in the third quarter. I just don't agree with cutting it off. We've got enough technology now that if something looks remotely questionable, it can be rewound and reviewed before the players even get off the pile.
It can be looked at three times in three angles. The guy upstairs can be in the ear of the lead official and just tell him: "Hey, we just looked at that sideline catch and his feet were inbounds. Tell John he made a good call there and let's keep moving."
And now with this new rule in place, once again the NFL is showing that some plays are more important than others.
So you're telling me that with 2:34 to play in a tie game, and the defense is out of challenges, that if a receiver makes what appears to be a diving catch at the 4-yard line, but actually the ball slipped through his hands and hit the ground, that nothing will happen?
We will all see it, and then we'll see the head coach of the defensive team, with smoke coming out of his ears, but yet nothing can happen. The offense will take over, try to run out some clock and then win the game with a touchdown or field goal.
That can't be right.
And that leads me back to the my three-year beef on the number of challenges in the first place. Why should a team get two, or maybe three? That's ridiculous. Personally, if an official makes four bad calls in a game, then I should be able to correct it every time.
Putting a number limit on the challenges is fine, if you can put a limit on the number of mistakes made by officials. Since that's impossible, then I wouldn't limit anything.
Overall, some of these NFL rules completely conflict with many commonly-used phrases, such as "it's a 60-minute game" or "you have to play four quarters." Or something like "you have to play a 16-game season."
That's true in exact terms. But when it comes to rules, it's not always the case.