NFLN: Official Review - TO "No force out" call was wrong

[YosemiteSam]

Percy was talking about the fact that Mike P. can seeming explain away every inexplicable call versus just coming right out and saying, "The officials got it wrong."

Ahhhh, I don't understand.

 

[peplaw06]

No, you let the refs call a possible force-out when it exists (when the receiver is forced close to the sideline). It's anything BUT "superfluous" when the defense challenges the catch or the booth reviews it.

Wait a second... if the official rules it a catch (with both feet in) then there's no need for him to say that it was a force-out. That is what would be superfluous. Then if he ruled it was a catch (both feet in) AND a force out, would that not then make the ruling unreviewable, because a force out is a judgment call?

Then you're changing what may be a reviewable play into a non-reviewable play by calling both.

The only solution I can see is to allow force outs to be reviewable plays. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Juke99]

Well it's about time.




Wide receiver jumps up -- defensive back catches him, carries him to the sideline and drops him out of bounds.

Incomplete pass, the receiver didn't get his feet down inbounds.

Too funny. Thank you for a good laugh.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

That really helps our team out--thanks

 

[sonnyboy]

Percy was talking about the fact that Mike P. can seemingly explain away every inexplicable call versus just coming right out and saying, "The officials got it wrong."

I almost had a heart attack watching the replay last night when that little box popped up and Mike P. for the first time ever admitted the official got it wrong! The only reason he even did that was because we scored on the drive.

My all time favorite Mike P. spin moment was the half ending sack on Grossman. I couldnt believe my ears on that one. If Eisen had any sack he would have pulled a *** are you talkin about Mike.

 

[Vtwin]

I say
K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid for those who don't know)

DON'T complicate the assignments of the refs.
DO empower the replay officials to override EVERY part of that call to make sure it's right.

I agree.I was surprised to hear that the ref has to determine whether the DB MEANT to force the receiver out of bounds.The way he stated the rule it seems that if the push out of bounds is simply the result of the DB trying to make the play it would be called incomplete even though the receiver could have gotten both feet down.The DB has to demonstrate an intent to push the receiver out.That is asking a lot of a ref.

 

[thewireman]

Well what about the PI or whatever call it was when Moss obviously ran into Watkins but Newman or whoever it was got called for the PI....I mean comeon if that wasn't the most absurd yellow flag I don't know what is. The coach should be able to challenge the refs on those calls and if they don't overturn it sue there ***

 

[sonnyboy]

You know what the problem is with instant replay.

Its how and why the NFL institutes it from the jump. They did it begrudgingly, just to shut up the media and the fans.

From the very start they wanted to limit it. Cant review this, cant review that. All in an attempt to please the anti-replay morons.

Well if the idea is to get IT right, lets get it right. Take the handcuffs off.

Someone earlier in this thread had a great idea. Why not make PI a reviewable call. Why not make holding a reviewable call.

You tellin me that a replay official cant better determine PI than an official on the field in real time.
Dont get me wrong I dont want to have games increase by and extra half hour reviewing calls.
I'm sure the two challenge per half limit will do that.

But think about it, a questionable holding or PI call has as good a chance to alter a game as a possesion call.

 

[Doomsday101]

You know what the problem is with instant replay.

Its how and why the NFL institutes it from the jump. They did it begrudgingly, just to shut up the media and the fans.

From the very start they wanted to limit it. Cant review this, cant review that. All in an attempt to please the anti-replay morons.

Well if the idea is to get IT right, lets get it right. Take the handcuffs off.

Someone earlier in this thread had a great idea. Why not make PI a reviewable call. Why not make holding a reviewable call.

You tellin me that a replay official cant better determine PI than an official on the field in real time.
Dont get me wrong I dont want to have games increase by and extra half hour reviewing calls.
I'm sure the two challenge per half limit will do that.

But think about it, a questionable holding or PI call has as good a chance to alter a game as a possesion call.

Because they don't want this to turn into a joke with all the stoppages throughout the game. You are not going to get perfect officiating and even with replay many plays that are reviewed still leave doubt

 

[sonnyboy]

Because they don't want this to turn into a joke with all the stoppages throughout the game. You are not going to get perfect officiating and even with replay many plays that are reviewed still leave doubt

I hear ya. But like I said, the 2 challenge limit per half will keep coaches from abusing it.

But think about it, how many times do you hear fans complain about the BS PI call or the phantom holding call that cost us the game.

Why is this any different than the the WR who was called out on the game winning TD when he actually got both feet in?

 

[Doomsday101]

I hear ya. But like I said, the 2 challenge limit per half will keep coaches from abusing it.

I think it would only result in coaches blowing those challenges early in games. I see nothing wrong with the way it is. I accept that perfection is not going to happen from coaches, players or the refs.

 

[TwentyOne]

Mike Pereira just admitted that the call on the TO force out was wrong and the force out should have been called.

So when is the rematch scheduled? Or do we get a win now without one ?

 

[ayjackson]

The point that gets me, and that I haven't heard discussed, is that the ref on the play gave TO forward progress and wound the clock. Is it not implicit that he was then forced out of bounds??? If TO had stepped out of bounds on his own accord, then the ref would have stopped the clock and marked the play on the sideline. The play should not have been reviewable. Forward progress = force out of bounds. The ref made the one signal, overruling the force out signal and the play should not have been reviewed.

 

[BehindEnemyLinez]

The point that gets me, and that I haven't heard discussed, is that the ref on the play gave TO forward progress and wound the clock. Is it not implicit that he was then forced out of bounds??? If TO had stepped out of bounds on his own accord, then the ref would have stopped the clock and marked the play on the sideline. The play should not have been reviewable. Forward progress = force out of bounds. The ref made the one signal, overruling the force out signal and the play should not have been reviewed.

That's the same thing I said when me and my son were watching the game! I wondered why the ref kept the clock running when if nothing else Owens was clearly pushed out of bounds! I think the refs screwed up big time on that play; luckily we scored on that possession anyway!

 

[AdamJT13]

Wait a second... if the official rules it a catch (with both feet in) then there's no need for him to say that it was a force-out. That is what would be superfluous.

It's not superfluous when it's absolutely vital to getting the call correct.

Then if he ruled it was a catch (both feet in) AND a force out, would that not then make the ruling unreviewable, because a force out is a judgment call?

Exactly.

Then you're changing what may be a reviewable play into a non-reviewable play by calling both.

And that's how it should be. You shouldn't overturn the completion just because the official didn't signal the force-out when he knew that, if the review shows that the receiver didn't get both feet in, it was because the receiver was forced out.

The only solution I can see is to allow force outs to be reviewable plays. That's all I'm saying.

Judgement calls will never be reviewable.

 

[khiladi]

This is the token "We are being fair with the Cowboys" slogan. If we admit a mistake for an OBVIOUS call, it won't make us look like we are playing favorites. We all know that it was a clear and obvious 'mistake' by the refs. The fact is TO scored on the next possession. If TO didn't score on the next possession, I'm sure there Pereira wouldn't be discussing how the ref 'messed up' on that call.

I'd rather have Pereira explain to me how Watkins interfered with Moss, and not the other way around. You know, an actual call that affected the overall score, unlike some call that was irrelevant to the final outcome.

 

[alancdc]

Did anyone actually see how close that Welker fumble on the first drive was to us getting it? It was a sign of things to come all day. I didn't realize until the different angles on NFL Replay last night. That ball came completely out of his hands flew to the left a few feet, hit Newman's foot in mid air, and bounced right back into Welkers arms. It was a one in a MILLION shot of him getting that ball back. I thought it had just moved around in his grasp and it wasn't much of a fumble. INCREDIBLE.

 

[AdamJT13]

The point that gets me, and that I haven't heard discussed, is that the ref on the play gave TO forward progress and wound the clock. Is it not implicit that he was then forced out of bounds??? If TO had stepped out of bounds on his own accord, then the ref would have stopped the clock and marked the play on the sideline. The play should not have been reviewable. Forward progress = force out of bounds. The ref made the one signal, overruling the force out signal and the play should not have been reviewed.

Good point. Ruling that the ballcarrier was forced out of bounds and awarding forward progress (as the officials did with Owens) should be the same as ruling that a receiver in the air was forced out of bounds.

 

[L-O-Jete]

if it isn't ruled a force out on the field, it can't be reviewed.

IF it's called a force out there's nothing to review, it's a judgment call IIRC.

 

[Hostile]

The point that gets me, and that I haven't heard discussed, is that the ref on the play gave TO forward progress and wound the clock. Is it not implicit that he was then forced out of bounds??? If TO had stepped out of bounds on his own accord, then the ref would have stopped the clock and marked the play on the sideline. The play should not have been reviewable. Forward progress = force out of bounds. The ref made the one signal, overruling the force out signal and the play should not have been reviewed.

Oh man, you are so right. I didn't even think about it this way.