Lets Talk the end of Lions/Falcons

[Forge]

16 minutes ago, Bullet Club said:

That speaks more to your scenario being poor than furthering your point. Have the NFL do a study to determine the minimum time to pull it off and use that number.

I wasn't trying to further my point. My point this entire time has been that there's not really a great solution here. I could get behind the minimum time idea provided it were done a reasonable number of times. Like, I think if you had that single outlier of 5 seconds one time, but every other one took 7, I don't think that the time should be 5. I'd rather it be 7. But I can get on board with this premise (and it would have to be sliding based on the amount of ground needed to cover).

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

27 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

The alternative is a situation where the refs can choose to review a play and, in turn, extend a game that may have otherwise ended.

People can make these kinds of decisive statements all they want, but if you're not including the result that the alternative would create, you're only making half an argument. You remove the runoff, you could have a play that ends at 3 seconds, the refs review, and then the offense gets to run an additional play that they would've had 0 chance to run if not for the review. Regardless of what rule you want to implement here, that rule is going to directly impact whether or not a game ends. There's no getting around that. It basically comes down to whether you want to give the offense the benefit of the doubt or not.

They might benefit one team one way, or will give another team a win.  Doesn't seem like it's even a question.

[titans0021]

For those unaware, this is the rule:

Quote

If a replay review after the two-minute warning of either half results in the on-field ruling being reversed and the correct ruling would not have stopped the game clock, then the officials will run 10 seconds off the game clock before permitting the ball to be put in play on the ready-for-play signal. The defense cannot decline the runoff, but either team can use a remaining timeout to prevent it.

So technically, had the officials made the correct call and then reviewed it, I don't believe the runoff would have occurred. As the rule pretty explicitly states that the runoff occurs on plays in which the call on the field is reversed. So yeah, I'm not a fan of the rule. You're pretty clearly punishing a team for an official's error.

[Packerraymond]

1 hour ago, Bullet Club said:

Which is still too high to just ignore.

So a 50/50 call on a situation that has happened in 1/2560 games since it was implemented is too much to ignore?

That scream ignore to me. The rule is fine, every year there is a game or two that's going to have a controversial ending. Sucks, but unless it's an actual bad call (like the Lions/Seahawks ending) it's nothing worth looking into IMO.

[titans0021]

And man, do the Lions really have a super unfortunate tendency to fall victim to obscure rules that absolutely kill them at the end of games.

[JBURGE]

1 hour ago, theuntouchable said:

The biggest aspect of it that I have a gripe with is that Detroit didn't get a chance to utilize the time left on the clock because the ref made the wrong call. I understand having the run off rule in place, but I don't think the game should end in that scenario. The ref makes the wrong call, it's automatically reviewed and then boom, game over.

That was a hard call to make considering the official is on the other side of Tate and the other one didn't have a great view of his knees, or that's what it looked like. 

My biggest problem is that Tate didn't reach the ball out. He's a great player but in that situation you need to know with 10 seconds left you need to try and score.

Either way I think the rule is fair, but I would be screaming bloody murder if it happened to Green Bay. Terrible way to end a great game. 

[theuntouchable]

7 minutes ago, JBURGE25 said:

That was a hard call to make considering the official is on the other side of Tate and the other one didn't have a great view of his knees, or that's what it looked like. 

My biggest problem is that Tate didn't reach the ball out. He's a great player but in that situation you need to know with 10 seconds left you need to try and score.

Either way I think the rule is fair, but I would be screaming bloody murder if it happened to Green Bay. Terrible way to end a great game. 

I thought about that too but with him going to the ground I think his biggest thought was secure the ball. In the end it would have been better had he extended and lost control but there's no way I would be comfortable with that. Seeing as how the lions have watched a guy make a catch, hold it as he went to the ground and held it out then lose it as he's getting back up, I'm sure his number one thought was secure the ball.

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

5 hours ago, TheKillerNacho said:

The other possibility that I think can work is changing it to a 5-second run-off.

That could work, and I think the argument could reasonably be made that no matter how close a team is to a play when it ends, no offense could reasonable re-line up and snap the ball within 5 seconds.

[JBURGE]

2 minutes ago, theuntouchable said:

I thought about that too but with him going to the ground I think his biggest thought was secure the ball. In the end it would have been better had he extended and lost control but there's no way I would be comfortable with that. Seeing as how the lions have watched a guy make a catch, hold it as he went to the ground and held it out then lose it as he's getting back up, I'm sure his number one thought was secure the ball.

yeah I don't blame him at all. It all happens so quickly. There are just so many examples of this where the player reaches out because they have to. The best thing that could happen is he gets the catch and TD, 2nd best is a penalty on the defense, 3rd best is it's incomplete, and the absolute worst is a catch short of the goal line

[Mox]

30 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

So a 50/50 call on a situation that has happened in 1/2560 games since it was implemented is too much to ignore?

That scream ignore to me. The rule is fine, every year there is a game or two that's going to have a controversial ending. Sucks, but unless it's an actual bad call (like the Lions/Seahawks ending) it's nothing worth looking into IMO.

What if that 1/2560 game had been in the playoffs? Still worth ignoring?

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

32 minutes ago, titans0021 said:

For those unaware, this is the rule:

So technically, had the officials made the correct call and then reviewed it, I don't believe the runoff would have occurred. As the rule pretty explicitly states that the runoff occurs on plays in which the call on the field is reversed. So yeah, I'm not a fan of the rule. You're pretty clearly punishing a team for an official's error.

Wow.  Damning.  Had they gotten it right on the field and reviewed it, the clock would have stopped with no runoff.  There's absolutely no justifying this now: wrong call that ended a game.

[theuntouchable]

2 minutes ago, JBURGE25 said:

yeah I don't blame him at all. It all happens so quickly. There are just so many examples of this where the player reaches out because they have to. The best thing that could happen is he gets the catch and TD, 2nd best is a penalty on the defense, 3rd best is it's incomplete, and the absolute worst is a catch short of the goal line

He also witnessed a player extend the ball out, have it punched out by a defender then slapped out the back of the end zone and called a turnover with no penalty. 

its definitely a sucky situation but I really don't think a game should be able to end like that.

[Malfatron]

So if they would have called the Lions player down initially, and then reviewed just to see if it was a TD, there would be no runoff.

Now lets say there were 3 seconds on the clock.

The Lions would have unfairly got another chance.

This rule sucks.

 

[theuntouchable]

7 minutes ago, MathMan said:

So if they would have called the Lions player down initially, and then reviewed just to see if it was a TD, there would be no runoff.

Now lets say there were 3 seconds on the clock.

The Lions would have unfairly got another chance.

This rule sucks.

 

Agreed. 

And to top it off, say they ruled him short of the goal line, reviewed it and then called it a TD. Atlanta wouldn't even receive the kick off because they didn't have any timeouts left either and 10 seconds would have to run off the clock.

[biletnikoff]

Rule change? Lol

Every rule is worded so they can make any decisions  they want ,any way they want.

Falcons won because  that's what the nfl wanted. It's that simple