Lets Talk the end of Lions/Falcons

[theuntouchable]

1 minute ago, JBURGE25 said:

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

It's because the call was overturned. If the call stayed the same the ten second run off wouldn't happen.

[JBURGE]

Just now, theuntouchable said:

It's because the call was overturned. If the call stayed the same the ten second run off wouldn't happen.

Gotcha thank you. 

I still have a hard time blaming the refs on that call, it was really close. It's not funny to you now, but you will laugh down the road that the Lions got screwed because the on-field refs called a close play a TD for Detroit lol

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, theuntouchable said:

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.

The rule prevents the case I outlined from happening, my point is it is NOT screwy. Some minimum time constraint obviously needs to be implemented in these cases.

[theuntouchable]

1 minute ago, JBURGE25 said:

Gotcha thank you. 

I still have a hard time blaming the refs on that call, it was really close. It's not funny to you now, but you will laugh down the road that the Lions got screwed because the on-field refs called a close play a TD for Detroit lol

I don't blame them either, it was definitely close. I just don't think the game should be able to end on what was an incorrect call. 

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

28 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?

The review would have come from the booth, and would have undoubtedly happened.  If not, the Lions were prepared to snap the ball again.  It's something they've practiced.

The runoff only applies to a decision reversed by the review.  Had they ruled him short, and confirmed the call via review, there would be no runoff.  It's why I have such a problem with this: the incorrect call on the field ended the game, while a correct call would've let the Lions use their last down and remaining clock.

[theuntouchable]

2 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

The rule prevents the case I outlined from happening, my point is it is NOT screwy. Some minimum time constraint obviously needs to be implemented in these cases.

That's honestly how it is written.

if golden Tate catches it like that and there is say 2 seconds left. The refs call him down but the booth wants to review because it was close. They end up reviewing and confirming that he was down prior to the goal line. There would be no 10 second run off and the Lions would essentially get a free play because there would still be two seconds left.

[JBURGE]

2 minutes ago, theuntouchable said:

I don't blame them either, it was definitely close. I just don't think the game should be able to end on what was an incorrect call. 

Okay cool. I'm on the same page as you. As much as I wanted Detroit to lose, I never want a game to end like that. I remember my mood in the fail mary.

However unlikely it would have been for Detroit to convert a 4th and goal with everyone sprinting to get in formation and no time to call a play, they deserve the chance to try. The Stafford magic would have kicked in

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

1 minute ago, theuntouchable said:

That's honestly how it is written.

if golden Tate catches it like that and there is say 2 seconds left. The refs call him down but the booth wants to review because it was close. They end up reviewing and confirming that he was down prior to the goal line. There would be no 10 second run off and the Lions would essentially get a free play because there would still be two seconds left.

Exactly.  The rule is flawed from all angles.  Don't want a free play for the offense?  This rule provides that.  Don't think that a rule should end the game from an incorrect call on the field?  The rule also does that.  It's flawed and clearly needs to be changed.

[incognito_man]

3 minutes ago, theuntouchable said:

That's honestly how it is written.

if golden Tate catches it like that and there is say 2 seconds left. The refs call him down but the booth wants to review because it was close. They end up reviewing and confirming that he was down prior to the goal line. There would be no 10 second run off and the Lions would essentially get a free play because there would still be two seconds left.

Yes. I know. This is my point...

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

1 minute ago, JBURGE25 said:

Okay cool. I'm on the same page as you. As much as I wanted Detroit to lose, I never want a game to end like that. I remember my mood in the fail mary.

However unlikely it would have been for Detroit to convert a 4th and goal with everyone sprinting to get in formation and no time to call a play, they deserve the chance to try. The Stafford magic would have kicked in

This is exactly my point.

[JBURGE]

1 minute ago, theuntouchable said:

6 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

The rule prevents the case I outlined from happening, my point is it is NOT screwy. Some minimum time constraint obviously needs to be implemented in these cases.

That's honestly how it is written.

if golden Tate catches it like that and there is say 2 seconds left. The refs call him down but the booth wants to review because it was close. They end up reviewing and confirming that he was down prior to the goal line. There would be no 10 second run off and the Lions would essentially get a free play because there would still be two seconds left.

If this is how the rule is written then that's awful. There is effectively no difference between them overruling it or not. It's not either team's fault that the play was called wrong. 

I don't even know how to change that rule. There can't be 0 run-off cause it takes time to call a play, but it's also very unfair for the defense to have the offense have essentially a full timeout and a play call. 

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

Just now, incognito_man said:

Yes. I know. This is my point...

Wait.  You think that a team, with two seconds left and a running clock, should NOT be given a free play, yet this rule provides that.  You also don't think that this rule should be changed.  That doesn't make sense.

[incognito_man]

11 minutes ago, JBURGE25 said:

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

Clock was run simply because the player was tackled in bounds and the clock was incorrectly stopped.

[theuntouchable]

1 minute ago, incognito_man said:

Yes. I know. This is my point...

I thought you were saying the rule shouldn't change?

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

Just now, JBURGE25 said:

If this is how the rule is written then that's awful. There is effectively no difference between them overruling it or not. It's not either team's fault that the play was called wrong. 

I don't even know how to change that rule. There can't be 0 run-off cause it takes time to call a play, but it's also very unfair for the defense to have the offense have essentially a full timeout and a play call. 

Exactly.  That's where I'm at.  The Lions didn't make the (incorrect) call on the field, and the Lions didn't choose to review the play and overturn the call.  Both were done by the officials/rules, and the combination of both led to the game ending, with 10 seconds left and one more down on inches.  It just doesn't make sense to me that that's not an issue.