Lets Talk the end of Lions/Falcons

[JBURGE]

1 hour ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

1 hour ago, incognito_man said:

You can't really go below 10s, even that is a liberal value. Think of a hail Mary, same situation. No way a team sets up 50yd down field in 10s. Then that rule hugely benefits the offense. 10s seems as good as any other number.

 

Really the *best* way to handle is to rule short, let offense try to get play off, if they are imminently about to snap, stop play for a review. If they aren't close, let time expire and then review.

But that is nearly impossible to let happen with any consistency.

That's an outstanding option.  If they set back up and snap the ball before the game clock expires, the play is blown dead and the previous play is reviewed.  If not a touchdown, they get one more snap.  If ruled a touchdown, the time is reverted back to that spot and the game resumes with the extra point.  If the team is not able to snap the ball, the play is reviewed.  If short, the game is over.  If ruled a touchdown, the game is reverted back, etc.

Covers all bases.  Outstanding suggestion.

See again though, if they do this and then have to play the down after review, it gives another advantage to the offense in that they get to discuss the play call and be on the same page.

At the end of the day, I still agree that this is on Golden Tate. The rule isn't great but I can't see a better option for it in here.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

43 minutes ago, JBURGE25 said:

See again though, if they do this and then have to play the down after review, it gives another advantage to the offense in that they get to discuss the play call and be on the same page.

At the end of the day, I still agree that this is on Golden Tate. The rule isn't great but I can't see a better option for it in here.

The defense also gets to discuss the play.  Considering how close the ball was to the goal line, Stafford is undoubtedly going to snap the ball and sneak it up the middle.  It's almost impossible not to gain two inches on that play, and it takes little to no communication among the offense.  The defense gets to sub in a heavy formation to try and counter.  Both sides have the same advantage.

How is this on Golden Tate?  He caught it and was inches away from likely winning the game.  Defense is fortunate to have put a hand on him.  Good play on their part.

But none of that matters, because the incorrect call was made on the field which ended the game.  That is, and will always be, the bottom line here.

[JBURGE]

36 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

1 hour ago, JBURGE25 said:

See again though, if they do this and then have to play the down after review, it gives another advantage to the offense in that they get to discuss the play call and be on the same page.

At the end of the day, I still agree that this is on Golden Tate. The rule isn't great but I can't see a better option for it in here.

The defense also gets to discuss the play.  Considering how close the ball was to the goal line, Stafford is undoubtedly going to snap the ball and sneak it up the middle.  It's almost impossible not to gain two inches on that play, and it takes little to no communication among the offense.  The defense gets to sub in a heavy formation to try and counter.  Both sides have the same advantage.

How is this on Golden Tate?  He caught it and was inches away from likely winning the game.  Defense is fortunate to have put a hand on him.  Good play on their part.

But none of that matters, because the incorrect call was made on the field which ended the game.  That is, and will always be, the bottom line here.

We get it. The wrong call was made on the field, no one is arguing that.

Tate should have tried to extend the ball and score. Why he didn't is beyond me.

[theuntouchable]

11 minutes ago, JBURGE25 said:

We get it. The wrong call was made on the field, no one is arguing that.

Tate should have tried to extend the ball and score. Why he didn't is beyond me.

"Process of the catch" 

i talked about this earlier but I'm positive that was in his head as he was going down. With how screwy making a catch while simultaneously going to the ground has become I'm sure his number one concern was securing the ball. Granted, it would have ended up better for the lions for him to lose it but that's not a risk a player should make given the situation.

[theuntouchable]

1 hour ago, JBURGE25 said:

See again though, if they do this and then have to play the down after review, it gives another advantage to the offense in that they get to discuss the play call and be on the same page.

At the end of the day, I still agree that this is on Golden Tate. The rule isn't great but I can't see a better option for it in here.

You could really argue both sides of that coin though because it would also give the defense a chance to discuss the play, formations and what to watch for. 

[Forge]

57 minutes ago, theuntouchable said:

"Process of the catch" 

i talked about this earlier but I'm positive that was in his head as he was going down. With how screwy making a catch while simultaneously going to the ground has become I'm sure his number one concern was securing the ball. Granted, it would have ended up better for the lions for him to lose it but that's not a risk a player should make given the situation.

The sad part is that if he had bobbled it in his hands rather than catching it cleanly, and his momentum carried him in while he was still in the process of securing it, it would have been a touchdown.

[spilltray]

Really the only change that should be made is the 10s runoff should apply to either the call standing or overturning.

 

Quibble over the length of the runoff if you want, but there is no other really workable option.

 

And again just because the call was overturned doesn't mean it was a bad call. It was bang bang and impossible to tell for certain live on the field.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

3 minutes ago, spilltray said:

Really the only change that should be made is the 10s runoff should apply to either the call standing or overturning.

 

Quibble over the length of the runoff if you want, but there is no other really workable option.

 

And again just because the call was overturned doesn't mean it was a bad call. It was bang bang and impossible to tell for certain live on the field.

Forget the word 'bad' then: it was an incorrect call.  The wrong call.  That can't be disputed.

[Jakuvious]

29 minutes ago, Forge said:

The sad part is that if he had bobbled it in his hands rather than catching it cleanly, and his momentum carried him in while he was still in the process of securing it, it would have been a touchdown.

This actually happened last year, too.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

This just about sums it up.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/09/27/al-riveron-says-golden-tate-ruling-was-correct-ignores-lions-legitimate-complaint/

[JBURGE]

9 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

This just about sums it up.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/09/27/al-riveron-says-golden-tate-ruling-was-correct-ignores-lions-legitimate-complaint/

That article is literally what we have been saying.

 

2 hours ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

2 hours ago, spilltray said:

Really the only change that should be made is the 10s runoff should apply to either the call standing or overturning.

 

Quibble over the length of the runoff if you want, but there is no other really workable option.

 

And again just because the call was overturned doesn't mean it was a bad call. It was bang bang and impossible to tell for certain live on the field.

Forget the word 'bad' then: it was an incorrect call.  The wrong call.  That can't be disputed.

No one has said that it was the right call. We have only said that it was a difficult call. It was wrong, everyone knows now after the replay. 

[spilltray]

Because it's unreasonable to expect the officials to accurately make that call. You have to slow it down frame by frame pretty much to be sure. Blaming the official for a call you KNOW they aren't going to get right with any reliable degree of accuracy is just stupid.

[theuntouchable]

16 minutes ago, spilltray said:

Because it's unreasonable to expect the officials to accurately make that call. You have to slow it down frame by frame pretty much to be sure. Blaming the official for a call you KNOW they aren't going to get right with any reliable degree of accuracy is just stupid.

No one is blaming the official. They're blaming the rule that caused an incorrect call to end the game. I don't blame the ref one bit for thinking it was in and I know TL doesn't.

[incognito_man]

11 minutes ago, theuntouchable said:

No one is blaming the official. They're blaming the rule that caused an incorrect call to end the game. I don't blame the ref one bit for thinking it was in and I know TL doesn't.

the incorrect call didn't end the game, Tate coming up short resulting in the clock to not stop ended the game. Ultimately, the 50/50 call had very little impact on the final result, the impact was nearly 100% felt because Tate came up short.

[theuntouchable]

6 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

the incorrect call didn't end the game, Tate coming up short resulting in the clock to not stop ended the game. Ultimately, the 50/50 call had very little impact on the final result, the impact was nearly 100% felt because Tate came up short.

You can't say 100% because had it been ruled correctly, the Lions could have gotten another play off.