps on the ball, even if the whistle has blown, the recovery should be good if instant replay shows the runner was not down.

The one man rule should apply as opposed to multiple people jumping on the ball because in the first situation, it is clear that the blowing of the whistle did not affect the recovery but when there are multiple people around the ball, then the dumb referee blows the whistle and calls the runner down or the fumble after the tackle...in that situation, the mistake cannot be corrected because you cannot tell who would have recovered it but for the premature whistle.

What do you think?

#2 is already reviewable.

Ihate, there was a play yesterday in the Steeler game where the exact situation arose and there was a quick whistle on a clear fumble and the ruling was despite the fact that it was a fumble, the play was not reviewable.

I think there is some protocol regarding the time elapsed between the blown whistle to someone recovering the ball.

I've seen the exact scenario get challenged and reviewed. In fact, I think I may have been a phins game. If it's a clear fumble, and clear recovery by the defense, I've seen it overturned. They just are not able to advance the ball.

Obviously I could be wrong. Anyone else care to input?

I think in the Pittsburgh game the call was that the runner was down but the key point was that the whistle was blown and the refs said, "Hey, the whistle was blown so all play after that was invalid and the last team to have possession of the ball was the offense."

Now I am adding the last part of the sentence myself but that's always been the reasoning. That right or wrong the whistle blow stops the play and therefore how can you say that the opposite team would not have recovered it but for the whistle. That's why my proposed rule would only apply in cases of a clear one man recovery.

yea it has to be some very specific scenarios.

A runner being blown down, but actually fumbled, and a clear recovery by the defense, at least from my clouded memory, has been reviewed in the past.

They can always do what the officials did in the panthers/bears game. Blow the whistle and act like you didn't. What a joke that was.

Aside from the length of games, I actually preferred the replacements. At least they had an excuse for how bad they sucked.

Seriously though, I'm pretty sure number 2 is not reviewable under the current rules. iirc, there was a big deal made about that specific scenario a couple years ago and the nfl came out and said the officials are told to err on the side of a fumble to prevent that from being an issue.

I def agree with number one. These refs are going wayyyy overboard with the helmet to helmet contact. I completely understand the need for the rule but I'd bet at least 25% of the calls are wrong.

In my opinion, the whole review system needs to be overhauled. Why not give teams two challenges per game. They can review ANY play they want. If there's video evidence to overturn, it's overturned and the team still has two challenges. If they miss or there isn't enough video evidence to overturn, they're down to one. Helmet to helmet hits, holding, block in the back, etc. should all be reviewable.

They say it will make the game too long but the way I see it is if that happens its because the referees called a really bad game and the game SHOULD be extended. I'd rather a game go over their precious time slot than continue to see one-sided calls determine the outcome.

Yes, a bad call can cost a playoff spot.

THe regular refs aren't any better than the replacements were EXCEPT they just know WHO to give the call to to keep the sports media from exploding. Honestly, the officiating in the NFL is getting like it has been in the NBA for a quite a while now, variable rules based on the player/team/drama.

Cowboys versus Browns. Cowboy receiver is sandwiched and they call a hit to the helmet but front and back he was hit on the shoulders. A replay would have stopped this crucial penalty.