Jump to content

Pregame: Lions -v- Falcons Sunday 1:00pm on Fox


John_Brian_K
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Shelton said:

The more I think about this, I’m less on board with needing a run off at all. 

It’s not the Lions fault the clock stopped. It’s not the Falcons fault if one of their players gets hurt and they were out of time outs. Things happen that stop what should be a running clock all the time. 

The runoff for offensive penalties is fine. But when something happens because the officials made the wrong call and corrected it, I don’t see an issue with shifting the team that gets shafted to being the defensive team. But it’s not a complete shafting, because the defense  gets to switch out personne and gets a timeout itself. 

 

Also, the defense would still have had a chance to win the game on the field, as opposed to it instantly being over. Seems more fair all around

edit: guaranteed though if they change this rule it will immediately screw the Lions the other way around because life

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BetMGM Michigan $600 Risk-Free bet

BetMGM Michigan Sports Betting
Michigan online sports betting is now available! Start betting at BetMGM Michigan now and get a $600 risk-free bet bonus at their online sportsbook & casino.

Claim $600 risk-free bet at BetMGM Michigan Now

This is one of the situations where the Refs literally took a chance for us to win the  game away because of their incompetence on the field.   That's why the run off thing was so stupid.  The whole point of review is to try to take the human element out of it and have the players settle it on the field, well in this instance it completely took that away which is what bothers me the most.  

How the rules could allow for a run off situation there is beyond me and how the NFL didn't realize that before hand is equally as stupid.   I know this exact situation is highly unlikely to happen but even if it doesn't get to this extreme(TD on potential last play) it could still hurt another team.  What happens if there's like 40 seconds left and you do have a TO, should you be forced to waste your final timeout or incur the 10 second runoff because an official made a mistake?  I don't think so, situations like this should have all been thought about before finalizing this rule, what if this would have happened in a playoff game or something?  Could you imagine the uproar?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MAROTH4MVP said:

But there was 11 seconds left then. There was also a 4 second run off on a fumble that did exist on the falcons previous possession. In addition to pass interference on Tate. Long story short the refs stole the game multiple ways.

I think this is a legitimate point... I mean everything should have been on the table during the review, right?  There was PI on Tate, there was 11 seconds on the clock when he was down by contact.

Now, the PI might not be reviewable... I can't remember the specifics on that, but the 11 seconds clearly could have been seen and have the 3 seconds added back on.

Honestly, given the gravity of what this call meant (ie, changing an all but certain win for the Lions into a win for the Ravens), it seemed like the review was a little quick.  At the most it was a 1:45 according to the Youtube video.  I know replays are supposed to be quick, but here's one I wouldn't have minded them taking more time on to look at all the angles and all the other factors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Shelton said:

It’s tricky to pin a specific time when the play ends for a running clock. I don’t personally believe that there were 11 seconds left when the play ended. Football doesn’t keep a very specific time. It’s not a spiked ball or incompletion or out of bounds play. Is it over when he first touched the ground or is it over when he completed the process by not dropping the ball when he went to ground?

Well, I think you have to pick one or the other... either of which would be in the Lions favor.  If he was down at 11 seconds, but didn't complete the process of the catch until 8... well, either the Lions should get the 11 seconds or they should get the spot where the play ended (the EZ).  

It seems a little dumb for the refs to tell a team the play in terms of how you can advance the ball is over at 11 seconds, but we're still going to wait another three seconds to determine if the play is really successful or not.  You can't use those three seconds to advance the ball, you can't use those three seconds to ready for the next play, those are our special 3 seconds that only we get to use/apply.

And yes, I know I'm being nitpicky here but it seems to me, in hindsight, that this would have been a perfect resolution.  Had they come back and said:

"Tate was down before the one yard line, please put 3 seconds back on the clock.

Now, by rule we need to have a 10 second run off... please rest the game clock to 1 second."

Well, now the game gets decided on the field again... not decided by the refs mistaken original call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I do not think the refs were incompetent in calling the play a TD.  They had to follow the rules as written in the rule book.

I didn't think the crew had a good day, but I am not sure what more reasonably could have been expected out of them for that last play / call.

It's a little far fetched to call them incompetent for calling it a TD.  But it's still 100% true that they got the call wrong, and directly because they got the call wrong and enforced (correctly according to the rule book) a clock rule, it hurt the Lions.

I think I did this before, but because I like to repeat myself:

  • Tate called down short of the EZ, play not reviewed. Lions (probably) get the play off.  But if they don't, they had 8 seconds, they could have done it, if they don't, I blame them, not the refs/rule book.
  • Tate called down short of the EZ, they review, uphold, and (from what we can tell of the rules) do no do a 10 second run off.  Lions get one last shot.
  • Tate called down short of the EZ, they review and call it a TD: Lions (probably) win.
  • Tate ruled in the EZ, they review (cause they have to), say there isn't enough evidence and Lions (probably) win.
  • Tate ruled in the EZ, they review, call in down, and then run off 10 seconds.

The last situation is the ONLY one were the Lions lose that extra time and it only can happen if the refs make the wrong call, then over rule it.

That's where the discontent from me (and I think most others) is coming from.  In every situation the Lions either win (probably) or at least have a shot to win it.  But in the last, when the refs made a mistake, we're correcting the mistake (which is what replay is therefore... that's good), but then we're adding a penalty on top of it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I'd suggest every ref gets that call wrong.

So while it is fair to say he got it wrong (and he did), it is also fair to say some errors are more egregious than others.

The phantom OPI putting us in 1st and 30 and then the obvious makeup call on the weak defensive holding were pretty terrible imo. Not that I was complaining about the makeup call at the time, but still

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Nastradamus said:

and again, we actually got screwed on the holding as it was DPI

What do you mean? Are you saying there should have been a PI call on the ball that was thrown instead of or in addition to the holding that was called away from the play?

maybe I’m not remembering it right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about the call the before the OPI, we had the big play that put us at like the 5 yard line and they called holding?  They only showed one quick replay but I remember Daryl Johnson saying it was questionable on the broadcast.  

I recall at least two calls against the Lions that Johnston didn’t agree with.

In their effort to ensure they don’t miss any calls, they end up making far too many calls. And in their effort to ensure the right result, the end up placing the result of far too many games entirely in their own hands.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, hardyaf said:

What was the situation here? Was the clock stopped when they started the review? 

No, they restarted the clock after the ball was set for play but incorrectly omitted the 10 second run off. The officials stopped the play to do a review in the last 2 minutes, and overturned their own call, just like the Lions game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shinma said:

Heres video of the same situation, except in the first half. Officials review with :39 left in the first half, overturned, no run off.

 

https://streamable.com/rn589

 

**** EDIT: This info is incorrect... see my next post. ****

Well... this might be another situation where the letter of the law... well, rule... is stupid.  If I recall correctly Blandino said that if overturning a ruling on the field changes it from a stopped clock to a running clock, you need to take 10 seconds off.

But if that's the specific letter of the law then I think the situation here doesn't change it from a stopped to a running clock... it would have been a running clock before the review and a running clock after the review.  So no run off... which is stupid.

**** EDIT: This info is incorrect... see my next post. ****

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2017 at 7:34 PM, The Ronz said:

Here is the rule:

Article 4. Replay Review AFTER TWO-MINUTE WARNING

If a replay review after the two-minute warning of either half results in the on-field ruling being reversed and the correct ruling would not have stopped the game clock, then the officials will run 10 seconds off the game clock before permitting the ball to be put in play on the ready-for-play signal. The defense cannot decline the runoff, but either team can use a remaining timeout to prevent it.

So the refs changed their call from TD to completion but short of the goal line - thus the 10 second run off?

:alien:

Nope, I was wrong.  According to the info that Ronz found, it doesn't matter if the original ruling stopped the clock or not... just if the "correct" ruling leads to a running clock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

Nope, I was wrong.  According to the info that Ronz found, it doesn't matter if the original ruling stopped the clock or not... just if the "correct" ruling leads to a running clock.

You aren’t wrong. The rule is somewhat poorly worded. It is referring to a game clock that had been stopped due to the initial ruling. “Correct ruling that would not have stopped the game clock” implies the incorrect ruling did stop the game clock. 

10 second runoffs are applied because the clock had been stopped. 

In the example shinma presented, there was nothing incorrect. The ruling reversed a call that the team had gotten a first down in the middle of the field. The clock didn’t stop at the end of the play. Time was running. The team presumably lined up to run their first down play as the clock was running. Then the game was paused for the review. After the review, the ball was moved back, and the clock started again before the snap. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shelton said:

You aren’t wrong. The rule is somewhat poorly worded. It is referring to a game clock that had been stopped due to the initial ruling. “Correct ruling that would not have stopped the game clock” implies the incorrect ruling did stop the game clock. 

10 second runoffs are applied because the clock had been stopped. 

In the example shinma presented, there was nothing incorrect. The ruling reversed a call that the team had gotten a first down in the middle of the field. The clock didn’t stop at the end of the play. Time was running. The team presumably lined up to run their first down play as the clock was running. Then the game was paused for the review. After the review, the ball was moved back, and the clock started again before the snap. 

 

This just shows how stupid the rule is though, no? Even though the clock was running, the stoppage still gave the offense the advantage of a free timeout and no need to hurry up to the line. Why not a 4 or 7 second runoff to fix that? Come on NFL, we wouldn't want a situation where a team gets a tiny advantage because of replay to happen again. Really, they should have just ended the half to be safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pyrotigers said:

This just shows how stupid the rule is though, no? Even though the clock was running, the stoppage still gave the offense the advantage of a free timeout and no need to hurry up to the line. Why not a 4 or 7 second runoff to fix that? Come on NFL, we wouldn't want a situation where a team gets a tiny advantage because of replay to happen again. Really, they should have just ended the half to be safe.

I think we would need to see the whole video, including the previous play. 

I don’t know what happened, so I’ll use a hypothetical. 3rd and 1 with 45 seconds left when the ball is snapped, guy plunged into the line and gets about a yard. The clock is running and it is at 40 seconds after the guys get up, but he was down at 43 seconds.  The ref signals first down and the chains are moved and the clock continues to run. At 35 seconds the chains are ready and the ref signals that the offense may run a play. They are about the snap the ball but the review is initiated and the clock is stopped. After the review the ball is moved back and it becomes 4th and inches. The ref signals that play may resume and the clock starts to run and it is at 32 when the offense snaps the ball. 

Sure, the offense was given a chance to prepare for either a 4th and 1 or a 1st and 10, but about 10 seconds had come off the clock since the end of the previous play. 

That’s a lot different than what happened in the lions game. There is no reason in this situation to take more time off the clock. At least in the lions game there is a valid reason for time to come off the clock, because it should have been running. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


Michigan Sports Betting Offer

Michigan launched online sports betting and casino apps on Friday, January 22, 2021. We have selected the top Michigan sportsbooks and casinos that offer excellent bonus offers. Terms and conditions apply.

BetRivers Michigan - Get a 100% up to $250 deposit bonus at their online sportsbook & casino.

Click Here to claim $250 deposit bonus at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Now

FanDuel Michigan - Get a $1,000 risk-free bet at FanDuel Michigan on your first bet.

Click Here to claim $1,000 Risk-Free Bet at FanDuel Michigan

BetMGM Michigan - Get a $600 risk-free bet at the BetMGM online casino & sportsbook

Click Here to claim $600 risk-free bet at BetMGM Michigan

   


×
×
  • Create New...