Lets Talk the end of Lions/Falcons

[theuntouchable]

The biggest aspect of it that I have a gripe with is that Detroit didn't get a chance to utilize the time left on the clock because the ref made the wrong call. I understand having the run off rule in place, but I don't think the game should end in that scenario. The ref makes the wrong call, it's automatically reviewed and then boom, game over.

[Jakuvious]

1 minute ago, theuntouchable said:

The biggest aspect of it that I have a gripe with is that Detroit didn't get a chance to utilize the time left on the clock because the ref made the wrong call. I understand having the run off rule in place, but I don't think the game should end in that scenario. The ref makes the wrong call, it's automatically reviewed and then boom, game over.

Again, as I said, had they made the right call on the field, it still may have been reviewed and the run off may still have occurred. It isn't simply because the ref made the wrong call. It's because it was a close call at all.

[theuntouchable]

1 minute ago, Forge said:

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.

I almost think it would be too tough to try and nail it down. And it's not so much the run off that I truly have an issue with, it's how the run off came about that I have an issue with. Now if a lions player had an injury at that point and they had no time outs, it's something that I could swallow. It'd be unfortunate but the rule would make sense because otherwise someone could fake an injury to get the clock stopped. In this scenario though, the clock was stopped because the ref said TD, the call was overturned and then the run off happened.

i think they'd be better off looking at how the run off rule should be applied more than anything.

[theuntouchable]

2 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

Again, as I said, had they made the right call on the field, it still may have been reviewed and the run off may still have occurred. It isn't simply because the ref made the wrong call. It's because it was a close call at all.

Very true but regardless the clock still would have been stopped because of the refs, and then the run off. I just don't think that's how a situation like that should be handled.

[Jakuvious]

Just now, theuntouchable said:

Very true but regardless the clock still would have been stopped because of the refs, and then the run off. I just don't think that's how a situation like that should be handled.

It's not being stopped because of the refs. It's being stopped due to the rules of the game. You can't not stop the game in those situations unless you want to return to the pre-review situation where far more teams got screwed over.

[theuntouchable]

Just now, Jakuvious said:

It's not being stopped because of the refs. It's being stopped due to the rules of the game. You can't not stop the game in those situations unless you want to return to the pre-review situation where far more teams got screwed over.

It's a very specific scenario that I dont think the game should be able to end like that. It is being stopped because of the refs though because they're the ones that have to review the play. Rules/refs it's essentially stopped because of someone outside of the lions, something I don't think they should be penalized for.

[Mox]

23 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

I disagree it's anything over 50/50.

Which is still too high to just ignore.

[Jakuvious]

11 minutes ago, theuntouchable said:

It's a very specific scenario that I dont think the game should be able to end like that. It is being stopped because of the refs though because they're the ones that have to review the play. Rules/refs it's essentially stopped because of someone outside of the lions, something I don't think they should be penalized for.

If the Lions just get in the end zone convincingly then it isn't stopped. That's the Lions role in that stoppage of the game. It isn't some 100% outside unrelated to the game force. It is because of what the Lions and Falcons did on the field that the play needed to be stopped. And it's because of where they left off at that time that the runoff needed to happen. Don't complete a pass over the middle short of the end zone with less than 10 seconds left and it isn't a problem. Even if there's no review,  that play is still a failure by the Lions anyway.

[footbull3196]

Let's go back to Ravens / Steelers Week 16 of last season.  Very similar situation, except antonio brown actually managed to stretch the ball across the goal line for the TD.  For this scenario, let's assume that he doesn't and is stopped half a yard short

Do you honestly believe the Steelers would have been able to get off a play in those 8-9 seconds?  Keep in mind, they had no timeouts either, but they would have at least been able to spike the ball since it would have only been 3rd and goal.  Your answer to this question should closely determine how you feel about this Falcons / Lions situation

[theuntouchable]

8 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

If the Lions just get in the end zone convincingly then it isn't stopped. That's the Lions role in that stoppage of the game. It isn't some 100% outside unrelated to the game force. It is because of what the Lions and Falcons did on the field that the play needed to be stopped. And it's because of where they left off at that time that the runoff needed to happen. Don't complete a pass over the middle short of the end zone with less than 10 seconds left and it isn't a problem. Even if there's no review,  that play is still a failure by the Lions anyway.

Not really, they ran a quick play that if they didn't make it out them in position to run another play. Was it a success? No but it wasn't entirely a failure either.

[theuntouchable]

2 minutes ago, footbull3196 said:

Let's go back to Ravens / Steelers Week 16 of last season.  Very similar situation, except antonio brown actually managed to stretch the ball across the goal line for the TD.  For this scenario, let's assume that he doesn't and is stopped half a yard short

Do you honestly believe the Steelers would have been able to get off a play in those 8-9 seconds?  Keep in mind, they had no timeouts either, but they would have at least been able to spike the ball since it would have only been 3rd and goal.  Your answer to this question should closely determine how you feel about this Falcons / Lions situation

Can't answer with 100% certainty but it's most definitely in the realm of possibility. I've seen the Lions do it so I am positive that they can.

[Forge]

20 minutes ago, theuntouchable said:

I almost think it would be too tough to try and nail it down. And it's not so much the run off that I truly have an issue with, it's how the run off came about that I have an issue with. Now if a lions player had an injury at that point and they had no time outs, it's something that I could swallow. It'd be unfortunate but the rule would make sense because otherwise someone could fake an injury to get the clock stopped. In this scenario though, the clock was stopped because the ref said TD, the call was overturned and then the run off happened.

i think they'd be better off looking at how the run off rule should be applied more than anything.

The only problem with that is then you're basically going off someone's subjective opinion. We know how fans feel about that. If you do that, someone is going to gripe and complain. If it's not applied there, Atlanta has a legit beef, and if it is, Detroit has a beef.

Also, fwiw, I think in my scenario (taking the average time),  the average would actually come out higher than 10 seconds. Too many teams muck that up and run off too many seconds. If you have one snap in a similar situation that takes 30 seconds to do , you need 10 snaps at 8 seconds just to get it to average out to 10, and I think that there are too many teams that take too long. I think the NFL average would be higher than the 10 second run off.

[Mox]

That speaks more to your scenario being poor than furthering your point. Have the NFL do a study to determine the minimum time to pull it off and use that number.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

16 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

If the Lions just get in the end zone convincingly then it isn't stopped. That's the Lions role in that stoppage of the game. It isn't some 100% outside unrelated to the game force. It is because of what the Lions and Falcons did on the field that the play needed to be stopped. And it's because of where they left off at that time that the runoff needed to happen. Don't complete a pass over the middle short of the end zone with less than 10 seconds left and it isn't a problem. Even if there's no review,  that play is still a failure by the Lions anyway.

But they didn't get in the end zone convincingly.  They were short, with the majority of the offense still lined up, with 10 seconds left to win the game on 4th and goal from inches.  

There should never be a situation where the refs can choose to review a play and, in turn, end the game.  Period.  Imagine a play that isn't this close, where the player is clearly down, but the refs decide to review anyway.  Game over.  The insanity behind the existence of this rule is amazing.

[Jakuvious]

12 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

But they didn't get in the end zone convincingly.  They were short, with the majority of the offense still lined up, with 10 seconds left to win the game on 4th and goal from inches.  

There should never be a situation where the refs can choose to review a play and, in turn, end the game.  Period.  Imagine a play that isn't this close, where the player is clearly down, but the refs decide to review anyway.  Game over.  The insanity behind the existence of this rule is amazing.

The alternative is a situation where the refs can choose to review a play and, in turn, extend a game that may have otherwise ended.

People can make these kinds of decisive statements all they want, but if you're not including the result that the alternative would create, you're only making half an argument. You remove the runoff, you could have a play that ends at 3 seconds, the refs review, and then the offense gets to run an additional play that they would've had 0 chance to run if not for the review. Regardless of what rule you want to implement here, that rule is going to directly impact whether or not a game ends. There's no getting around that. It basically comes down to whether you want to give the offense the benefit of the doubt or not.