2020 Divisional Weekend Game Thread: Nevermore

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,144
Why would they do that? They challenged the ruling on the field that Hollister was down by contact and that GB therefore didn’t recover a fumble.
Yes, GB challenged DBC. The ref said it was a fumble. GB had the ball. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
43,531
AZ
I think we’ve tried quite a few that way. They say the league is 100 years old!
I’m saying we might have been distracted from the allure of replay about how good we may have had it.

You know that feeling of anticipation when a ball is in the air in a basketball game and you are on the edge of your seat? Nothing like that in football anymore. Your guy catches a ball and that’s just the beginning of a ten second to four minute check list that must be gone through — sometimes with a commercial in between! — until you know if you can cheer.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,555
Santa Monica, CA
I’m saying we might have been distracted from the allure of replay about how good we may have had it.

You know that feeling of anticipation when a ball is in the air in a basketball game and you are on the edge of your seat? Nothing like that in football anymore. Your guy catches a ball and that’s just the beginning of a ten second to four minute check list that must be gone through — sometimes with a commercial in between! — until you know if you can cheer.
Could not agree more.

Not to mention, I suppose the goal of replay is to eliminate blatantly bad calls and get us closer to some kind of "true" or "deserved" outcome of the game.

And then we go ahead and let referee judgment dictate all kinds of other calls that end up impacting the outcome (holding, etc.).
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
62,148
New York City
Could not agree more.

Not to mention, I suppose the goal of replay is to eliminate blatantly bad calls and get us closer to some kind of "true" or "deserved" outcome of the game.

And then we go ahead and let referee judgment dictate all kinds of other calls that end up impacting the outcome (holding, etc.).
And they continually fuck up the replays anyway. So what's the point?
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,645
I mean, could you do this on a called fumble? Has that ever happened?
What are you asking here? On a called fumble, the officials on the field would have to make a ruling in favor of one team recovering the ball. That ruling could then be challenged.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
42,216
Why would they do that? They challenged the ruling on the field that Hollister was down by contact and that GB therefore didn’t recover a fumble.

The whole thing came apart with theapplication of the clear recovery rule. I don’t understand how that wasn’t a clear recovery by GB, who had the hall when the scrum cleared.
By virtue of the fact that there was a scrum, it almost means, by definition, you don't have a clear recovery. Think about the Kelce fumble that Gilmore picked up in their game this year. They called it down by contact on the field, but overturned it on replay. The only reason it went to the Pats is because Gilmore is literally the only guy around the ball when he picked it up, which is a "clear recovery."

The reason this rule exists is because when a player is "down by contact" on the field, the whistle blows. Once the whistle blows, guys are trained to stop. So if there's a scrum, or two guys with a shot at the ball, the whistle may cause one of them to not go after the ball. That's why the only way you can overturn a down by contact/fumble ruling is if the defense makes a clear recovery, which more accurately translates to "it was obvious the defender recovered it, and nobody else had a chance..."
 

JohnnyTheBone

Member
SoSH Member
May 28, 2007
37,143
Nobody Cares
I’m saying we might have been distracted from the allure of replay about how good we may have had it.

You know that feeling of anticipation when a ball is in the air in a basketball game and you are on the edge of your seat? Nothing like that in football anymore. Your guy catches a ball and that’s just the beginning of a ten second to four minute check list that must be gone through — sometimes with a commercial in between! — until you know if you can cheer.
As usual, you're crushing it tonight, DDB.
 

staz

Intangible
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2004
20,943
The cradle of the game.
Could not agree more.

Not to mention, I suppose the goal of replay is to eliminate blatantly bad calls and get us closer to some kind of "true" or "deserved" outcome of the game.

And then we go ahead and let referee judgment dictate all kinds of other calls that end up impacting the outcome (holding, etc.).
It's a slippery slope. The more you look, the more you find.

Best game in a long time was during a blizzard in Buffalo a couple years ago. Could barely make out the sidelines let alone argue ball spotting, so everyone was happy to just go along with what the refs called. It was sublime.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
43,531
AZ
And they continually fuck up the replays anyway. So what's the point?
Or some convoluted thing makes it so they can’t replay because of all these things about what gets automatic review and what doesn’t.

Then they pass a rule making PI reviewable but then decide they don’t actually want to do it when the season starts. Mostly.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
47,330
Hartford, CT
By virtue of the fact that there was a scrum, it almost means, by definition, you don't have a clear recovery. Think about the Kelce fumble that Gilmore picked up in their game this year. They called it down by contact on the field, but overturned it on replay. The only reason it went to the Pats is because Gilmore is literally the only guy around the ball when he picked it up, which is a "clear recovery."

The reason this rule exists is because when a player is "down by contact" on the field, the whistle blows. Once the whistle blows, guys are trained to stop. So if there's a scrum, or two guys with a shot at the ball, the whistle may cause one of them to not go after the ball. That's why the only way you can overturn a down by contact/fumble ruling is if the defense makes a clear recovery, which more accurately translates to "it was obvious the defender recovered it, and nobody else had a chance..."
This is a good post, and I think you’re right about the application of the clear recovery rule.
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,144
By virtue of the fact that there was a scrum, it almost means, by definition, you don't have a clear recovery. Think about the Kelce fumble that Gilmore picked up in their game this year. They called it down by contact on the field, but overturned it on replay. The only reason it went to the Pats is because Gilmore is literally the only guy around the ball when he picked it up, which is a "clear recovery."

The reason this rule exists is because when a player is "down by contact" on the field, the whistle blows. Once the whistle blows, guys are trained to stop. So if there's a scrum, or two guys with a shot at the ball, the whistle may cause one of them to not go after the ball. That's why the only way you can overturn a down by contact/fumble ruling is if the defense makes a clear recovery, which more accurately translates to "it was obvious the defender recovered it, and nobody else had a chance..."
Thanks, this is kind of what I was looking to have clarified.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
62,148
New York City
By virtue of the fact that there was a scrum, it almost means, by definition, you don't have a clear recovery. Think about the Kelce fumble that Gilmore picked up in their game this year. They called it down by contact on the field, but overturned it on replay. The only reason it went to the Pats is because Gilmore is literally the only guy around the ball when he picked it up, which is a "clear recovery."

The reason this rule exists is because when a player is "down by contact" on the field, the whistle blows. Once the whistle blows, guys are trained to stop. So if there's a scrum, or two guys with a shot at the ball, the whistle may cause one of them to not go after the ball. That's why the only way you can overturn a down by contact/fumble ruling is if the defense makes a clear recovery, which more accurately translates to "it was obvious the defender recovered it, and nobody else had a chance..."
If there was no clear recovery, the refs should pick up the challenge flag. Because all that challenge did was cost GB a TO and an extra challenge, for being right with their challenge. It's so dumb.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,790
NY
By virtue of the fact that there was a scrum, it almost means, by definition, you don't have a clear recovery. Think about the Kelce fumble that Gilmore picked up in their game this year. They called it down by contact on the field, but overturned it on replay. The only reason it went to the Pats is because Gilmore is literally the only guy around the ball when he picked it up, which is a "clear recovery."

The reason this rule exists is because when a player is "down by contact" on the field, the whistle blows. Once the whistle blows, guys are trained to stop. So if there's a scrum, or two guys with a shot at the ball, the whistle may cause one of them to not go after the ball. That's why the only way you can overturn a down by contact/fumble ruling is if the defense makes a clear recovery, which more accurately translates to "it was obvious the defender recovered it, and nobody else had a chance..."
This is exactly right.

The biggest problem with the replay system is that it puts the burden on the coaches. If the goal is to get calls right then have a booth replay ref deciding what needs to be reviewed. This game of deciding when to use a challenge, needing a TO, losing a TO, getting a third if you get two right--it's all such nonsense.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
The Packers are the rare NFL team I have literally no feeling towards. I don't have any real reason to root against them, but I also have no real reason to root for them.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
43,531
AZ
When Cletus‘ face gets cold, his mouth doesn’t work right when he announces penalties.

Happened in the AFCCG last year too.