Lets Talk the end of Lions/Falcons

[incognito_man]

6 minutes ago, theuntouchable said:

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

nobody said 100%.

[theuntouchable]

8 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

nobody said 100%.

Sneaky lil nearly in there

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

1 hour 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.

It's not just that the official made an incorrect call.  It happens.  It's that the officials incorrect call literally ended the game.  That's the conversation... that's what's wrong here.

And I agree: that call is almost impossible to make accurately on a regular basis.  Knowing that, a team shouldn't be punished because the wrong call was made.  It simply doesn't make sense.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

1 hour 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.

Come on man, this is ridiculous.  You don't really believe this, do you?  By definition, the incorrect call DID literally end the game.  Watch.

Scenario 1 - Tate catches the ball and comes up short.  Incorrect call is made.  Booth review overturns the decision.  Game ends.

Scenario 2 - Tate catches the ball and comes up short.  Correct call is made.  Booth review confirms the call.  There are 8 seconds left in the game.

Notice the constant in the above?  Tate's catch didn't change.  He was short in Scenario 2 just as he was in Scenario 1, yet the game didn't end.

The incorrect call literally ended the game.  Tate's catch did not.

[spilltray]

6 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

It's not just that the official made an incorrect call.  It happens.  It's that the officials incorrect call literally ended the game.  That's the conversation... that's what's wrong here.

And I agree: that call is almost impossible to make accurately on a regular basis.  Knowing that, a team shouldn't be punished because the wrong call was made.  It simply doesn't make sense.

And if you don't have a run off, it is just as unfair to the defense. I have said before quibble with the time if you want, but 10s was given as a liberal universal standard without making it even MORE complicated by factoring in the specific situation on the field. I do think the run off should occur in both scenarios where the clock stops when it shouldn't have. I think the rule is fundamentally fine and the only place reasonable to tweak it is to argue the time, but you can make as many arguments, if not more, that 10s is to LOW a time situationally, this just happens to be one of the few situations you could argue 10s is too much.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

1 minute ago, spilltray said:

And if you don't have a run off, it is just as unfair to the defense. I have said before quibble with the time if you want, but 10s was given as a liberal universal standard without making it even MORE complicated by factoring in the specific situation on the field. I do think the run off should occur in both scenarios where the clock stops when it shouldn't have. I think the rule is fundamentally fine and the only place reasonable to tweak it is to argue the time, but you can make as many arguments, if not more, that 10s is to LOW a time situationally, this just happens to be one of the few situations you could argue 10s is too much.

Then we agree, the time isn't right.  Someone mentioned 5 seconds in the red zone and 10 outside of it.  So be it.  Whatever has to happen to ensure that an incorrect call doesn't end a game.

[spilltray]

I think that overcomplicates it. I don't think you need to make it different. I am personally 100% fine with 10s being an average that at times is going to be a bit harsh but more often is rather generous to the offense. I don't have a fundamental problem with the game ending how it did.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

15 minutes ago, spilltray said:

I think that overcomplicates it. I don't think you need to make it different. I am personally 100% fine with 10s being an average that at times is going to be a bit harsh but more often is rather generous to the offense. I don't have a fundamental problem with the game ending how it did.

Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.  I can't think of a worse ending to a football game - regardless of the teams involved - than an incorrect call removing time from the clock and ending the game immediately.  As far as sports go, that has to be the single worst outcome.

[Jakuvious]

4 hours ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

Come on man, this is ridiculous.  You don't really believe this, do you?  By definition, the incorrect call DID literally end the game.  Watch.

Scenario 1 - Tate catches the ball and comes up short.  Incorrect call is made.  Booth review overturns the decision.  Game ends.

Scenario 2 - Tate catches the ball and comes up short.  Correct call is made.  Booth review confirms the call.  There are 8 seconds left in the game.

Notice the constant in the above?  Tate's catch didn't change.  He was short in Scenario 2 just as he was in Scenario 1, yet the game didn't end.

The incorrect call literally ended the game.  Tate's catch did not.

You've said this several times, but this is not necessarily the case. The clock would continue running after Tate goes down but before the challenge, and it would run again if there was time remaining after the challenge. With the clock running, they don't reset the clock back to 8 seconds after that challenge. Time passed is time passed. That's why there's no run off in that situation, because the clock already kept running. A booth review is essentially an official's timeout. So the clock is stopped when the review is started, and the clock is restarted when the review is over and the refs signal ready to play. It isn't instantaneous.

I really suggest anyone arguing about this watch the ending of Chiefs/Broncos in week 12 last year. Same exact situation except it was ruled down, and was reversed to a TD. It was a VERY similar play, slant over the middle, short pass with the team ready to get back lined up. Hill was ruled down with 12 seconds on the clock, and they would not have gotten another play off between the refs needing time to spot the ball and the team being unsure whether game was over or not (it took the officials a full 10 seconds to get the ball and spot it.) The ball ticked down to 1 second before the called an official timeout and stopped play. Had the ruling been confirmed, that time wouldn't have gone back on. The clock would've started rolling at 1 second and we would have lost. You don't get that time back in that situation you're describing. That is precisely why there is no run off there. The run off in scenario 1 exists to account for the time that naturally comes off the clock in scenario 2. The same thing is most likely going to happen in each scenario. It's just a matter of whether the time falls off the clock in a chunk or while the team is getting set pre-booth review.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

4 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

You've said this several times, but this is not necessarily the case. The clock would continue running after Tate goes down but before the challenge, and it would run again if there was time remaining after the challenge. With the clock running, they don't reset the clock back to 8 seconds after that challenge. Time passed is time passed. That's why there's no run off in that situation, because the clock already kept running. A booth review is essentially an official's timeout. So the clock is stopped when the review is started, and the clock is restarted when the review is over and the refs signal ready to play. It isn't instantaneous.

I really suggest anyone arguing about this watch the ending of Chiefs/Broncos in week 12 last year. Same exact situation except it was ruled down, and was reversed to a TD. It was a VERY similar play, slant over the middle, short pass with the team ready to get back lined up. Hill was ruled down with 12 seconds on the clock, and they would not have gotten another play off between the refs needing time to spot the ball and the team being unsure whether game was over or not (it took the officials a full 10 seconds to get the ball and spot it.) The ball ticked down to 1 second before the called an official timeout and stopped play. Had the ruling been confirmed, that time wouldn't have gone back on. The clock would've started rolling at 1 second and we would have lost. You don't get that time back in that situation you're describing. That is precisely why there is no run off there. The run off in scenario 1 exists to account for the time that naturally comes off the clock in scenario 2. The same thing is most likely going to happen in each scenario. It's just a matter of whether the time falls off the clock in a chunk or while the team is getting set pre-booth review.

Had officials stopped the play within a few seconds to either measure or review the play (which they undoubtedly would have), the clock would have only restarted once the ball was placed and determined ready for play.  The offense would already be set and ready to snap the ball.  There would have been plenty of time to get another snap off.

[ConnPatFan]

10 hours ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

 

Scenario 2 - Tate catches the ball and comes up short.  Correct call is made.  Booth review confirms the call.  There are 8 seconds left in the game.

I'm not sure of the rules here, I had understood that ANY review that stops the clock caused a run-off, is it only of scoring plays?  Because otherwise the refs getting a very close call correct could still trigger a review, and end the game. 

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

1 hour ago, ConnPatFan said:

I'm not sure of the rules here, I had understood that ANY review that stops the clock caused a run-off, is it only of scoring plays?  Because otherwise the refs getting a very close call correct could still trigger a review, and end the game. 

That's what I thought as well.  The rule states that only a reversed decision causes a runoff.  It's why the incorrect call on the field is even more significant: had they called it correctly, there would have been no runoff.

[Spartacus]

11 hours ago, spilltray said:

I think that overcomplicates it. I don't think you need to make it different. I am personally 100% fine with 10s being an average that at times is going to be a bit harsh but more often is rather generous to the offense. I don't have a fundamental problem with the game ending how it did.

Agreed. Teams know the rule. Its no different than a player not going out of bounds with the time running out. The lions gambled with a throw outside of the endzone and they lost. Next time don't take the chance and throw 4 balls into the endzone where they will either be incomplete or a touchdown.  I can understand the frustration of ending that way as far as the Lions are concerned but going forward everyone should be well aware of the rule. 

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

14 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Agreed. Teams know the rule. Its no different than a player not going out of bounds with the time running out. The lions gambled with a throw outside of the endzone and they lost. Next time don't take the chance and throw 4 balls into the endzone where they will either be incomplete or a touchdown.  I can understand the frustration of ending that way as far as the Lions are concerned but going forward everyone should be well aware of the rule. 

It's not that the rule exists.  It's that the incorrect call on the field ended the game, while a correct call wouldn't have.  That has to be an issue for the NFL and fans of the NFL alike.

[spilltray]

Ok, then make the runoff apply no matter the result of the challenge. Bang. Then both results end the game.