Officiating Questions & Observations

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,062
Hingham, MA
Since we have our very own rules expert @CFB_Rules, I thought this would be a good place to ask all of our questions, instead of random places like the game threads, the game ball / goat threads, etc. I'll start with two:

1) Why was the hit on Meyers in Q3 not defenseless? (roughly at the 5 minute to play mark) Could you run a compare / contrast to the penalty on the Pats at the end of the Eagles game?

2) I still don't understand NZI vs. false start. See the call on Mason at 13:30 of the 4th quarter. Cowboys move along the line of scrimmage, one of their DL jumps (might or might not have crossed the LOS), and Mason then jumps. The Cowboys DL was the closest defender and pretty close to Mason - we're not talking several players away here like the example from the Ravens game. Based on what you've explained in the past this should have been NZI, I think. But I am now very confused by the rules.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
The weird one on the Mason play you're referring to is that the defender started off in a three-point stance, but then stands up and jumps, causing Mason to flinch. CFB has said that the NZI rule that we've been discussing (we're not talking about when a defender *actually* goes into the NZ and an OL flinches...that's automatic NZI, but rather when the defender flinches or moves forward but NOT in the NZ, and then the OL flinches anyway), if you're not in a three-point stance, this situation doesn't call for NZI. But what about when the defender starts in a three-point stance, stands up, and then flinches?

Again, by the letter of the rule, should be no NZI, since the defender never entered the neutral zone. But by CFB's explanation, it should be, because what they're trying to stop is defenders causing O-linemen to false start by their action towards the line of scrimmage. But as CFB has explained, that only works if you're in a three point stance (or four point stance, I suppose) and if the OL is either directly across from you or is on either side of your gap.

This is a weird one because of the whole "started in a three point stance, stood up, took a step to his right, then lurched forward" movement. If they officiate it trying to get this whole idea of causing OL to false start out of the game, then what Dallas did there clearly violated that intent, three point stance or not.

But we've seen in the past few weeks that even how CFB explained it isn't always the case, as last week we had a clear defender doing exactly what Butler did vs. Baltimore and the call was on the OL for a false start.

So here's what I don't get: Why not simply officiate the play *according to the actual rulebook*, which is straightforward and simple? Why officiate it by "camera angles" (which is the dumbest thing ever) or by "intent" or by...whatever else CFB says they officiate it by?

(Note: this is not a shot at CFB, but rather at the explanations he's been given by his referee friends)
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,288
AZ
On NZI, Vinovich in the Eagles game clearly articulated the view that there is no NZI if the defender has not made it to the neutral zone. He said pretty much the exact same thing in a game this weekend -- I can't remember what the matchup was -- but I thought of this debate as soon as I heard him. Whether this is Vinovich's view of the world, or he's just repeating the understanding of whichever line ref makes the call on his crew, his understanding is consistent with the literal interpretation under the rule book.

CFB has indicated that there's a different mechanic that does seem to be consistent with how we've seen other crews call it -- not just in the Ravens game but all season by other refs.

I can see advantages to both interpretations. The Vinovich understanding has the advantage of being literally consistent with the rules as written. The other interpretation has the advantage of preventing foul play. If a defender in a down stance could line up a foot beyond the nose of the ball and jump forward as much as a foot to try to induce a false start without liability, it would be untenable to me. You can't expect offensive linemen, especially tackles who may be a good distance from the ball and who have to defend defensive players that are not lined up right on their nose, to know exactly where the neutral zone is. When a defender with his hand on the ground very close to the line jumps forward to a place close to the neutral zone it should be start of the play unless he is a significant distance from the neutral zone. For a running or upright defender who is timing the snap, I think the formal NZ should be the dominant consideration.

So, anyway, tl/dr -- I think different crews call this one differently. I'm not sure how common the Vinovich understanding is.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
From si.com:

"Of All the NFL’s Terrible Ideas, the Challenge System Is the Worst: It’s not up to a coaching staff to officiate this play correctly. Two officials combined to rule N’Keal Harry out of bounds, a call everyone on the planet could see was incorrect both in real time and immediately after. A sky judge system that removes the NFL theater of sponsored replay could have corrected this in about 12 seconds. Instead, the Patriots were out of challenges and out of luck, settling for three instead. A system that can’t get this right, when anyone on their couch can immediately see it is wrong, is an objectively broken system."

Ok, so while the article mentions that the Pats had used their two challenges and thus couldn't challenge the Harry play, we need to talk about WHY the Pats were out of challenges. So let's first look at the Pats' first challenge.

3rd and 4 from the KC 35. Mahomes hits Watkins over the middle. There ended up being two issues here. First, Watkins' body (never mind the ball, which was *behind* his body relative to the line to gain) advanced ONLY to the 39. This photo represents the furthest forward Watkins got before being pushed back by McCourty.

27381

But look where the official spots it. Almost at the 40. A full yard forward. The left foot of the ref is where he's spotting it. Compare that spot to where the ball is at Watkins' forward-most progress.

27382

Laughable.

So BB challenges the call. Even though BB was CORRECT in where the spot should be (i.e., the officials got the spot wrong), he "lost" the challenge. The official (Bogar) said, "New England is challenging the ruling on the field of a first down....and offensive pass interference on the play." (The OPI challenge failed because even though Kelce clearly intentionally picked the defender, it was within one yard of the LOS so no OPI) But isn't BB really challenging the SPOT? If not, that's what the rule SHOULD be. BB doesn't really *know* if the correct spot is enough for the first down. He just knows that the officials totally F***ed up the spot by giving KC a full extra yard.

Just for fun, here's where the Chiefs were snapping from when play resumed:

27383

It was another HALF YARD ahead of even where they originally mis-spotted it! So they hosed the Pats on this call, which is why they needed to challenge. I know the cameras aren't going directly down the line to gain but it's very very obvious that the spot was awful and that BB should have "won" the challenge of a re-spot. I still think he may have gotten the first down, but BB had to challenge because the refs gave them a full extra yard (and from the last picture, a yard and a half). When he lost the challenge, it cost them a valuable time out AND a challenge. So when the refs F***ed up again on the Kelce fumble, they had to challenge that too, which left them zero challenges for either the Harry TD or the Dorsett DPI play.

Just a cascade of incompetency that had a HUGE effect on the game.
 
Last edited:

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
Great analysis, thanks for posting it. I didn't see the game, nor the other one I am about to mention, but were these calls worse than the tripping calls the league later ruled were bad calls?
Objectively WAY worse. The tripping calls are pretty much judgment calls, and in both cases the offensive linemen for Dallas at least lifted their legs a little, giving the impression that it was intentional. These calls? All objectively horrible.

I eagerly await the NFL's "apology" forthcoming. :rolleyes:
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,024
Oregon
Great analysis, thanks for posting it. I didn't see the game, nor the other one I am about to mention, but were these calls worse than the tripping calls the league later ruled were bad calls?
The N'Keal Henry no-TD call was worse than the tripping calls. Pretty much everything else is in the same stew of, boy they missed that one
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
46,769
Hartford, CT
The limited coaches’ challenge system privileges an unnecessary injection of tactical drama over getting key calls right.

I’m sure someone in the media will argue that it’s a slippery slope, etc, but the booth review system grants the booth limitless discretion when there isn’t a scoring play or turnover to initiate a review, and that discretion has been employed well at the college level.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
Watching a play full speed at the field level, you can see how an official could misjudge a spot by half a yard from time to time. Sometimes players are in the way, or there is a lot of movement happening all at once. There will always be some lack of accuracy in the spot of a ball. Still, if Kevin Faulk got the same benefit, there would never have been the equating of "4th-and-2" with "hubris and arrogance".

Here's what's ridiculous about the play:

1.) The additional half-yard between the play being blown dead and the subsequent snap. That's an inexcusable process issue that's 100% on the officiating crew.

2.) The NFL's review system. If the league doesn't want to do a full booth review system, then they should just limit replays to plays where a score either did happen, or may have happened, and the review should focus on whether the player did actually take the ball into the end zone. Forget all the catch/non-catch stuff, or random rules and exceptions to those rules and exceptions to the exceptions. The same could be said for all leagues.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
The limited coaches’ challenge system privileges an unnecessary injection of tactical drama over getting key calls right.

I’m sure someone in the media will argue that it’s a slippery slope, etc, but the booth review system grants the booth limitless discretion when there isn’t a scoring play or turnover to initiate a review, and that discretion has been employed well at the college level.
I don’t think the NFL would agree that the college system works well. Instant replay is far from the sole reason that non-OT college games routinely approach four hours in length, but it’s part of the problem.

I think the NFL is comfortable with its 3:15 target for game times and would rather see a team get screwed occasionally (especially if the screwing is partly due to an injudicious use of challenges) than adopt a broader replay review system that would add time to games.

The officiating yesterday was awful, but even in that extreme case, the Pats would’ve been ok if the Pats didn’t waste a challenge on that stupid first-down call. For better or worse, the system is specifically designed to punish teams for halting a game for two minutes to quibble over a yard of field position.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,047
306, row 14
I think when it comes to challenges on making the line to gain, they only re-spot if they conclusively determine that there was or wasn’t a first down. They don’t re-spot and then measure.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
I don’t think the NFL would agree that the college system works well. Instant replay is far from the sole reason that non-OT college games routinely approach four hours in length, but it’s part of the problem.

I think the NFL is comfortable with its 3:15 target for game times and would rather see a team get screwed occasionally (especially if the screwing is partly due to an injudicious use of challenges) than adopt a broader replay review system that would add time to games.

The officiating yesterday was awful, but even in that extreme case, the Pats would’ve been ok if the Pats didn’t waste a challenge on that stupid first-down call. For better or worse, the system is specifically designed to punish teams for halting a game for two minutes to quibble over a yard of field position.
But the yard of field position could have been the difference between a first down and a punt. Potentially game-changing kind of play.

Either way, the refs CLEARLY got the spot wrong, and on replay should have moved it back. Instead, they moved it FORWARD. Beyond ridiculous. And it led to the cascade of events that prevented the Pats from being able to challenge a clear missed call on the Harry TD.
 

Bongorific

Thinks he’s clever
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,433
Balboa Towers
I think when it comes to challenges on making the line to gain, they only re-spot if they conclusively determine that there was or wasn’t a first down. They don’t re-spot and then measure.
Partially true. They’re only going to re-spot if sufficient evidence to overturn the spot on the field. But they will remeasure after the re-spot if needed.
 

GoDa

New Member
Sep 25, 2017
962
The spot challenge is one that I think has an explanation.

I could be wrong - but I thought challenges of spots were only "successful" if it was ruled the re-spot of the ball would clearly deny a 1st down. ex. Even if the official had spotted the ball at the 45 (with the 1st down being the 39) - if the review of the challenge left some doubt about a re-spot at the 39 denying a 1st down... then the challenge would be denied and the ball would remain at the 45 (despite being absurdly mis-spotted).
 
Last edited:

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
The spot challenge is one that I think has an explanation.

I could be wrong - but I thought challenges of spots were only "successful" if it was ruled the re-spot of the ball would clearly deny a 1st down. ex. Even if the official had spotted the ball at the 45 (with the 1st down being the 39) - if the review of the challenge left some doubt about the a re-spot at the 39... then the challenge would be denied and the ball would remain at the 45 (despite being absurdly mis-spotted).
I think that's correct. And it's galactically stupid. Coaches should be challenging the SPOT, period. If they don't think the correct spot might change whether it was a first down, then they shouldn't bother challenging. But if they DO challenge, then the refs should focus on getting the SPOT CORRECT. If the spot is to be challenged and they agree that it should be moved, the coach challenging the spot should "win" the challenge. And THEN they should measure whether it was a first down.

If the coach is challenging the spot and the refs see that they gave a guy an extra yard or yard and a half, even if the correct spot doesn't result in a first down, they should at least move the ball to the correct spot.

The hilarious part on this particular play is that when play resumed, KC got the ball another half yard FORWARD from where the ref mistakenly spotted the ball in the first place.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
Partially true. They’re only going to re-spot if sufficient evidence to overturn the spot on the field. But they will remeasure after the re-spot if needed.
And the challenge is only considered won if the spot results in no 1st down(or the opposite if it was called 4th down). In this case it is clear to me the ball should have been repotted and measured.

Two other things:
-Keep in mind the yellow line is only an approximation, it shouldn’t be used to state this definitively would or would not have been a 1st down.
-I recall CFB rules stating that officials try to have 1st down with the balls nose touching a yard line to make later measurements easier. I think that is what is seen in the final spot of where the ball is. Once it’s a 1st down that half yard doesn’t really matter.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,288
AZ
The case of automatic review for certain plays -- and then expanding the category of booth initiated reviews at certain times of the game -- is a problem.

The Harry play would have been a touchdown if it had been ruled such on the field, or of the Patriots had a challenge, or if it was within the last two minutes. That is three levels of arbitrary on one play, and that's too many.

You must either put primacy on "getting it right" or you must learn to live with difficulty in making judgment calls. But the current system of doing one sometimes and the other others is just not compatible with ideas of uniformly applied equity.

If you want to make reviews challenge only, fine. If you want to put a sky judge in the sky who can buzz at any time, fine. Both will have unintended consequences and lead to unfairness that hurts one team and helps another in any given situation. But that's already happening. What it would do is remove the arbitrariness that is an extra layer on top of that first problem.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
And the challenge is only considered won if the spot results in no 1st down(or the opposite if it was called 4th down). In this case it is clear to me the ball should have been repotted and measured.

Two other things:
-Keep in mind the yellow line is only an approximation, it shouldn’t be used to state this definitively would or would not have been a 1st down.
-I recall CFB rules stating that officials try to have 1st down with the balls nose touching a yard line to make later measurements easier. I think that is what is seen in the final spot of where the ball is. Once it’s a 1st down that half yard doesn’t really matter.
That last part I understand and it's really not a huge deal for them to have it a half yard further forward. It is just funny that the end result is basically a full yard and a half worth of field position because they screwed up the spot, and because they don't re-spot if the challenge "fails" (i.e., the play doesn't result in a non-first down). End result: KC gets a free yard and a half ALL due to referee incompetence. Oh plus the Pats lose a time out and a key challenge.
 

JokersWildJIMED

Blinded by Borges
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2004
2,742
One question I have on the spot challenge is what was actually challenged? It was announced that BB was challenging the spot AND the OPI...can you do challenge two things? Boger came back and stated the call stands
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,195
I don’t think the NFL would agree that the college system works well. Instant replay is far from the sole reason that non-OT college games routinely approach four hours in length, but it’s part of the problem.

I think the NFL is comfortable with its 3:15 target for game times and would rather see a team get screwed occasionally (especially if the screwing is partly due to an injudicious use of challenges) than adopt a broader replay review system that would add time to games.

The officiating yesterday was awful, but even in that extreme case, the Pats would’ve been ok if the Pats didn’t waste a challenge on that stupid first-down call. For better or worse, the system is specifically designed to punish teams for halting a game for two minutes to quibble over a yard of field position.
Of course, that is not what the Pats did. They challenged whether a third-down pass was converted to a first down at an important point of the game, and replays showed essentially inarguably they were correct that the spot was wrong. Replays also showed pretty clearly (though not clearly enough apparently) that there should not have been a first down awarded, which is material.

Saying that if the Pats had let some really bad, impactful calls go they could have challenged other bad, even more impactful calls is true but I think badly misallocates responsibility here.
 

GoDa

New Member
Sep 25, 2017
962
While we're complaining about officiating... I noticed a few times during the Dallas-Chicago game - on consecutive plays, at one point - where defensive linemen (I think Dallas) were putting their hands down on the other side of the ball.

ex. Chicago has the ball on offense and the tip of the ball is at the Chicago 40... and you can see Dallas linemen with their hand down on the Chicago side of the 40. Isn't someone supposed to be watching that on every play? Unless the hash marks are curved, there were some pretty cut and dry fouls that went uncalled/unseen. Saved the Pats' bacon, last year, vs. KC.
 

Bongorific

Thinks he’s clever
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,433
Balboa Towers
The spot challenge is one that I think has an explanation.

I could be wrong - but I thought challenges of spots were only "successful" if it was ruled the re-spot of the ball would clearly deny a 1st down. ex. Even if the official had spotted the ball at the 45 (with the 1st down being the 39) - if the review of the challenge left some doubt about a re-spot at the 39 denying a 1st down... then the challenge would be denied and the ball would remain at the 45 (despite being absurdly mis-spotted).
This is correct. Rule 15, Section 3, Article 7, Note 2: “A challenge is successful only if the ruling of whether a new series was awarded is changed, regardless of whether the ball was moved closer to the line to gain.”
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
This is correct. Rule 15, Section 3, Article 7, Note 2: “A challenge is successful only if the ruling of whether a new series was awarded is changed, regardless of whether the ball was moved closer to the line to gain.”
So let's say that on 2nd and 10 a guy gets a 6 yard gain. But the refs mistakenly spot it a yard and a half further, making it 3rd and 2 1/2 instead of 3rd and 4. The coach challenges the spot. It doesn't affect a new series of downs, but it may have a huge impact on the play call for the other team.

Can a team challenge in such a case, based on this rule?
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
I’m pretty sure the answer is yes and while the ball could end up being moved there is no possible way for the challenging team to “win” the challenge. I guess something like that could happen if it was about to be the 2 minute warning and the team would have called a TO anyway.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
I’m pretty sure the answer is yes and while the ball could end up being moved there is no possible way for the challenging team to “win” the challenge. I guess something like that could happen if it was about to be the 2 minute warning and the team would have called a TO anyway.
I think this is a problem with the rule. If the spot is bad, the coach should be able to challenge the spot. If the refs determine that they got the spot wrong, the coach should "win" the challenge, period. The coach shouldn't be penalized for a mistake the refs make, even on something as simple as this.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,062
Hingham, MA
I think this is a problem with the rule. If the spot is bad, the coach should be able to challenge the spot. If the refs determine that they got the spot wrong, the coach should "win" the challenge, period. The coach shouldn't be penalized for a mistake the refs make, even on something as simple as this.
Take the example further. Mahomes drops back to pass. Looks like the Pats sack him but the refs don't call him down. Would be a 15 yard loss. Instead he scrambles for 8 yards. Chiefs then face a 3rd and 2, which would have been a 3rd and 25. The Pats then challenge that Mahomes is down... which replay shows he was. So the refs re-spot it and it is 3rd and 25 instead of 3rd and 2. But the Pats would lose that challenge? Like what the fuck?

Edit: or is down by contact a different type of challenge? If that's the case, it is just an arbitrary line in the sand
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
10,961
So let's say that on 2nd and 10 a guy gets a 6 yard gain. But the refs mistakenly spot it a yard and a half further, making it 3rd and 2 1/2 instead of 3rd and 4. The coach challenges the spot. It doesn't affect a new series of downs, but it may have a huge impact on the play call for the other team.

Can a team challenge in such a case, based on this rule?
If it doesn't impact the line to gain the call on the field will stand without re-spotting. They only re-spot and measure if the call on the field is clearly wrong and it impacts the line to gain.

The bigger issue with that play was the Watkins double clutch. They only showed one brief replay that I saw and it wasn't really discussed during the broadcast but it appeared that Watkins double clutched the catch which means possession wouldn't have taken place until he was pushed back a good yard plus. If he makes a clean catch I think it was close enough for play to stand but the double clutch, if that is indeed what happened, should have at least lead to a re-spot/measure.

I tried finding video of the play online but can't find it anywhere.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Of course, that is not what the Pats did. They challenged whether a third-down pass was converted to a first down at an important point of the game, and replays showed essentially inarguably they were correct that the spot was wrong. Replays also showed pretty clearly (though not clearly enough apparently) that there should not have been a first down awarded, which is material.

Saying that if the Pats had let some really bad, impactful calls go they could have challenged other bad, even more impactful calls is true but I think badly misallocates responsibility here.
I thought at the time that there was zero chance that the first down would be overturned. I never thought the use of their first challenge so late in the game would come back to bite them, but I was annoyed about burning a second-half timeout in a game when they were trailing. Whoever called down from the booth and told BB to throw the challenge flag screwed up, imo.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
Take the example further. Mahomes drops back to pass. Looks like the Pats sack him but the refs don't call him down. Would be a 15 yard loss. Instead he scrambles for 8 yards. Chiefs then face a 3rd and 2, which would have been a 3rd and 25. The Pats then challenge that Mahomes is down... which replay shows he was. So the refs re-spot it and it is 3rd and 25 instead of 3rd and 2. But the Pats would lose that challenge? Like what the fuck?

Edit: or is down by contact a different type of challenge? If that's the case, it is just an arbitrary line in the sand
No. Challenging down by contact is different from challenging the spot.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
If it doesn't impact the line to gain the call on the field will stand without re-spotting. They only re-spot and measure if the call on the field is clearly wrong and it impacts the line to gain.

The bigger issue with that play was the Watkins double clutch. They only showed one brief replay that I saw and it wasn't really discussed during the broadcast but it appeared that Watkins double clutched the catch which means possession wouldn't have taken place until he was pushed back a good yard plus. If he makes a clean catch I think it was close enough for play to stand but the double clutch, if that is indeed what happened, should have at least lead to a re-spot/measure.

I tried finding video of the play online but can't find it anywhere.
I don’t think the first part is correct, look at the wording of Rule 15 above. It clearly states the review can have the ball moved without changing the result and not being a “win”.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
14,542
South Boston
And the challenge is only considered won if the spot results in no 1st down(or the opposite if it was called 4th down). In this case it is clear to me the ball should have been repotted and measured.

Two other things:
-Keep in mind the yellow line is only an approximation, it shouldn’t be used to state this definitively would or would not have been a 1st down.
-I recall CFB rules stating that officials try to have 1st down with the balls nose touching a yard line to make later measurements easier. I think that is what is seen in the final spot of where the ball is. Once it’s a 1st down that half yard doesn’t really matter.
I believe the NFL adopted this policy a couple years ago.
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
10,961
I don’t think the first part is correct, look at the wording of Rule 15 above. It clearly states the review can have the ball moved without changing the result and not being a “win”.
RULE 15, SECTION 9, ARTICLE 5
Article 5 Non-Reviewable Plays include, but are not limited to:
5. The position of the ball not relating to first down or goal line.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/18_2013_Officials_Jurisdictions_and_Duties.pdf
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,195
I thought at the time that there was zero chance that the first down would be overturned. I never thought the use of their first challenge so late in the game would come back to bite them, but I was annoyed about burning a second-half timeout in a game when they were trailing. Whoever called down from the booth and told BB to throw the challenge flag screwed up, imo.
On the merits, they shouldn't have burned the timeout, so I land in a different place. I do understand that some were worried about that coming back to bite them on future replay, but I would be stunned if Pats feel it was a mistake to challenge that one.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
RULE 15, SECTION 9, ARTICLE 5
Article 5 Non-Reviewable Plays include, but are not limited to:
5. The position of the ball not relating to first down or goal line.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/18_2013_Officials_Jurisdictions_and_Duties.pdf
So you can’t do what BBJ proposed in his hypothetical and just challenge a random play. In this case you are challenging the spot relating to a first down. I believe in this case they can move the ball and then measure.

I could be wrong about that, it happens more than I like, but this note certainly doesn’t contradict what I said.
 

Bongorific

Thinks he’s clever
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,433
Balboa Towers
Correct. You can’t challenge the spot just to determine where it should be on field, i.e. 2nd and 7 vs 2nd and 5. You can challenge where the ball should be spotted if it involves whether a first down was gained or not. As part of that review, the refs can change the spot. And they can measure after the spot has been changed if they want to. Even if they change the spot, the challenge is only “won” if it overturns the call with respect to whether or not a first down was gained.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
Correct. You can’t challenge the spot just to determine where it should be on field, i.e. 2nd and 7 vs 2nd and 5. You can challenge where the ball should be spotted if it involves whether a first down was gained or not. As part of that review, the refs can change the spot. And they can measure after the spot has been changed if they want to. Even if they change the spot, the challenge is only “won” if it overturns the call with respect to whether or not a first down was gained.
I think that's correct.

But man is it DUMB. I mean, 3rd and 3 is vastly different from 3rd and 5. 3rd and 3 can be any kind of play. 3rd and 5 and almost everyone is throwing the ball. And if your team has a great pass defense, you really really want them to face 3rd and 5 instead of 3rd and 3.
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
4,948
NH
The especially frustrating part of that Watkins catch is it's basically a mirror of the Faulk catch from 4th and 2 ten years ago, and we lost on that too.

I can buy that Watkins caught it roughly near the 1st down marker.

But he was like a yard and a half short when he established possession. He wasn't even close.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
The especially frustrating part of that Watkins catch is it's basically a mirror of the Faulk catch from 4th and 2 ten years ago, and we lost on that too.

I can buy that Watkins caught it roughly near the 1st down marker.

But he was like a yard and a half short when he established possession. He wasn't even close.
But the Pats get ALL the calls!!!!!
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
The case of automatic review for certain plays -- and then expanding the category of booth initiated reviews at certain times of the game -- is a problem.

The Harry play would have been a touchdown if it had been ruled such on the field, or of the Patriots had a challenge, or if it was within the last two minutes. That is three levels of arbitrary on one play, and that's too many.

You must either put primacy on "getting it right" or you must learn to live with difficulty in making judgment calls. But the current system of doing one sometimes and the other others is just not compatible with ideas of uniformly applied equity.

If you want to make reviews challenge only, fine. If you want to put a sky judge in the sky who can buzz at any time, fine. Both will have unintended consequences and lead to unfairness that hurts one team and helps another in any given situation. But that's already happening. What it would do is remove the arbitrariness that is an extra layer on top of that first problem.
I haven't thought through all of the downsides, but:

I think the Harry play could be addressed with just a minor change in the rules -- having an auto review not just for the call that actually results in a TD, but for one that would have been a TD except for the call. So, if play is ruled a no-catch in the end zone, it gets reviewed, just as a catch in the endzone is reviewed (because it resulted in a score). Maybe the same rationale is applied to turnovers, not just ones that are called but ones that aren't.

While the presumption that the call is right remains no matter what the call on the field, it seems incongruous to me that one call (score/turnover) is automatic, but the other requires a challenge.

I suppose one wrinkle is what is a play "that would have been a touchdown"? Is "the player made it to the endzone" enough? Would that only happen if the play wasn't blown dead, but only determined to be OOB afterwards (like Harry's)?
Just the fact that these discussions are not insane shows that the rules are deeply flawed.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
5,934
Cultural hub of the universe
The especially frustrating part of that Watkins catch is it's basically a mirror of the Faulk catch from 4th and 2 ten years ago, and we lost on that too.

I can buy that Watkins caught it roughly near the 1st down marker.

But he was like a yard and a half short when he established possession. He wasn't even close.
That's what I noticed too, he seemed to be juggling the ball while being pushed back. If that was part of the review the spot isn't even close.

The pisser is that this wasn't even the most important or egregiously bad call. The fumble blown dead, Harry's catch and the Dorsett non PI were such bad and important calls that it had me wondering why they can't just hire competent refs.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,288
AZ
I haven't thought through all of the downsides, but:

I think the Harry play could be addressed with just a minor change in the rules -- having an auto review not just for the call that actually results in a TD, but for one that would have been a TD except for the call. So, if play is ruled a no-catch in the end zone, it gets reviewed, just as a catch in the endzone is reviewed (because it resulted in a score). Maybe the same rationale is applied to turnovers, not just ones that are called but ones that aren't.

While the presumption that the call is right remains no matter what the call on the field, it seems incongruous to me that one call (score/turnover) is automatic, but the other requires a challenge.

I suppose one wrinkle is what is a play "that would have been a touchdown"? Is "the player made it to the endzone" enough? Would that only happen if the play wasn't blown dead, but only determined to be OOB afterwards (like Harry's)?
Just the fact that these discussions are not insane shows that the rules are deeply flawed.
I think you could even make it "that might have been a touch down." They could definitely over-legislate it. Like what about a play where it's called no catch in the end zone and one official also had the player stepping out of bounds before touching the ball. The review official taking a quick look before the next snap thinks that the player's hands might have been under the ball. Fuck it. Just buzz. What's the downside? You see that the player did in fact touch out of bounds, so, no catch, what did you lose? Nothing. Gave a free time out maybe. But this happens in the last two minutes anyway. I guess an equal objection might be that if you do that for TDs are you also going to do it for plays not called turnovers that might have been turnovers? Maybe it's a slippery slope, but, again, we do this in the last 2 minutes, why not during the rest of the game?

Sometimes in a football game, the most important game changing plays happen outside the last two minutes of the game, as happened last night.

I guess one of the problems with not having clear criteria for what can be reviewed by the booth is that you have this silly rule that if a coach throws the challenge flag on a play that is subject to automatic review (so, score, turnover, last 2 minutes) apparently it's a delay of game penalty unless the coach calls a time out. (It actually may be an unsportsmanlike.) But I guess if you're going to have less than black and white criteria for booth reviews like "might have been a touchdown," you'd have to get rid of that stupid rule. Just give the coach his flag back and say, "booth says they were going to buzz anyway."