Rule changes that I would like to see.

[Spider-Dan]

Horrible idea.

Belichick seems to be conveniently ignoring that all challenges after the 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.

[fyo]

Horrible idea.

Belichick seems to be conveniently ignoring that all challenges after the 2-min warning are from upstairs, and that all turnovers/scoring plays are reviewed. 

No he isn't. And as the article states (although not a Belichick quote), even though some plays are automatically reviewed, only the parts of the play that could be challenged normally can be reversed. So you could easily have a situation where an interception is allowed to stand even though the defender clearly and indisputably commits pass interference (or a face mask or any of the other cannot-challenge aspects).

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.

Coaches only get 2 challenges (3 if both are right), so it seems unlikely that there would be any semblance of "fishing expedition". Additionally, if there really was a huge, indisputable hold, why SHOULD the big play stand?

Judgement calls will always be harder to overturn on instant replay and coaches will figure that out and use their challenges accordingly.

[Dave Gray]

I'm with Bellichek.  I also think that you should be able to challenge as long as you are right.  And the same rules to overturn apply.  So, holding must be CLEARLY holding to overturn.

[Spider-Dan]

No he isn't. And as the article states (although not a Belichick quote), even though some plays are automatically reviewed, only the parts of the play that could be challenged normally can be reversed.

You don't seem to grasp the point Belichick is making.

Belichick is asking for everything to be able to be challenged.  Therefore, the concept of "only the parts of the play that could be challenged normally can be reversed" simply doesn't apply.  You could challenge for holds, face masks, PIs, false starts, forward progress... anything.

So you could easily have a situation where an interception is allowed to stand even though the defender clearly and indisputably commits pass interference (or a face mask or any of the other cannot-challenge aspects).

You're missing the entire point of the article.

"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."

Coaches only get 2 challenges (3 if both are right), so it seems unlikely that there would be any semblance of "fishing expedition".

As I just said, that does not apply to scoring plays, turnovers, or in the last 2 min of each half, where all reviews come from the booth (and there is no limit to them).  Keep in mind that coaches are not permitted to challenge in those situations.  So what do you do if you're a coach and you think there's offensive holding on a scoring play?

The only answer is to review every scoring play for any possible offensive hold (anywhere on the field), every interception for any possible defensive hold (anywhere on the field), every turnover on downs at the end of a half for any possible PI (anywhere on the field), etc.  Either that, or you create a two-tier challenge system where judgment calls can only be challenged on non-scoring/turnover/end-of-half plays, which removes a lot of the point.