I'd really like to crush the Lions

[MarcusRock]

No, NFL referees do not hold press conferences after games.

Instead, the league may release a "pool report" on a specific, controversial call if requested by a media member, which is a written statement from the head official explaining the decision. Referees are not required to give interviews, and this system is in place to address media questions without putting officials in a situation with the same kind of public accountability as players or coaches.

I know what the pool report is. The point is he was asked a direct question about what 68 said to him and he blatantly avoided it. Wasn't a good look.

 

[Chasing6]

I know what the pool report is. The point is he was asked a direct question about what 68 said to him and he blatantly avoided it. Wasn't a good look.

He is not required to answer questions.

Did the NFL fine the official?

 

[MarcusRock]

Don’t the refs announce who is eligible before the play?

They do. And I said it was on the Lions bench to call a timeout or something if they heard it because for the play, it was designed to have 70 run on the field late and then all the players run up to the line to see if there was Cowboys confusion to decide to run that option or not. So you can't blame the players. But by the same token it shouldn't be on a team to clean up a mess a ref made. That was their point and they're right.

 

[MarcusRock]

He is not required to answer questions.

Did the NFL fine the official?

He sure as hell didn't answer that question, that's for sure. His crew was demoted from playoff assignments after that game. If the pool report was designed for transparency he made sure there wasn't which is why I believe the NFL disciplined that crew.

 

[IceStar-D7]

Me too. Payback is an "itch"

 

[CWR]

So you are now saying the Lions went rogue versus what they met with the officials about before the game.

There's no need to meet if all you're going to do is have 70 just run on the field after having reported multiple times, meanwhile have 68 declared as eligible. That's a simple ruse and most definitely not illegal. But if you know the rule and want to explore bending it, that requires a discussion. You can ask officials all day if something is a foul and they'll tell you. There's no chance of a foul if 70 just runs on the field while 68 reports. So that's why you ask if it is a foul if 70 points while saying nothing while 68 points AND tells the official he's reporting (which is the complete rule). Otherwise, a discussion isn't necessary. What else could they have asked about reporting? One option needs no asking. The other does to make sure it's not illegal. Logic. You can't get around it.

If you have paid attention, I defend the refs when I think they're right but also call out when I think they get something wrong. During games or after. Everyone here only pays attention to when I defend refs to the detriment of the Cowboys because they're all worked up. Otherwise they don't care if it's equal the other way. So after everyone on the boards universally says refs are terrible, suddenly they're good for this one play even after avoiding a question about the play after the game? How do you think that would play out in the court of public opinion? Which is more probable: refs being terrible to all teams (having just called tripping on the wrong team earlier) or Detroit doing something different to what they got clearance for after calling attention to it before the game?

Going rogue is a fairly dramatic interpretation. ONE player made hand signals they didn't discuss during the pregame meeting. I wouldn't exactly call that "going rogue."

I already discussed why it may be helpful to meet beforehand. Because 70 had been the eligible receiver several plays earlier in the game and because they wanted to limit any confusion sending two people up with the appearance of reporting (58,68.)

Or (your "going rogue scenario")maybe because they knew it would be confusing when 70 played his game. So they were hoping to give as much information as possible without actually admitting they'd have someone making fake signals.

I don't recall saying the refs were good. In fact they screwed us properly well before the play in question. All I was attempting to clarify is the Lions became victims of their own muddied waters. They are ridiculously far from innocent.

 

[Chasing6]

He sure as hell didn't answer that question, that's for sure. His crew was demoted from playoff assignments after that game. If the pool report was designed for transparency he made sure there wasn't which is why I believe the NFL disciplined that crew.

Was there a league wide rule change because of this situation?

 

[MarcusRock]

Going rogue is a fairly dramatic interpretation. ONE player made hand signals they didn't discuss during the pregame meeting. I wouldn't exactly call that "going rogue."

I already discussed why it may be helpful to meet beforehand. Because 70 had been the eligible receiver several plays earlier in the game and because they wanted to limit any confusion sending two people up with the appearance of reporting (58,68.)

Or (your "going rogue scenario")maybe because they knew it would be confusing when 70 played his game. So they were hoping to give as much information as possible without actually admitting they'd have someone making fake signals.

I don't recall saying the refs were good. In fact they screwed us properly well before the play in question. All I was attempting to clarify is the Lions became victims of their own muddied waters. They are ridiculously far from innocent.

So you're saying it's 70 that screwed up by raising his hand on his own or it was left out that he would do so. That still doesn't explain going to the officials before the game as I explained. If you're going to ask about legality and call attention to your reporting plan, why would you withhold information and risk getting flagged when you call the meeting to make sure you don't get flagged? It's not logical. If they wanted the officials to think 70 wouldn't raise his hand, then you don't go to the refs at all because it is in no way illegal to run onto the field late after having reported previously but not reporting this time because someone else already did. Nothing to clarify. So logically, you don't even call a meeting.

So either the Lions tried to run a clever rule-bending ruse that the refs messed up or they were straight up stupid for calling attention to a rule-bend they were going to try and then did it differently than they called attention to prior to the game and hope the refs wouldn't notice. What would logic dictate is more likely?

 

[MarcusRock]

Was there a league wide rule change because of this situation?

Nope. But it was funny that they did a video release afterwards detailing how to report when it turns out the ref in the game didn't follow that very rule. Another reason he was probably demoted that season.

 

[Risen Star]

It feels like a lock Lions win at this point.

 

[Chasing6]

So you're saying it's 70 that screwed up by raising his hand on his own or it was left out that he would do so. That still doesn't explain going to the officials before the game as I explained. If you're going to ask about legality and call attention to your reporting plan, why would you withhold information and risk getting flagged when you call the meeting to make sure you don't get flagged? It's not logical. If they wanted the officials to think 70 wouldn't raise his hand, then you don't go to the refs at all because it is in no way illegal to run onto the field late after having reported previously but not reporting this time because someone else already did. Nothing to clarify. So logically, you don't even call a meeting.

So either the Lions tried to run a clever rule-bending ruse that the refs messed up or they were straight up stupid for calling attention to a rule-bend they were going to try and then did it differently than they called attention to prior to the game and hope the refs wouldn't notice. What would logic dictate is more likely?

No one screwed up. They did exactly what Dan Cambell Coaches them to do. It was all part of their scheme and it apparently worked on the Refs or Dan confused his own players.

Why they thought it would work on the Cowboys is beyond stupid. The Refs have to tell and report the eligible players number period to the defense and over the loud speaker.

Dan could have sent all 5 lineman over to the Refs and had all 5 could have had their hands up in the air.it is irrelevant.

Only one gets reported to the defense and over the loud speaker. I am not sure how it could be made any simpler. Hence, no rule change the following year.

 

[Cowboy4evr]

No one screwed up. They did exactly what Dan Cambell Coaches them to do. It was all part of their scheme and it apparently worked on the Refs or Dan confused his own players.

Why they thought it would work on the Cowboys is beyond stupid. The Refs have to tell and report the eligible players number period to the defense and over the loud speaker.

Dan could have sent all 5 lineman over to the Refs and had all 5 could have had their hands up in the air.it is irrelevant.

Only one gets reported to the defense and over the loud speaker. I am not sure how it could be made any simpler. Hence, no rule change the following year.

Yep.......Dan Campbell tried to deceive everyone and got bit on his own deception. LOL

 

[ScipioCowboy]

They do. And I said it was on the Lions bench to call a timeout or something if they heard it because for the play, it was designed to have 70 run on the field late and then all the players run up to the line to see if there was Cowboys confusion to decide to run that option or not. So you can't blame the players. But by the same token it shouldn't be on a team to clean up a mess a ref made. That was their point and they're right.

If you call a play designed to confuse your opponent, it stands to reason you might confuse the refs. That’s the risk.

 

[Chasing6]

If you call a play designed to confuse your opponent, it stands to reason you might confuse the refs. That’s the risk.

It still would not have worked. If they announced a different number, we would have defended a different number.

The best part was the number they announced, did not even need to be defensed, because he was covered and ineligible. So we did not have to cover either one of them.

 

[MarcusRock]

No one screwed up. They did exactly what Dan Cambell Coaches them to do. It was all part of their scheme and it apparently worked on the Refs or Dan confused his own players.

Why they thought it would work on the Cowboys is beyond stupid. The Refs have to tell and report the eligible players number period to the defense and over the loud speaker.

Dan could have sent all 5 lineman over to the Refs and had all 5 could have had their hands up in the air.it is irrelevant.

Only one gets reported to the defense and over the loud speaker. I am not sure how it could be made any simpler. Hence, no rule change the following year.

Yeah, I don't think you understand all of what Detroit was trying to pull on that play. They had 58 and 68 go to the ref at first with 68 reporting. Then 70 runs on late as he had several times that game "as if" to report but didn't. Then, knowing it would be announced as 68, have 58 (in case they confuse it for 68 because it sounds similar) and 70 (in case they took it for granted he was reporting yet again) line up on the same side of the line and put 68 on the other side, hopefully not paid attention to, even though he was announced. Also, 58's jersey was bunched up so you couldn't clearly see the number if you had to look for it quickly. Then once 70 runs on, they all run to the line in a hurry-up and Goff gets under center to assess if the Cowboys fell for it and left 68 uncovered. It was a great "catch 'em sleeping in a high stress moment" plan. And then the refs went and reffed.

There was no need to change the rule because it wasn't broken. It was the refs themselves that didn't follow the rule in acknowledging 68 who did follow it completely and assuming it was 70 who didn't follow it completely, even according to what the NFL put out after the game which was double damning. Add in that the ref avoided a direct question about what was said to him by 68 and there is your culprit.

 

[MarcusRock]

If you call a play designed to confuse your opponent, it stands to reason you might confuse the refs. That’s the risk.

Which is why they tried to mitigate that risk in meeting with the refs before the game. If they got clearance to do it and then the refs forgot later they cleared it, that's grounds for a gripe and rightfully so.

 

[Cowboy4evr]

Which is why they tried to mitigate that risk in meeting with the refs before the game. If they got clearance to do it and then the refs forgot later they cleared it, that's grounds for a gripe and rightfully so.

True, but only 1 can claim eligible, so the play probably would have failed if 70 was announced. When the refs announced 68, 70 was ineligible.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Like I said 70 is rubbing his chest with his hand up, as hes running onto the field. The ref saw him. How is that anyone's fault but the lions for creating an intentionally ambiguous situation and then having it backfire?

Its all right here in the video.

Exactly.
.this kind of.movea IA Jr. High level stuff...and if the call was missed they deserved it for being such *****

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Which is why they tried to mitigate that risk in meeting with the refs before the game. If they got clearance to do it and then the refs forgot later they cleared it, that's grounds for a gripe and rightfully so.

Even if the Lions got “clearance,” it’s still on them to ensure execution. They didn’t. The refs literally announced their understanding of the play before it was run.

In the case of a missed hold or, say, botched tripping call (assigning it to the wrong team), the refs don’t announce that they’re about to miss a call.

The latter sin is greater than the former.

 

[CWR]

So you're saying it's 70 that screwed up by raising his hand on his own or it was left out that he would do so. That still doesn't explain going to the officials before the game as I explained. If you're going to ask about legality and call attention to your reporting plan, why would you withhold information and risk getting flagged when you call the meeting to make sure you don't get flagged? It's not logical. If they wanted the officials to think 70 wouldn't raise his hand, then you don't go to the refs at all because it is in no way illegal to run onto the field late after having reported previously but not reporting this time because someone else already did. Nothing to clarify. So logically, you don't even call a meeting.

So either the Lions tried to run a clever rule-bending ruse that the refs messed up or they were straight up stupid for calling attention to a rule-bend they were going to try and then did it differently than they called attention to prior to the game and hope the refs wouldn't notice. What would logic dictate is more likely?

Im saying that seems more likely than the officials being complicit in an act to falsely signify eligibility. None of that is within the spirit of the rule. It defeats the purpose. So yes, I find it far fetched they would knowingly allow it.

I don't believe the Lions were actually asking about legality. I think they were trying to give clarification in advance, knowing it may be a confusing play to officiate.

By clarification I mean because 1)70 had been eligible several times already 2) they sent 2 guys at one time to the reporting official 68, 58, which they may have wanted to clarify because despite verbally reporting, its obviously loud in the stadium and chaotic.

I also dont believe it logically makes them more likely to get flagged because it at least gives the impression to the official they were attempting to run everything through them, whether they were or weren't we cant say with any certainty. The only thing I feel certain of is the Lions played themselves. Not that it has to do with the call but they still had two more chances and didn't convert, which only reiterates to me, that they played themselves to close out that game.