Lets Talk the end of Lions/Falcons

[scar988]

Just now, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

They displayed smart football by using their timeouts to get the ball back in the first place.  Saving them to protect themselves from an incorrect call by the officials is nonsensical.

They didn't need to use all 3. They had the 2 minute warning.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

1 minute ago, scar988 said:

YOU read it once more. There's no runoff, but that doesn't mean they get an untimed down. IT means the ball is placed at the spot, the refs get ready and the Lions get 8 seconds to get set and snap the ball. Not untimed.

10 seconds.  The Lions would have had 10 seconds.  That statement is speaking to reversed decisions.  Even if the clock was running, 10 seconds is plenty of time.  So, you must agree that the Lions got screwed.

Of course, if you're being reasonable.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

1 minute ago, scar988 said:

They didn't need to use all 3. They had the 2 minute warning.

Their timeout management led to them having the ball in a position to almost surely win the game, if not for an incorrect call on the field.  Sounds like their management was good.

[scar988]

1 minute ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

10 seconds.  The Lions would have had 10 seconds.  That statement is speaking to reversed decisions.  Even if the clock was running, 10 seconds is plenty of time.  So, you must agree that the Lions got screwed.

Of course, if you're being reasonable.

No. They would have gotten 8 seconds. That's what was on the clock and what got run off. Don't like it? tough.

[scar988]

And no. The Lions didn't get screwed. Want to win that game? Score the touchdown with Golden Tate there. Don't get stopped short.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

1 minute ago, scar988 said:

No. They would have gotten 8 seconds. That's what was on the clock and what got run off. Don't like it? tough.

Nope.  Tate's knee was down with 10 seconds left.  The time would've been added after the review, as it always is.  "Don't like NFL rules?  tough."

[scar988]

As Dana White would say, never leave it up to the judges/refs to decide your fights for you.

[scar988]

Just now, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

Nope.  Tate's knee was down with 10 seconds left.  The time would've been added after the review, as it always is.  "Don't like NFL rules?  tough."

except it wasn't added. They didn't even note the clock. So you're wrong here.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

3 minutes ago, scar988 said:

except it wasn't added. They didn't even note the clock. So you're wrong here.

What?!  10 seconds would have resulted in the game-ending runoff anyway because they overturned their own incorrect call, so it was irrelevant.  Tate's knee was down with 10 seconds left.  An incorrect call by the official ended the game.  Your refusal to acknowledge this is incredible.

[JBURGE]

1 hour ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

1 hour ago, JBURGE25 said:

To be fair I forgot about the timeout being able to stop the run-off. I have less of a problem with the rule then. The only way they can change it is to find what the average amount of time in this situation it would take for the offense to run a play. I would not be surprised if 10 seconds is the result. 

The rule book can't have a tiered approach like: If the offense has to run less than 10 yards, run 5 seconds. 10 < x < 20 then 6 seconds. Then each team will be better blah blah. 

This is a terrible misfortune and I wish the Lions never have to be screwed by a rule again like they have. I just don't see how they fix it

That seems to imply that a team needs to save a timeout in case the officials make the incorrect call on the field.  That can't possibly be the expectation...

I understand that you're upset and I would be too. But there is no reasonable solution that any of us can come up with. The only thing that could change IMO is that they could adjust the amount of time for the runoff, BUT the run-off should apply to BOTH a correct or incorrect call made on the field. It would have been just as unfair if the refs called Tate short, then the review happened which gave Detroit an extra timeout and 8 seconds to run a play. 

You either change the run off from 10 to something else, OR if there is less than 10 seconds left, the clock will go to 0 and 1 play will be run. Neither are ideal because this is such a unique situation that it probably won't come up again for another decade+

[JBURGE]

5 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

9 minutes ago, scar988 said:

except it wasn't added. They didn't even note the clock. So you're wrong here.

What?!  10 seconds would have resulted in the game-ending runoff anyway because they overturned their own incorrect call, so it was irrelevant.  Tate's knee was down with 10 seconds left.  An incorrect call by the official ended the game.  Your refusal to acknowledge this is incredible.

I'm not really sure what you're arguing here. If they adjusted the clock to 10 seconds the clock still runs out with the run off. If he was called short on the field, then after review they would adjust the clock to 10 seconds and given Detroit the ball with 4th and goal and a stopped clock with 10 seconds? That is totally unfair as well. 

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

Just now, JBURGE25 said:

I understand that you're upset and I would be too. But there is no reasonable solution that any of us can come up with. The only thing that could change IMO is that they could adjust the amount of time for the runoff, BUT the run-off should apply to BOTH a correct or incorrect call made on the field. It would have been just as unfair if the refs called Tate short, then the review happened which gave Detroit an extra timeout and 8 seconds to run a play. 

You either change the run off from 10 to something else, OR if there is less than 10 seconds left, the clock will go to 0 and 1 play will be run. Neither are ideal because this is such a unique situation that it probably won't come up again for another decade+

Well it has happened once during the first five years.  If it's flawed, it should be changed.

One thing needs to be acknowledged: per the rules, an incorrect call on the field ended a game.  That's the truth, and that should never happen.  We as fans should all agree that that should never be the case.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

1 minute ago, JBURGE25 said:

I'm not really sure what you're arguing here. If they adjusted the clock to 10 seconds the clock still runs out with the run off. If he was called short on the field, then after review they would adjust the clock to 10 seconds and given Detroit the ball with 4th and goal and a stopped clock with 10 seconds? That is totally unfair as well. 

Which is more unfair: the game ending as a result of an incorrect call or one more snap being granted as a result of a correct call?

If there were two seconds left, I get it.  Still an incorrect call, but I get it.  The Lions ran a play from a formation that allowed them to run another quickly.  Preventing them that opportunity based on an incorrect call isn't right.

[childofpudding]

They probably should just change the runoff to 5 seconds. Can't see any team being able to get a play off in under that amount of time.

[JBURGE]

1 minute ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

4 minutes ago, JBURGE25 said:

I understand that you're upset and I would be too. But there is no reasonable solution that any of us can come up with. The only thing that could change IMO is that they could adjust the amount of time for the runoff, BUT the run-off should apply to BOTH a correct or incorrect call made on the field. It would have been just as unfair if the refs called Tate short, then the review happened which gave Detroit an extra timeout and 8 seconds to run a play. 

You either change the run off from 10 to something else, OR if there is less than 10 seconds left, the clock will go to 0 and 1 play will be run. Neither are ideal because this is such a unique situation that it probably won't come up again for another decade+

Well it has happened once during the first five years.  If it's flawed, it should be changed.

One thing needs to be acknowledged: per the rules, an incorrect call on the field ended a game.  That's the truth, and that should never happen.  We as fans should all agree that that should never be the case.

Dude, I as a fan agree with that as well. But what can you do? Since the time it takes for a team to snap the ball after a play ends is VARIABLE and SUBJECTIVE to each team and field position and if there's a dog pile plus numerous other variable factors, there is no concrete way to enforce it other than what they have.

As I mentioned, I think the run off needs to happen on both correct and incorrect rulings if a booth review happens, with the timeout by either team being able to cancel the runoff. 

What would have happened if Tate caught a 50 yard bomb and was ruled a TD but after review he was half a yard short, and the run off ended the game? What then? No reasonable person could argue that detroit could run a play in 8 seconds from the 50 yard line to the goal line. So this is entirely variable and I have no idea what a fair way to resolve this game would have been