Lets Talk the end of Lions/Falcons

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, Nnivolcm said:

The ball was not far from the hash mark. It wouldn't be a big stress to spot the ball in time.

Doesn't matter. A minimum time needs to be set. That minimum must be set so it can work for the result of any play, not just short ones.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

15 hours ago, incognito_man said:

what if he wasn't short initially but they called him short and detroit hustled to run a play, got it off, and didn't score?

The 10 second rule seems like a feasible value to allow the officials to properly spot a ball and get in position. There's no reason I can see to get rid of it. Refs shouldn't be "made" to hustle hustle hustle more than at other points in the game just because one team REALLY wants them to.

Then it would be the officials fault for not reviewing such a close play.

Had the officials gotten the call right on the field, a booth review would have undoubtedly happened.  As a result, the clock would have stopped.  Once they confirmed the call, there would have been no runoff and the Lions would've had one more snap from inches.

That's the rule.  The wrong call was made on the field, the officials reviewed the play and the game ended as a result.  Or: the wrong call by the officials ended a game.  If that happens, something is wrong and it needs to be fixed.

[incognito_man]

9 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

Then it would be the officials fault for not reviewing such a close play.

Had the officials gotten the call right on the field, a booth review would have undoubtedly happened.  As a result, the clock would have stopped.  Once they confirmed the call, there would have been no runoff and the Lions would've had one more snap from inches.

That's the rule.  The wrong call was made on the field, the officials reviewed the play and the game ended as a result.  Or: the wrong call by the officials ended a game.  If that happens, something is wrong and it needs to be fixed.

How is that fair to Atlanta if Detroit would have been allowed to calm set up and get a guaranteed play off with planning, a real formation, and play call?

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

2 hours ago, incognito_man said:

How is that fair to Atlanta if Detroit would have been allowed to calm set up and get a guaranteed play off with planning, a real formation, and play call?

Think about that: is that really as unfair as the refs making the wrong call and ending the game outright?  I don't think a reasonable person would believe that the right call and one more attempt is as bad as the wrong call and ending the game.

The formation was such that allowed the team to set back up quickly: a short, fast pass with minimal movement.  There was unquestionably a chance, likely in excess of 50%, that the Lions could have snapped the ball if the correct call was made, with no review.  There was a 0% chance that they'd run another play if the wrong call is made on the field.

There's only one option here that is reasonable.

[incognito_man]

I agree that there is a single reasonable option and that is to set a minimum time to allow the refs to set the ball (equivalently a run-off penalty). Whether it is 10s or 7s or whatever is a fine point to debate, but the solution must work for any game situation, not just the one that happened this time.

 

 

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

3 hours ago, incognito_man said:

I agree that there is a single reasonable option and that is to set a minimum time to allow the refs to set the ball (equivalently a run-off penalty). Whether it is 10s or 7s or whatever is a fine point to debate, but the solution must work for any game situation, not just the one that happened this time.

 

 

What happened in this game was unreasonable and ridiculous, so we can cross 10 seconds off of the list.  Considering a team can usually line back up and snap the ball in 7-8, that number sounds more reasonable.  Either way, it needs to be changed, because a bad call on the field ended a football game.  That should never happen.

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

What happened in this game was unreasonable and ridiculous, so we can cross 10 seconds off of the list.  Considering a team can usually line back up and snap the ball in 7-8, that number sounds more reasonable.  Either way, it needs to be changed, because a bad call on the field ended a football game.  That should never happen.

It wasn't a bad call. It was a ridiculously impossible to call correctly with any consistency in real-time call. That happens. You can't rule away every possibility of that ever happening. 10 second run-off is a reasonable rule. There is nothing inherently bad about this situation. 

[spilltray]

Other than quibbling over the time of the run off, is there any actual good suggestion for this sort of scenario? The refs are going to err on the side of calling it a TD because it will be reviewed automatically.If they didn't and got it wrong and the Lions raced to get the last snap off and lost the game because of NOT calling it a TD and the booth getting the challenge in quick enough, that would even be more of an uproar.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

1 hour ago, spilltray said:

Other than quibbling over the time of the run off, is there any actual good suggestion for this sort of scenario? The refs are going to err on the side of calling it a TD because it will be reviewed automatically.If they didn't and got it wrong and the Lions raced to get the last snap off and lost the game because of NOT calling it a TD and the booth getting the challenge in quick enough, that would even be more of an uproar.

Negative.  It was within 2 minutes, so a booth review would've occurred anyway.  If they wanted to err on the side of caution, they would have ruled it short and reviewed the play.  That way, they aren't ending the game after making an incorrect call on the field.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

1 hour ago, incognito_man said:

It wasn't a bad call. It was a ridiculously impossible to call correctly with any consistency in real-time call. That happens. You can't rule away every possibility of that ever happening. 10 second run-off is a reasonable rule. There is nothing inherently bad about this situation. 

What?!  An incorrect call on the field ended a football game with time on the clock.  As far as bad situations go, that has to be at the top of the list.

[spilltray]

1 minute ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

Negative.  It was within 2 minutes, so a booth review would've occurred anyway.  If they wanted to err on the side of caution, they would have ruled it short and reviewed the play.  That way, they aren't ending the game after making a bad call on the field.

No, not every play inside of 2 minutes is reviewed. It CAN be from the booth, but only scoring plays are automatically reviewed. Had they ruled it short on the field, the clock would have kept running and the Lions would have been sprinting to get a play off.

 

And it may have been an incorrect call on the TD but it wasn't a "bad" one/

[spilltray]

1 minute ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

What?!  An incorrect call on the field ended a football game with time on the clock.  As far as bad situations go, that has to be at the top of the list.

No, a correct handling of a close call resulted in the game ending.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

2 minutes ago, spilltray said:

No, a correct handling of a close call resulted in the game ending.

... what?  Are you denying that the call on the field was incorrect?

People.  I know, it's a close call.  It's tough real time.  It's an easy mistake.  Guess what?  It was still the incorrect call, and it ended the game.

There were 4 possible outcomes:

1. Incorrect call: short of the end zone, ruled a touchdown.  Outcome: reviewed, decision reversed.  Game over with 10 seconds remaining on the clock.

2. Correct call: short of the end zone, ruled short of the end zone.  Outcome: reviewed and confirmed.  Offense gets to use the time on the clock and their last down.

3. Incorrect call: touchdown, ruled short of the end zone.  Outcome: reviewed and reversed, touchdown awarded.

4. Correct call: touchdown, ruled a touchdown.  Outcome: reviewed and confirmed, touchdown awarded.

Three of those sound reasonable, one sounds illogical.  A reasonable person would acknowledge this.

[Shanedorf]

17 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

It wasn't a bad call. It was a ridiculously impossible to call correctly with any consistency in real-time call. That happens.

Agreed. And as far as this specific case, I don't think we need a rule change either. 3rd and goal from the 1 with 12 seconds left and no timeouts.

 I'm thinking a veteran coach and veteran QB would plan to either throw it in the end zone or out of bounds, then they'd have time for another play. By throwing it short in bounds, the lions assumed the immense risk that if they were unsuccessful, they could be toast.

So either it was a failed strategy or failed execution. But in either case its not the refs nor the rules that are responsible. Its on the lions for losing this game. Too many crazy things can happen to take the risk Stafford took. Take the refs out of the equation - was this smart football ? 

From a situational football point of view, seems like the lions/stafford went against conventional wisdom, took a huge risk and busted.

[incognito_man]

You keep failing to acknowledge that option 2 is completely unfair to the opposing team. That is not a reasonable solution either. There must exist a cut-off.

Is it fair if he were touched down with 1 second left, but was called a TD and now the offense gets another play because of the review? Obviously not. That is far more unreasonable than option 1.