Lets Talk the end of Lions/Falcons

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

7 hours ago, incognito_man said:

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.

10 seconds is plenty of time to line back up, from a formation where the majority of players are still in position, and snap the ball again.  What's not fair is ending the game because the call on the field was incorrect.

1 second left is a different situation, and, no, that wouldn't be fair.  So it clearly needs to be changed.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

8 hours ago, Shanedorf said:

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.

That's asinine, because it assumes that it wasn't possible for the Lions to snap the ball again.  Not only was it possible to snap the ball again within 8 seconds, as they used a formation that remained largely in tact after the play, but it was more than likely.  Instead, they weren't given the chance due to an incorrect call on the field.

So, the Lions ran a fine play knowing that, with 12 seconds left, they'd have a clear shot at a TD, but could line back up and run one more if it was short.  Sounds like a good decision, and poor execution from the officials.

Had they ran that play with 1 second left, I'd agree with you completely.

[spilltray]

8s is not a gimmie to get another play off. You think they would have done it, but the 10s is because the league estimated that is the cut off for GUARANTEEING a play.

 

The officials did absolutely nothing wrong. In that spot, calling it a touchdown if you think it might be is the right call. I keep saying this, but it would be worse if they had ruled it not a TD, Detroit raced to get a snap off and beat the review call from the booth, and later it turned out THAT call was wrong and should have been a TD.

 

I get why you feel ripped off as a Lions fan, but running a play that doesn't stop the clock with that little time left is a risk. What if there is a pile up or anything else that delays that ball getting set? I get it. You are SURE they would have gotten one more snap off. No one else outside of Lions fans agree with that. They could have, but it's far from a certainty.

[theuntouchable]

11 hours ago, incognito_man said:

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.

I think that's part of his point. As the rule is written option 2 would actually take place. If they ruled it short, reviewed and confirmed the call, the clock would be stopped until the ball is placed. Giving the offense another chance even if there is only 1 second left.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

1 hour ago, spilltray said:

8s is not a gimmie to get another play off. You think they would have done it, but the 10s is because the league estimated that is the cut off for GUARANTEEING a play.

Which highlights how flawed that rule is, considering not all circumstances are created equal.  The Lions were undoubtedly in one of the easiest formations and circumstances to get a play off in well under 10 seconds.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

1 hour ago, spilltray said:

The officials did absolutely nothing wrong. In that spot, calling it a touchdown if you think it might be is the right call. I keep saying this, but it would be worse if they had ruled it not a TD, Detroit raced to get a snap off and beat the review call from the booth, and later it turned out THAT call was wrong and should have been a TD.

How can you say that the officials did nothing wrong when it's a fact that the call on the field was incorrect?

It's like saying that the officials did nothing wrong in the Packers-Seahawks simultaneous catch game because it was "close".  Close or not, an incorrect call is an incorrect call.  (And that play is actually debatable.)

Lastly, there is no circumstance where the official on the field rules Tate short and there is no booth review.  Not one.  A play that close, at that point in the game, is reviewed by the booth 100% of the time.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

1 hour ago, spilltray said:

I get why you feel ripped off as a Lions fan, but running a play that doesn't stop the clock with that little time left is a risk. What if there is a pile up or anything else that delays that ball getting set? I get it. You are SURE they would have gotten one more snap off. No one else outside of Lions fans agree with that. They could have, but it's far from a certainty.

But that didn't happen.  There was no big pile up.  Tate caught it, his knee hit short, the incorrect call was made on the field, and that call ended the game.  Those are the circumstances that actually happened.

[JBURGE]

7 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

1 hour ago, spilltray said:

The officials did absolutely nothing wrong. In that spot, calling it a touchdown if you think it might be is the right call. I keep saying this, but it would be worse if they had ruled it not a TD, Detroit raced to get a snap off and beat the review call from the booth, and later it turned out THAT call was wrong and should have been a TD.

How can you say that the officials did nothing wrong when it's a fact that the call on the field was incorrect?

It's like saying that the officials did nothing wrong in the Packers-Seahawks simultaneous catch game because it was "close".  Close or not, an incorrect call is an incorrect call.  (And that play is actually debatable.)

Lastly, there is no circumstance where the official on the field rules Tate short and there is no booth review.  Not one.  A play that close, at that point in the game, is reviewed by the booth 100% of the time.

I just want to clarify, if they ruled Tate short there wouldn't have been a review, would there? If they rule it short it isn't a scoring play.

But if they were to review it, would the 10s runoff apply?

[incognito_man]

1 hour ago, theuntouchable said:

I think that's part of his point. As the rule is written option 2 would actually take place. If they ruled it short, reviewed and confirmed the call, the clock would be stopped until the ball is placed. Giving the offense another chance even if there is only 1 second left.

Wait, what? This is MY point, not his

That case is even more unfair to the opposing team.

[squire12]

If the play was ruled short to start, the booth could have initiated a booth review.  I am not sure if they would have needed to do so before the clock runs out.  I am not sure if the review needs to occur within the time of the game or not.  If the review of the play comes after the clock has expired, and the ruling of it being short is upheld, there would need to be time on the clock for another play to be granted.

 

[incognito_man]

10 minutes ago, JBURGE25 said:

I just want to clarify, if they ruled Tate short there wouldn't have been a review, would there? If they rule it short it isn't a scoring play.

But if they were to review it, would the 10s runoff apply?

There could have been a review in that case, yes. All reviews inside of 2min are initiated by the booth. They could have stopped the game to review the call if he was ruled short.

[incognito_man]

2 minutes ago, squire12 said:

If the play was ruled short to start, the booth could have initiated a booth review.  I am not sure if they would have needed to do so before the clock runs out.  I am not sure if the review needs to occur within the time of the game or not.  If the review of the play comes after the clock has expired, and the ruling of it being short is upheld, there would need to be time on the clock for another play to be granted.

 

This would introduce the possibility of the short ruling being wrong, Detroit getting another snap off and NOT scoring. Then the first play can't be reviewed. Had that happened Detroit fans would be even more outraged.

[Packerraymond]

32 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

Which highlights how flawed that rule is, considering not all circumstances are created equal.  The Lions were undoubtedly in one of the easiest formations and circumstances to get a play off in well under 10 seconds.

You keep ignoring the fact that the refs have to spot the ball, Tate is still on the ground with 8 seconds left and there are no refs in the picture. They don't run 4.4s. No guarantee at all they get another play.

[JBURGE]

11 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

23 minutes ago, JBURGE25 said:

I just want to clarify, if they ruled Tate short there wouldn't have been a review, would there? If they rule it short it isn't a scoring play.

But if they were to review it, would the 10s runoff apply?

There could have been a review in that case, yes. All reviews inside of 2min are initiated by the booth. They could have stopped the game to review the call if he was ruled short.

Does anyone know about my second question? Would the run-off apply if the booth decided to review? Or was it just because they overturned the call. If it is the former, the Lions were screwed either way

[theuntouchable]

12 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Wait, what? This is MY point, not his

That case is even more unfair to the opposing team.

His overall point is the rule is screwy. On both sides of that scenario, the rule is screwy. Had they ruled him down, reviewed it and confirmed it;Detroit would be guaranteed another play. If they called it a TD reveresed it, 10 second run off. If they called him short, reversed it to TD, 10 second run off and game over.

 

i think his overall point is that the rule is screwy.