NFL officiating

The Napkin

wise ass al kaprielian
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2002
28,493
right here
To be clear, I accept the fact that shitty officiating is a part of the deal at times. But to me this game goes down along with the Ravens replacement ref game and the Carolina game two years ago as amongst the most shittily officiated Patriots losses in recent memory. So moreso than your typical "our guys were held all game long" game, this one sucked and will sting for a bit.

And again, it doesn't fucking matter because the Pats ultimately have to be better and a loss is a loss. But, as a fan, reading rationalization of shitty officiating by a fan of the opposing team disguised as commiseration or a feeble attempt to get us to understand that the refs just suck equally for all teams is annoying right at this moment.

Edit: As annoying as it would be, it would actually be less annoying for you to be arguing that the Pats didn't get screwed because there were tons of missed calls both ways. Becuase then at least you'd come right out and say what you've been hinting at during the whole thread, instead of this coy bullshit you are pulling now.
It's funny because anytime a fan of another team would complain about bad calls maybe costing a game folks would laugh about whiners and how weak it is to blame the refs and how if the team had done x or y it wouldn't have mattered and it was just one play and what about this play and stop blaming the refs. And now that a couple calls went against the pats it's a grand conspiracy and when people point out that no, it's just more of the same shitty officiating we've been talking about they're told to pipe down because this was, like, worse because it was the Patriots.
Good times all around.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,819
Needham, MA
It's funny because anytime a fan of another team would complain about bad calls maybe costing a game folks would laugh about whiners and how weak it is to blame the refs and how if the team had done x or y it wouldn't have mattered and it was just one play and what about this play and stop blaming the refs. And now that a couple calls went against the pats it's a grand conspiracy and when people point out that no, it's just more of the same shitty officiating we've been talking about they're told to pipe down because this was, like, worse because it was the Patriots.
Good times all around.
What's your point?
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,716
Yes, yes. Echo chambers for all. Fall in line, citizen.
That wasn't my point. I said for Spike's sanity not responding to EVERY post might make it a much nicer night for him. I didn't tell him to leave thread or stop posting. My point was more akin to "tilting at windmills".

But, you got to be a little bit condescending on the internet, so good for you.
 

86spike

Currently enjoying "Arli$$"
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2002
25,082
Procrasti Nation
To be clear, I accept the fact that shitty officiating is a part of the deal at times. But to me this game goes down along with the Ravens replacement ref game and the Carolina game two years ago as amongst the most shittily officiated Patriots losses in recent memory. So moreso than your typical "our guys were held all game long" game, this one sucked and will sting for a bit.

And again, it doesn't fucking matter because the Pats ultimately have to be better and a loss is a loss. But, as a fan, reading rationalization of shitty officiating by a fan of the opposing team disguised as commiseration or a feeble attempt to get us to understand that the refs just suck equally for all teams is annoying right at this moment.

Edit: As annoying as it would be, it would actually be less annoying for you to be arguing that the Pats didn't get screwed because there were tons of missed calls both ways. Becuase then at least you'd come right out and say what you've been hinting at during the whole thread, instead of this coy bullshit you are pulling now.
I'm sorry that you just apparently found out that life is not always fair.

BTW, there is also no Santa Claus.

Stay classy.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
Right. What we really want is consistency. I'm not sure more refs will lead to more consistency though it's certainly possible that ref coverage is a big drag on consistency. More likely, as Jed said, more refs will just equal more flags.
This is pretty likely to be true.

A lot of penalties are not commited "by accident", really. Things like all the holds by the O-line..a lot of time a guy will hold because the other option is getting beat, and letting the guy crush your qb, which could lead to injury, fumble, etc. So even WITH more refs, some of those calls are just going to have to happen.

I think they need an ombudsref. Someone in a booth, with really good quick replay equipment, who can do a few limited but useful things:

- he can alert refs to reciprocal conduct flags, like when a guy shoves someone, but the opposing guy gets 15 yards for pushing back.
- can alert to egregiously missed roughing or late hit calls or something, that on-field guy might have missed (like the Ravens player who killed the Browns QB last night, no flag)
- does a periodic review or the refs at each quarter, or something ('look, you guys are calling holds/PI/whatever one way, but not the other...either call both sides or neither, either way, but it's gotta be balanced')
- can, in limited circumstances, 'throw a flag", like if really bad DPI is totally missed

He/she wouldn't have final authority, but would just be reviewing.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,819
Needham, MA
I'm sorry that you just apparently found out that life is not always fair.

BTW, there is also no Santa Claus.

Stay classy.
WTF? I mean, I acknowledge more than once that officiating is not an excuse. I'm not complaining about the refs or the calls. I'm annoyed at your shitty, coy, transparent bullshit posting in this thread.
 

Gunfighter 09

wants to be caribou ken
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
8,548
KPWT
Are you talking about this play?
try to tip the ball)
It's a borderline call, IMO.

As for the Chung holding call on Demaryius Thomas, look at the replay:


But I can see the moment the ref considered it a penalty pretty clearly.
Both of these are borderline calls. They went in favor of the home team. That dynamic happens 5 times in every game in the NFL.

Well, you succeeded in convincing me the Thomas / Chung play in the end zone was a legit call. I would venture that type of play gets called a defensive hold, regardless of context, 60-70% of the time in the NFL and is potentially called OPI 10% of the time this year. Both ways it is a legit, recent point of emphasis that get the game played the way the NFL (or at least Bill Polian) wants it played.

As for the first play, your well cut video has thoroughly convinced me that the Patriots got completely jobbed and those refs should be punished. The NFL does not want quarterbacks to be hit like that (or at least quarterbacks that don't throw away their cell phones) and the defenders intent has nothing to do with the call. There is zero room in the 2015 NFL for safeties launching themselves at the QB. There is a clear target zone where QBs can be hit and Barrett is well above that. That is a penalty 95% of the time if not more in the 2015 NFL. I am really stunned that a veteran, star QB doesn't get that call.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,913
Are you talking about this play?



If they had flagged that I would not have freaked out and screamed about ref conspiracies, but I don't think he touched Brady's head at all.

Barrett is jumping up to try to block the pass (his left arm is reaching up to try to tip the ball) and as his momentum carries him into Brady, he rolls to his left and his right arm is around Brady's shoulder. He lands not on Brady, but on the ground and rolls backwards off of the QB away from harming him. At full speed it looked like a pile driver, but Barrett actually did little more than knock Brady down, not slam on top of him or into his head as it first appeared.

Yes, he was up high so a flag could have been thrown, but I don't think he touched his helmet at all and the entire play was the result of him leaping for the pass.

It's a borderline call, IMO.
My understanding is you're not allowed to leave your feet to hit in the upper neck, shoulder, or head area of a defenseless player. I agree that it might not have been his intention but I don't think you're right that this is borderline. I think it's cut and dried a missed call.

As for the Chung holding call on Demaryius Thomas, look at the replay:



I imagine the ref saw both of Chung's hands on Thomas (right before Thomas makes the cut to his right) and then saw Thomas' momentum slowed and his shoulders turn when he cuts. He also slips (most likely due to the snow) and the sum of those parts looked like holding to the ref and he tossed his flag.

Plays like that go unflagged often too. But I can see the moment the ref considered it a penalty pretty clearly. Also bear in mind that the ref throwing the flag wasn't watching the sack happen 30 yards away, so his awareness of the impact of his call on the game action is limited solely to the WR/S matchup. Yeah, it was a big momentum swing for Denver, but it's impossible to expect the refs to not only watch the game action they are assigned to but whatever is happening elsewhere on the field and take that into consideration in a snap decision.

Both of these are borderline calls.
Watch DT's feet, this gif progressively slows down to the point of contact by Chung thereby greatly exaggerating to the eye the effect of the contact. You need to show a replay that is at least at constant speed (and at preferably close to full speed). If you do, you see that it was pretty clearly ticky tacky and not the type of call that is typically made in the end zone of the final two minutes of a game.

They went in favor of the home team. That dynamic happens 5 times in every game in the NFL.
Totally. I don't believe in any sort of conspiracy against the Pats on this one. I rarely think the Pats lost because of That said, all of my neutral co-workers have pointed out to me that they thought the Pats got hosed. I regularly watch games where I have no rooting interest where I think NFL refs have totally hosed one of the teams and unforgivably altered the outcome of the game. This is one of those games. I'm sure there are plenty that have gone for the Pats.

But your attempt to minimize those two calls really falls flat for me.

First Gronk OPI
Jim Daopoulos ‏@RefereeJimD Nov 29
Didn't see a lot of illegal action by Gronk on that foul...very little separation and should not have been flagged
2nd Gronk OPI
Jim Daopoulos ‏@RefereeJimD Nov 29
You are correct...that action takes place all the time without offensive interference called...this call was very technical and not a foul
Chung call:
Jim Daopoulos ‏@RefereeJimD Nov 29
That's an awful call and not a foul..... No visible restriction
I don't agree with him there was "no visible restriction" but I think this is one that might be borderline in the middle of the field early in the game to set a tone but that you let go in the last minute in the end zone 99% of the time.

One for you:
 
Last edited:

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
2,760



In light of the OPI's called on Gronk, this one is especially egrigious. The 'hold' happens because DT extends both hands and pushes off to create separation, which he does, and the only reason chung isn't 2 yards away as a result of the contact is the hand on the shoulder. This one pisses me off more than any of the others given timing, importance, and recent OPI calls in the opposite direction.
 

86spike

Currently enjoying "Arli$$"
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2002
25,082
Procrasti Nation



In light of the OPI's called on Gronk, this one is especially egrigious. The 'hold' happens because DT extends both hands and pushes off to create separation, which he does, and the only reason chung isn't 2 yards away as a result of the contact is the hand on the shoulder. This one pisses me off more than any of the others given timing, importance, and recent OPI calls in the opposite direction.
Both the Gronk flag and the Chung flag were ticky tack calls.

But maybe I'm just being shitty and coy.
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
7,088
I'm still trying to digest something I "heard" upthread - that the same guy blew the batting call in Seattle and threw the flag on Chung. Is this true? If so, hasn't this guy already had a profound impact on deciding two NFL games already this season? And if *that* is true - how the fuck does he keep working as an NFL ref? Isn't incompetence a firing offence, even in a unionized environment?
 

JohnnyK

Member
SoSH Member
May 8, 2007
1,941
Wolfern, Austria
No holding here... Thanks SI

There is an interesting post on Reddit that explains why stuff like this is actually not always holding according to the rules.

The gist of it:
Blocking notes:

(1) When a defensive player is held by an offensive player during the following situations, offensive holding will not be called:
(i) if, during a defensive charge, a defensive player uses a “rip” technique that puts an offensive player in a position that would normally be holding.
Maybe something for ITP to explore?
 

Gunfighter 09

wants to be caribou ken
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
8,548
KPWT
Both the Gronk flag and the Chung flag were ticky tack calls.

But maybe I'm just being shitty and coy.
Well, being a Broncos fan is pretty shitty. But you are doing great work in this thread. There are plenty of other places people can go to find a Pats fans only echo chamber.
 

I am an Idiot

"Duke"
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2007
5,116
I'm still trying to digest something I "heard" upthread - that the same guy blew the batting call in Seattle and threw the flag on Chung. Is this true? If so, hasn't this guy already had a profound impact on deciding two NFL games already this season? And if *that* is true - how the fuck does he keep working as an NFL ref? Isn't incompetence a firing offence, even in a unionized environment?
Yes, Tony Corrente's crew. I apologize for the Worldwide Leader link.

Here

"I have spoken to the referee [Tony Corrente]. He did not see that part of the play because that is not his area. The back judge [Greg Wilson] felt it was not an intentional act, that it was inadvertent," he added.
 

JohnnyK

Member
SoSH Member
May 8, 2007
1,941
Wolfern, Austria
Are you talking about this play?



If they had flagged that I would not have freaked out and screamed about ref conspiracies, but I don't think he touched Brady's head at all.
It looked really bad from this angle, and I was screaming at my monitor when it happened, but a better angle agrees with you:
Link (jump to 3.22 if the timestamp doesn't work)

Funnily enough the same video shows Chung clearly being held on Anderson's first TD run (start of the video).
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,675
Deep inside Muppet Labs
People need to take it down a notch. Spike and Gunfighter aren't trolling in here, even if you disagree with them. Cool it.

And just to let folks know, I hid all the Eric Wilbur posts on the previous page. No linking to Wilbur articles allowed on SoSH. Ever. That's my one ironclad rule.
 

Silverdude2167

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2006
4,674
Amstredam
There is an interesting post on Reddit that explains why stuff like this is actually not always holding according to the rules.

The gist of it:


Maybe something for ITP to explore?
The NFL rulebook is a mess. Not speaking to a specific play, but if a defensive player puts the offensive in a position where they are holding, it should be holding. No wonder it is called with not consistency, and seemingly at random.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
To sum up:

1. Everyone agrees Sunday night's game was very poorly officiated.

2. Almost everyone agrees that the Pats bore the brunt of that, and that it went a long way to costing them the game, including people who are decidedly not Pats' cheerleaders -- Esiason, Wilbon, SAS and so forth.

3. No one worthy of credence has articulated a conspiracy claim, and the claims along those lines that have been advanced are not supported by facts or reason.

The broad picture is quite amazing. The biggest professional sports league, a $10 billion a year enterprise, and the officiating is entirely unreliable and bordering on out of control
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
7,088
To sum up:

1. Everyone agrees Sunday night's game was very poorly officiated.

2. Almost everyone agrees that the Pats bore the brunt of that, and that it went a long way to costing them the game, including people who are decidedly not Pats' cheerleaders -- Esiason, Wilbon, SAS and so forth.

3. No one worthy of credence has articulated a conspiracy claim, and the claims along those lines that have been advanced are not supported by facts or reason.

The broad picture is quite amazing. The biggest professional sports league, a $10 billion a year enterprise, and the officiating is entirely unreliable and bordering on out of control
That works for me, thanks. On to Philadelphia!
 

Prodigal Sox

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
253
between the buttons
To sum up:

1. Everyone agrees Sunday night's game was very poorly officiated.

2. Almost everyone agrees that the Pats bore the brunt of that, and that it went a long way to costing them the game, including people who are decidedly not Pats' cheerleaders -- Esiason, Wilbon, SAS and so forth.

3. No one worthy of credence has articulated a conspiracy claim, and the claims along those lines that have been advanced are not supported by facts or reason.

The broad picture is quite amazing. The biggest professional sports league, a $10 billion a year enterprise, and the officiating is entirely unreliable and bordering on out of control
Just one addendum. While not a conspiracy I do believe there has been a "point of emphasis" on Gronk and OPI.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,851
San Andreas Fault
To sum up:

1. Everyone agrees Sunday night's game was very poorly officiated.

2. Almost everyone agrees that the Pats bore the brunt of that, and that it went a long way to costing them the game, including people who are decidedly not Pats' cheerleaders -- Esiason, Wilbon, SAS and so forth.

3. No one worthy of credence has articulated a conspiracy claim, and the claims along those lines that have been advanced are not supported by facts or reason.

The broad picture is quite amazing. The biggest professional sports league, a $10 billion a year enterprise, and the officiating is entirely unreliable and bordering on out of control
Just catching up after a couple of days not reading here and I would have made that exact point, maybe adding Collinsworth to that list. I think Esiason was all over the Pats about DFG this summer, to the point I turned him off whenever he appeared on my TV. Surprised to see him pro-Pats. Wilbon usually has to be talked down by Kornheiser over anything about the Pats. As for SAS, maybe he has to balance out Bayless, who isso pro-Pats. Smart man there. <ducks>

Big question is, will it do any good?
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
Link

As the NFL deals with an unprecedented rash of criticism regarding the quality of its officiating, the league currently is exploring procedures to improve certain aspects of the process.

Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the NFL is considering the possibility of providing officials with real-time assistance during certain games. The focus would be to assist the officials with administrative issues, not to correct bad calls made during plays. For that, the replay system would continue to be the safety net.

Under this approach, prime-time contests and other games being played beyond the 1:00 p.m. ET window would be candidates for extra attention. And the idea flows from the reality that league executives responsible for officiating are focusing on those games, noticing the errors, and currently powerless to do anything about them.
Leave it to the NFL to potentially pick one of the worst possible remedies to this problem.

"Hey guys. I have a great idea. Let's make it even more explicit that we will treat certain games differently based on how it plays on TV. INTEGRITY FOREVER!!!!"
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,200
“@andrewperloff: ”This wasn’t a disciplinary thing because every game is equally important.“ - Dean Blandino on switching Pete Morelli crew”



Then what was it?
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
Classic office prank.

Happens all the time. "Hey guys, we're giving you a huge high profile project to work on."

"PSYCHE!!!"
 

Carmine Hose

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2001
5,045
Dorchester, MA
If every game is "equally important" why are the playoff games assigned only crews with the best ratings? It's such horseshit. The league needs to have complete random assignments each week, where the only potential wrinkle is adjustments so crews don't keep working games involving the same team(s).
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,716



In light of the OPI's called on Gronk, this one is especially egrigious. The 'hold' happens because DT extends both hands and pushes off to create separation, which he does, and the only reason chung isn't 2 yards away as a result of the contact is the hand on the shoulder. This one pisses me off more than any of the others given timing, importance, and recent OPI calls in the opposite direction.
How do I know this isn't DPI? Even the WR didn't complain.
 
The NFL rulebook is a mess. Not speaking to a specific play, but if a defensive player puts the offensive in a position where they are holding, it should be holding. No wonder it is called with not consistency, and seemingly at random.
Not necessarily. Are you familiar with the rip move? The rushing lineman purposely lifts the offensive lineman's arm up and sometimes even pins the arm to his chest, which makes the offensive lineman much easier to move. Once the defensive lineman gets an angle, he rips the offensive lineman's arm down and moves past him to the QB. That's hard to fault the blocker.

Similarly, if a wide receiver hooked a DB's arm to his chest, should that that be pass interference on the DB?

You are right, though, that it makes the flags appear inconsistent and at random. It also makes it nearly impossible to detect holding from a still photo.

Mind you, I'm not defending the calls from the game.
 

Silverdude2167

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2006
4,674
Amstredam
Not necessarily. Are you familiar with the rip move? The rushing lineman purposely lifts the offensive lineman's arm up and sometimes even pins the arm to his chest, which makes the offensive lineman much easier to move. Once the defensive lineman gets an angle, he rips the offensive lineman's arm down and moves past him to the QB. That's hard to fault the blocker.

Similarly, if a wide receiver hooked a DB's arm to his chest, should that that be pass interference on the DB?

You are right, though, that it makes the flags appear inconsistent and at random. It also makes it nearly impossible to detect holding from a still photo.

Mind you, I'm not defending the calls from the game.
Thanks. I do not understand D-Line, O-Line play beyond "hey that's a spin move"
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,131
Link



Leave it to the NFL to potentially pick one of the worst possible remedies to this problem.

"Hey guys. I have a great idea. Let's make it even more explicit that we will treat certain games differently based on how it plays on TV. INTEGRITY FOREVER!!!!"
somewhat analogous to the handling of Ray Rice: "if it isn't on video (if it only seen by 27% of the country), then it didnt happen."
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
Excess Time Out:

I get it that the rule's designed to prevent the defense from stopping the clock with a fake injury when they're out of time outs - trying to save as much time as possible when they regain possession.

I don't get it that a defense with no time outs can, without any penalty, fake an injury in order to regroup during play stoppage with the clock re-started when the guy leaves the field, in essence burning as much time as possible to limit the offense's options.

In any other situation the defense would be penalized a time out (because they'd have one) and the clock wouldn't restart.

Am I getting this correct? Seems stupid.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,131
Excess Time Out:

I get it that the rule's designed to prevent the defense from stopping the clock with a fake injury when they're out of time outs - trying to save as much time as possible when they regain possession.

I don't get it that a defense with no time outs can, without any penalty, fake an injury in order to regroup during play stoppage with the clock re-started when the guy leaves the field, in essence burning as much time as possible to limit the offense's options.

In any other situation the defense would be penalized a time out (because they'd have one) and the clock wouldn't restart.

Am I getting this correct? Seems stupid.
They get one freebie. Then it's five yards.
It's also possible for such a move to backfire. An offense with no TO left also gets to regroup. I think, regardless of the worthiness of the rule, one of the underplayed aspects of all this was that Brady didn't know the full parameter of the rule, and, assuming BB did, it was not conveyed to Brady.
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
Blandino did say on the NFL Network Sunday night that the rule was applied correctly, but there was some question as to whether the fact that the clock would roll was properly communicated to Brady and Belichick. I found it odd that there is some responsibility to communicate that to the team thinking that it is something that they would be responsible to know.

This also explains Bills generic comments on the matter this week where he has said there were "communication issues". This is what he's referring to.

Here is the actual quote from Blandino in the NESN article.

“The injury stopped the running clock. There was a pass to (Patriots tight end Scott) Chandler, he was down inbounds, the defensive player was injured, so by rule, that’s an excess timeout. Denver didn’t have any timeouts left. If they had one left, we’d just charge them, and we’d go on the snap like we normally do. But an excess timeout, by rule, the play clock is set to 40 (seconds), and we wind the clock. That’s so a defensive player can’t fake an injury and stop the clock when the defense is behind. You always wind the clock on an excess timeout when the clock was running, and we have to make sure that the quarterback knows that and the head coach knows that, so that’s what we’ll make sure we review with the crew how that was communicated. But it was administered correctly.”
NESN article link
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,131
I also think that the fact that the play clock and game clock were somewhat close made the "reset the clock to 40(?) seconds" announcement potentially ambiguous to those who heard it. But, as I said, I'm still a bit surprised that none of the players on offense were dialed in on this.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
From FF media thread -- add Francesa to the list of those believing Pats got jobbed by refs and won the game on the field.

res ipsa
 

steveluck7

Member
SoSH Member
May 10, 2007
3,989
Burrillville, RI
I also think that the fact that the play clock and game clock were somewhat close made the "reset the clock to 40(?) seconds" announcement potentially ambiguous to those who heard it. But, as I said, I'm still a bit surprised that none of the players on offense were dialed in on this.
I recall the ref pretty clearly saying "...play clock."
Anyhow, It's pretty damn stupid that they refer to it as an excess "timeout" yet it's not really a timeout at all.
Most of us heard the word "timeout" and assumed that the game clock would not begin until the snap; you know, like during a "timeout"
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
I heard "play clock" and felt after the fact that it was misleading.

Why reset the play clock to 40 seconds if the game clock is at ~25 and is running?

Does the play clock usually get turned off in that scenario? Regardless, when I heard that I assumed they were stopping the clock and adding back some seconds.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,368
Melrose, MA
Blandino did say on the NFL Network Sunday night that the rule was applied correctly, but there was some question as to whether the fact that the clock would roll was properly communicated to Brady and Belichick. I found it odd that there is some responsibility to communicate that to the team thinking that it is something that they would be responsible to know.

This also explains Bills generic comments on the matter this week where he has said there were "communication issues". This is what he's referring to.
If they can say "Don't cover 34 he's not eligible", then they ought to be able to say "the game clock will run once the play clock starts" or something. It happens rarely enough that they ought to inform the QB.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,365
If they can say "Don't cover 34 he's not eligible", then they ought to be able to say "the game clock will run once the play clock starts" or something. It happens rarely enough that they ought to inform the QB.

Yes, or they could actually penalize the defensive team for an excessive timeout. You could give the offense the option of having the clock stopped or letting it run, or you could penalize the defense for too many men on the field.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,716
Well, if this was Harbaugh, we'd be laughing that he didn't know the rules.