Jump to content

#PaperGate - Have you ever seen something so weird in the NFL?


RaidersAreOne

Recommended Posts

In 2001, the NFL Officials reviewed a play 2 plays previous in the Browns/Jaguars game that then became known as the "Beer bottle toss" game. Quincy Morgan caught a pass on 4th down, the Browns hurried to the line, SPIKED the ball, the officials marked it off, and then went back and reviewed it. It was egregious. It was classless what our fans did, but to act like those officials didn't have it coming is a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, biletnikoff said:

Spoken like a true subservient believer,who bows to authority when told to. 

Adults  needed a folded piece  of paper  to get the call  they wanted? Lol 

or someone with a little common sense.

I said the same thing you did last year, when my team was losing. looks like you're in the same situation I was in last season.

the NFL is random. this was random. the NFL is random.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest fraud in sports is how we pretend the chains are in any way an accurate representation of a first down gained. Two guys trot out with sticks attached by chains. The first guy puts the stick where he thinks the set of downs started, and the second guy pulls it to see if the ball is 10 yards from where the first guy guessed. There’s no way possible that the first guy could possibly get the exact mark that the ball started on. Particularly for something as close as what happened here, there is absolutely no way the measurement was accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MWil23 said:

In 2001, the NFL Officials reviewed a play 2 plays previous in the Browns/Jaguars game that then became known as the "Beer bottle toss" game. Quincy Morgan caught a pass on 4th down, the Browns hurried to the line, SPIKED the ball, the officials marked it off, and then went back and reviewed it. It was egregious. It was classless what our fans did, but to act like those officials didn't have it coming is a joke.

The justification for this was that the call came down to review prior to the spike. I’d assume given how relatively new that review was at that point, the refs didn’t know how to handle that, or the rule was poorly written to not explain what happens. Does the call for review supersede the ref not blowing the play dead? Or does the ref not relaying the call from above overrule the call for review? I honestly couldn’t even tell you what the rule says now, 16 years later.

It’s a weird situation with delays and there really isn’t a *right* answer. For presentation to fans, it shouldn’t be reviewed after the next play. It just gives off terrible optics, and maybe just for optics sake, that should be the rule. But it’s also kinda dumb that the speed at which the ref reacts to a decision already made to call for review decides whether a review is initiated or not. And for refs who had never seen that sort of thing before, I could totally see how they would have no idea the proper way to handle it.

Someone screwed up. I just don’t know if it was the refs or the writers of the rule, or both. Whatever the case of who actually screwed up, the optics that the refs gave off by their behaviors certainly would have infuriated me if I was on the other side of what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, iPwn said:

The justification for this was that the call came down to review prior to the spike.

I'm well aware. Too bad a play had already been run. Then again, this is the NFL where they make up the rules as they go. Plus, the referee didn't get the call until halfway through the subsequent spike, check the replay.

9 minutes ago, iPwn said:

I’d assume given how relatively new that review was at that point, the refs didn’t know how to handle that, or the rule was poorly written to not explain what happens. Does the call for review supersede the ref not blowing the play dead? Or does the ref not relaying the call from above overrule the call for review? I honestly couldn’t even tell you what the rule says now, 16 years later.

A play had already been run, it's irrelevant. 

9 minutes ago, iPwn said:

It’s a weird situation with delays and there really isn’t a *right* answer. For presentation to fans, it shouldn’t be reviewed after the next play. It just gives off terrible optics, and maybe just for optics sake, that should be the rule. But it’s also kinda dumb that the speed at which the ref reacts to a decision already made to call for review decides whether a review is initiated or not. And for refs who had never seen that sort of thing before, I could totally see how they would have no idea the proper way to handle it.

Especially when the play resulted in an overturned call that cost the Browns a game, which at the time given that they finished at 7-9, killed their wildcard chances. As for the other, they're paid professionals. It's their JOB to know the proper way to handle it.

9 minutes ago, iPwn said:

Someone screwed up. I just don’t know if it was the refs or the writers of the rule, or both. Whatever the case of who actually screwed up, the optics that the refs gave off by their behaviors certainly would have infuriated me if I was on the other side of what happened.

I would expect a Jaguars fan to defend the refs on that one. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

A play had already been run, it's irrelevant. 

It’s only irrelevant if the writing of the rule made it as such. I was asking for whether the writing of the rule made it clear how such a situation should be handled. Was the rule written so that once the review team decided to review, the play goes to review? Was it written so that upon the point that the ref is told to review, that the play goes to review? Or was it written that only if the ref receives the call and is able to stop the play, that it then goes to review? The decision to go to review needed to be made prior to a play running, sure. But which of those steps needed to be completed at that point? The NFL is notorious for poorly written rules (the tuck rule, this catch extension across the goal line rule), and I’m curious where the mistake was actually made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, iPwn said:

It’s only irrelevant if the writing of the rule made it as such.

Quote

Despite the rules that a play cannot be challenged if another play was run, it has happened on at least one occasion under the current rules. In 2001, the Cleveland Browns were driving toward the east end zone of Cleveland Browns Stadium against the Jacksonville Jaguars for what would have been the winning score. A controversial call on fourth down gave the Jaguars the ball. Browns' receiver Quincy Morgan had caught a pass for a first down on 4th and 1. After Tim Couch spiked the ball on the next play, referee Terry McAulay reviewed Morgan's catch, claiming that the replay officials had buzzed him before Couch spiked the ball.

 

There's your rule. It's in the rule book. 

 

5 minutes ago, iPwn said:

I was asking for whether the writing of the rule made it clear how such a situation should be handled.

As per above, once a play is run, it's too late, period, even if you're buzzed AFTER the snap, which is what happened.

5 minutes ago, iPwn said:

Was the rule written so that once the review team decided to review, the play goes to review? Was it written so that upon the point that the ref is told to review, that the play goes to review? Or was it written that only if the ref receives the call and is able to stop the play, that it then goes to review?

It's reviewable via the pager under two minutes.

5 minutes ago, iPwn said:

The decision to go to review needed to be made prior to a play running, sure. But which of those steps needed to be completed at that point? The NFL is notorious for poorly written rules (the tuck rule, this catch extension across the goal line rule), and I’m curious where the mistake was actually made.

If you look at the replay, McAulay wasn't buzzed until Couch had already snapped the ball, making it too late to be reviewed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

There's your rule. It's in the rule book. 

As per above, once a play is run, it's too late, period, even if you're buzzed AFTER the snap, which is what happened.

It's reviewable via the pager under two minutes.

If you look at the replay, McAulay wasn't buzzed until Couch had already snapped the ball, making it too late to be reviewed.

You still haven’t answered my question. An entry from Wikipedia does not show how the rule was written and if there was or was not any unintended potential for misunderstanding in proper application. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, iPwn said:

You still haven’t answered my question. An entry from Wikipedia does not show how the rule was written and if there was or was not any unintended potential for misunderstanding in proper application. 

Like I said, McAuley VERBALLY post-game citing a "malfunction of the replay system", despite clear visual evidence in replay being shown that he was paged AFTER the spike. We just have/had to to take his word for it despite replay evidence to the contrary, in which he reached for his buzzer after Couch spiked the ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kip Smithers said:

What I can’t believe is that we are in 2017 and we are still relying on old men running onto the field with a chain to determine whether it is a first down or not.

Well, I happen to referee World Football, young fella me lad, and bein' as how ye're from the U.K. yourself, I'll thank 'ee to show proper respect for yer elders!

(Don't think too much about what the Yanks call "football"; seems more like rugby in full battle-dress, an' wi' too many time oots 'n bloody celebrations!)

Image result for old man football referee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Like I said, McAuley VERBALLY post-game citing a "malfunction of the replay system", despite clear visual evidence in replay being shown that he was paged AFTER the spike. We just have/had to to take his word for it despite replay evidence to the contrary, in which he reached for his buzzer after Couch spiked the ball.

I understand he said that. I understand he may have looked at the pager after he the ball was spiked. I understand all of that. 

My question is the following: assume McAuley isn’t lying regarding the malfunction. Or assume he is. It doesn’t much matter.

At some point, the replay booth decided to request a review. At some point after the decision was made, the request was made. This could have been a second later, or nearly instantaneous. When the request was made, the signal was then sent to the ref. There may or may not have been a malfunction in the system that caused the signal to improperly send the request. The ref then has to look at his buzzer, acknowledge the request mentally, and then make some sort of action to stop play.

Should the rule be written as “the play must be reviewed prior to the ball being snapped”, then there is no grey area on it. However, had the rule been written “replay must be initiated prior to the next snap,” there’s a lot of grey area on what it actually means. Does the booth simply deciding that the play needs review signal the initiation of the review? And is simply that act happening prior to the snap enough to warrant the review no matter if the ball is snapped and play carried out? I’m asking if we know the writing of the rule at that point simply because I want to know where blame actually belongs being placed. And does the potential malfunctioning of the equipment even hold water as a defense?

 

If you want to take that win from us, go for it. It really would bother me none. We finished 6-10, and it would have just made us 5-11. We drafted the same player we would have had we been seeded higher in the draft, so it really made no difference in anything for our franchise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, iPwn said:

If you want to take that win from us, go for it. It really would bother me none. We finished 6-10, and it would have just made us 5-11. We drafted the same player we would have had we been seeded higher in the draft, so it really made no difference in anything for our franchise.

In the last 3 years (as of this coming Thursday), I will have seen 3 NEW Star Wars movies.

The Browns have won 1 game.

If I were to talk about all of the exciting things over the last 3 years that the Browns have done in NFL games, I would have 0 posts, except for of course the 2018 draft forum.

In the grand scheme of things, the Browns in 2001 would have been 7-6 after that game and in the thick of the wildcard chase. Instead, they were bounced (ended 7-9 anyway, so whatever...but things could have been different), dropping to 6-7 after a horrific call/handling of a call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...