Lets Talk the end of Lions/Falcons

[Jakuvious]

I'm with @Forge pretty much across the board on this one. I get that the rule feels somewhat bothersome and unnatural, but there really isn't a better alternative. Without the runoff you're screwing over the defense. If you shorten the run off, that's maybe worth discussing, but it's going to be an arbitrary amount of time regardless, so the amount of time you choose is still going to upset someone and could alter a game either way.

Someone said a few times that if the refs had gotten the call right on the field the first time, there would've been no run off. But that isn't true either. They still may have chosen to review the play to make sure, which still would've led to a runoff. So it isn't the ref's fault.

[Packerraymond]

Just now, Jakuvious said:

I'm with @Forge pretty much across the board on this one. I get that the rule feels somewhat bothersome and unnatural, but there really isn't a better alternative. Without the runoff you're screwing over the defense. If you shorten the run off, that's maybe worth discussing, but it's going to be an arbitrary amount of time regardless, so the amount of time you choose is still going to upset someone and could alter a game either way.

Someone said a few times that if the refs had gotten the call right on the field the first time, there would've been no run off. But that isn't true either. They still may have chosen to review the play to make sure, which still would've led to a runoff. So it isn't the ref's fault.

A great point, if the call is made opposite and he's called down, in real time as a fan of the Lions (or any team in their situation) you'd probably be screaming for them to review that because it was so bang/bang you would think there is a chance he scored a TD. Then the game would still be over. Just unfortunate way for a game to have to end.

[Jakuvious]

5 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

There were 12 seconds when the play started. 12-1=11. NFL plays don't take 1 second. It was real generous home town clock management. 

Technically by what the clock said Lions fans have a gripe, in reality, that clock wouldn't have read 11 if the clock started on the snap.

It's also just a really favorable screen shot, honestly. The clock was ticking over from 11 seconds to 10 seconds basically as Tate went down. They'll normally go with the lower number, not the higher, in those situations. Similar to incomplete passes not generally having the clock stop the fraction of a second that the ball hits the ground. It often keeps rolling to the next second.

[Mox]

13 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

It doesn't matter where the greatest athlete's in the world are positioned on the field, what matters is the where the elder aged officials are placed, and none are that close to the ball. They aren't going to run a 4.4 40 to retrieve the ball.

Okay fair point, though you still have 1) Evidence of this exact team doing this feat and 2) Favorable positioning on the field which is pretty much all you could ask for in terms of evidence citing they were probably screwed.

[Packerraymond]

Just now, Bullet Club said:

Okay fair point, though you still have 1) Evidence of this exact team doing this feat and 2) Favorable positioning on the field which is pretty much all you could ask for in terms of evidence citing they were probably screwed.

I'm not saying they couldn't do it, I'm saying I don't believe it's a guarantee. Usually the only way rules are changed is if their use unanimously altered the outcome. In this case I think we're in the gray area where it's just an unfortunate instance, but not something that the NFL needs to change.

[Shanedorf]

Scroll down to the play- by- play at the very bottom. Lots of incompletions/penalties stopping the clock on this final drive

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201709240det.htm

The Lions had a few other chances to save some precious time

2:23 left before the 2 minute warning - only got off 1 play

Coming out of Time Out # 2, the lions took from 1:48 - all the way down to 1:18,  that's 30 seconds to run 1 play

Those two instances took 53 seconds off the clock to run 2 plays in crunch time. Tough way to end a game

[Mox]

5 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

I'm not saying they couldn't do it, I'm saying I don't believe it's a guarantee. Usually the only way rules are changed is if their use unanimously altered the outcome. In this case I think we're in the gray area where it's just an unfortunate instance, but not something that the NFL needs to change.

I don't buy that. If the odds were 1% then fine. But you could argue there is over a 50% chance they get a play off. That's way too much gray to just ignore. If it happened to our Packers, we'd be furious.

[Packerraymond]

6 minutes ago, Bullet Club said:

I don't buy that. If the odds were 1% then fine. But you could argue there is over a 50% chance they get a play off. That's way too much gray to just ignore. If it happened to our Packers, we'd be furious.

I disagree it's anything over 50/50.

[footbull3196]

Let's be honest here: how likely is it that the Lions would have been able to gather everyone, line up them properly without anyone committing an illegal formation, and snap the ball in under 8 seconds, all while waiting for the refs to clear the field and wait for the defense to get back onsides?  Very unlikely.  I mean, we saw yesterday that the Giants got penalized for a delay of game penalty for "not letting the eagles get their 12th man off the field in a reasonable amount of time".  Allowing the clock to remain stopped in a situation where the Lions did not have any time outs and where the clock would continue to run is incredibly unfair to the falcons considering that they actually stopped the Lions short of the goal line, and this would ultimately grant them an extra attempt to get a play off when they almost assuredly wouldn't have gotten one off if the play had been ruled correctly before the review and the clock had continued to run

The way I look at this situation, it's karma.  Remember 3 years ago, when Matt prater missed a game winning 43 yard field goal but since the Lions committed a false start penalty, the kick was nullified and the falcons were not given an option to decline the penalty and prater got a 2nd chance to kick because of the Lions' own mistake which he made?  Well, yesterday makes up for that

[Forge]

So we can argue about this until we are blue in the face...what is the solution? One that is as fair to both teams. Is there a better solution than the one I have posited? And please don't give me, "get the call right on the field". That's not a solution lol.

[Heimdallr]

16 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

Someone said a few times that if the refs had gotten the call right on the field the first time, there would've been no run off. But that isn't true either. They still may have chosen to review the play to make sure, which still would've led to a runoff. So it isn't the ref's fault.

There is no automatic review for a non-scoring play, and maybe I am wrong but I don't think the ref can just stop the game to review a non-scoring or non-turnover play. The Falcons also would not have challenged. The clock would have kept running.

It is a terrible outcome for the Lions, but this happens so rarely, and there really isn't a better option. I wouldn't change the rule.

[Jakuvious]

Just now, Heimdallr said:

There is no automatic review for a non-scoring play, and maybe I am wrong but I don't think the ref can just stop the game to review a non-scoring or non-turnover play. The Falcons also would not have challenged. The clock would have kept running.

It is a terrible outcome for the Lions, but this happens so rarely, and there really isn't a better option. I wouldn't change the rule.

It's not automatic, no, but it's within 2 minutes. Decisions on reviews within 2 minutes come from the officials/booth, so yeah, they can absolutely just stop the game to review a play.

The opposite of this happened last year. Tyreek Hill was ruled down at the 1. They made the ruling to review the play because it was within two minutes. It would've been the same scenario there had they confirmed the call (it wound up being a TD, but still.)

[Forge]

2 minutes ago, Heimdallr said:

There is no automatic review for a non-scoring play, and maybe I am wrong but I don't think the ref can just stop the game to review a non-scoring or non-turnover play. The Falcons also would not have challenged. The clock would have kept running.

It is a terrible outcome for the Lions, but this happens so rarely, and there really isn't a better option. I wouldn't change the rule.

Inside two minutes - the challenge would have come from HQ or wherever.

[theuntouchable]

3 minutes ago, Forge said:

So we can argue about this until we are blue in the face...what is the solution? One that is as fair to both teams. Is there a better solution than the one I have posited? And please don't give me, "get the call right on the field". That's not a solution lol.

The only thing I would argue is that it would take different times depending on how the play went. If it was a play that took the team 30 yards down the field it's gonna take more time than a play that took them half a yard down the field. I think you'd have to have times for different scenarios if you were gonna do that.

[Forge]

Just now, theuntouchable said:

The only thing I would argue is that it would take different times depending on how the play went. If it was a play that took the team 30 yards down the field it's gonna take more time than a play that took them half a yard down the field. I think you'd have to have times for different scenarios if you were gonna do that.

Yeah, I mentioned that earlier as well - there would have to be different run off times for the length of yardage. Less than 10 yards, maybe 8 seconds (arbitrary figure I'm using). 11-25 yards, 11 or 12 seconds. 25+ 15 seconds. Or whatever. Again, those figures are placeholders. But yeah, they'd have to really dig into that.