3 Challenge Flags & Other Rules *MERGE*

[links18]

This game proves that replay doesn't do anything to improve the quality of the game. Its just adds another layer of arbitrary decision making to be questioned.

 

[StylisticS]

The officials were simply asleep on that call and it may have cost us the game.

.

If you remember the play, the players fell asleep as well. All but one person for both teams actually paused to go after the ball. I don't see how a possession cannot be reviewed. What is instant replay here for?

 

[Derinyar]

If you remember the play, the players fell asleep as well. All but one person for both teams actually paused to go after the ball. I don't see how a possession cannot be reviewed. What is instant replay here for?

You can review possession, just not that kind of possession. It really makes no sense what so ever. I can understand not reviewing a scrum possession play, as you can't see a thing under a ton of humanity. But a wide open play should ALWAYS be reviewable.

 

[postal]

exactly,well put

 

[TwoCentPlain]

The fix was on. We got the Seattle Seahawks-Pgh Stealers style refs. If the NFL can fix a superbowl, they can sure fix other games.

 

[craig71]

You didn't hear? He actually called Aikman and Buck DURING THE GAME to explain why the play was not reviewable.

I heard that he called and they gave a short explanation.I'm just curious as to how he will explain the call during the week and what reasons will be given as to why the call is not reviewable.Just looking for a more in-depth answer than what was given during the telecast.

Craig

 

[daschoo]

You can review possession, just not that kind of possession. It really makes no sense what so ever. I can understand not reviewing a scrum possession play, as you can't see a thing under a ton of humanity. But a wide open play should ALWAYS be reviewable.

but surely thats already covered in the whole "must show conclusively that the ruling on the field is wrong in order to overturn" thing. under a pile of bodies would clearly be inconclusive so no-one would challenge that and if they did as someone said earlier that would then be on the coach who made the stupid appeal

 

[links18]

I heard that he called and they gave a short explanation.I'm just curious as to how he will explain the call during the week and what reasons will be given as to why the call is not reviewable.Just looking for a more in-depth answer than what was given during the telecast.

Craig

He'll say its not reviewable, because the competition committee, in its infinite wisdom, decided that it is not reviewable. Probably because they do not want to delay the game with coaches challenging who got possession at the bottom of a pile up.

 

[Deep_South]

I thought if a defender touched someone on the ground with the ball, that was it and the the guy with the ball was down.

 

[Derinyar]

but surely thats already covered in the whole "must show conclusively that the ruling on the field is wrong in order to overturn" thing. under a pile of bodies would clearly be inconclusive so no-one would challenge that and if they did as someone said earlier that would then be on the coach who made the stupid appeal

One would think so, but the plays that can and can't be reviewed are very arbitrary.

 

[craig71]

He'll say its not reviewable, because the competition committee, in its infinite wisdom, decided that it is not reviewable. Probably because they do not want to delay the game with coaches challenging who got possession at the bottom of a pile up.

You are most likely correct.

Craig

 

[daschoo]

One would think so, but the plays that can and can't be reviewed are very arbitrary.

yeah i get that, just agreeing with biggems that all plays should be reviewable. its on the coaches if they waste their challenge and you already have the framework of needing to have the video evidence conclusively overturn the ruling on the field.

 

[KC10Sooner]

I thought if a defender touched someone on the ground with the ball, that was it and the the guy with the ball was down.

Well, this was certainly the case on the KO fumble. Just seems the same scenario should apply. Player has control of ball and is touched down by opposing player...ball comes out. Player is down by contact.

AS for the scrum type explanation..I'm not sure two players in the wide open actually can be applied to that. It was very obvious.

I also thought they take away the challenge flag after you lose two.

I bet we will here that numnut lead ref made some mistakes and has been advised of his errors...

 

[TheCount]

This is not an excuse thread. We lost this game. We deserved to.

But seriously, how has the review system not worked out all of the kinks yet? How long has it been in place? Almost a decade???

How is that Felix recovery not reviewable???? 7 points giftwrapped.

How is McCarthy not given a delay of game penalty? I can just see the thought process in the future..."My boys need a breather and I don't have any challenges...shoot, I'll just throw out the red flag!!!"

What a crock of ****.

The way it is makes sense. Do you want teams to be able to challenge who had possession at the bottom of a pile after a fumble? The problem is the refs, they should have simply gotten the call right.

 

[big dog cowboy]

I thought all change-of-possession calls were reviewable!

If they are not, they should be.

 

[kTXe]

The way it is makes sense. Do you want teams to be able to challenge who had possession at the bottom of a pile after a fumble? The problem is the refs, they should have simply gotten the call right.

Sure, why not? If someone is dumb enough to challenge a play like that where there is NEVER conclusive evidence, go ahead and take one of their challenges and a timeout.

 

[Roger78]

Ok, I have watched the replay of when McBriar punches the ball out of the punt returner's hand 20 times in the second half. The returners's left knee is down but the first thing that McBriar hits is the ball. The instant he hits the ball it is out. He never touches the returner and we recover the ball. The ruling on the field is our ball. Question, is the ball part of the runner? If he loses possession on the instant the ball is touched, does he have possession while he is down? This is a chicken and egg argument. If at the exact moment the tackler touches the ball, you no longer have possession, how are you down? Is there irrefutable evidence that the returner was down?

Lastly, Felix Jones is clearly in possession of the ball on Romo's fumble, how is that a "not a reviewable call?"

Tex Schramm is now rolling over in his grave.

Okay, not lastly, on Roy Williams fumble, Wade should have called for a review because Miles clearly had two hands on the ball and was down by contact, GB player was touching the ball. Tie goes to the offense player.

Nevertheless, we played horrible tonite and GB deserved to win. BUT, we have won lots of games we didn't deserve, I would have just like to have the chance.

 

[craig71]

I thought from one camera angle it looked like the ball was on the way out before McBriar touched him.Looked like the stamped logo on the ball was rolling on the players way down.

Craig

 

[peplaw06]

The Packers still had 10-12 penalties or something, so I'm not gonna say it was fixed. But they probably could have had 20. That porous OL was holding on every pass play, and Spears was held on Grant's longest run of the day IIRC. If GB was flagged for every penalty they had tonight the game would still be going.

The refs were just flat out awful though.

 

[Kevinicus]

Wade still should have challenged the play. Challenge Romo's fumble, challenge the eventual spot of the ball, challenge 12 men on the field, anything, and tell them to view the whole play (might be better to challenge that the GB guy was down by contact sooner) to make them look at that part of the play. Just make up something, but make them review it.