Let me ask you a hypothetical.
Let's say the play was called correctly on the field. Then, the booth decided to do a booth review because it was so close.
And then, the call stands as called.
Is there a runoff? If I understand the rule correctly, there would be.
Would that be fair?
Because the way it went down gave the Falcons a 100% win probability.. ergo, less fair than the proposal aboveOriginally Posted by chop2chip
I believe there is only a runoff if the call on the field is overturned.
Let's say this happened with 1 second left on the clock. Or say the Lions were going 60 yards on a Hail Mary. In that instance they lose 100% of the time.
Just admit there isn't a clean way to regulate these things.
So would it would be start the clock on whistle situation? That wouldn't be fair to the Falcons.
Bottom line, the rule is flawed in this application
Clean? No. Better? Yes.
The Lions don't deserve to lose the game because the refs got the call wrong initially.
Apply that last sentence you wrote to either of the two scenarios I suggested above. You don't want fairness, you want your team to win. A runoff minimizes unfairness in the most situations. Of course it isn't perfect, but compromises aren't supposed to be.
To be honest, I think a runoff should apply in that situation as well. Like I said, if there were three seconds on the clock it wouldn't make sense to give the offense another free possession. It just so happened that the only possible situation where the application of the rule could be considered unfair was this past Sunday. That doesn't itself invalidate the rule.
And that's my point. The application of the rule in this instance is unfair. You being a falcons fan is fine with it. The rest of the NFL agrees that a game simply shouldn't end like that
OK you guys help me out here. I only saw the replay a couple of times and wasn't watching the game when it first happened. Didn't the officials say it was a TD the first time through and then "upon further review" said his knee touched before he got into the end zone? Is there more to the story than this (prior to the 10 second runoff)?
Nope that's it.
So your point is that the rule is fair in almost every instance except the one from last Sunday? If so, we have agreed all along. Like I said numerous times, the Lions did get screwed. I just don't agree the rule should be changed because of one unfortunate circumstance.
If you think it makes sense to write a sub rule to cover this one instance, then go ahead (not sure how you do it in a way that makes sense), but I think in 99% of the instances the current rule is the best method.
Well it didn't look to me like his knee touched the ground/turf and wasn't the original call TD?
NinersSBChamps (09-27-2017)
There's an argument he didn't actually catch the ball until after his knee came up, but I think most people generally agree that he was down before the goal line.
The entire debate stems from the application of the 10 second runoff rule. Falcons fans like it and Lions fans hate it, go figure.
My problem with it isn't the 10 second runoff it's whether he had possession and whether his knee touched during or immediately after contact with the Atlanta player. My REAL problem with the NFL right now is that the league office's penis is so tiny you have to have a microscope to see it, therefore they want to change the rules around so that only they can say whether something is or is not a catch. That's BS, they're turning the NFL into the NBA or the WWE where nobody can say what is and is not some sort of violation. That way they can slowly start to determine winners and losers and up the ratings for more $$$. They're just about to cut their own metaphorical throats IMO. I know I haven't seen the replay as many times as you guys but from the couple of times I did see it it looked to me like he did have possession and he did not appear to have been downed by the defense. Just my opinions though.
Yes - 99% of the time the rule is fine. The spirit of the rule is to cover for an injury or a penalty. NOT an official review of a call on the field. In this (rare) instance, they need to figure something else out... and the only thing I think could make sense is starting the clock on the whistle
I don't think he crossed the plane in time.
The rule is what it is. But I would agree with Sturg here that it could easily be amended that the 10 second run off doesn't occur when it's an official stoppage from the refs for a review. The only reason there was stoppage was because the refs got the call wrong the first time.
OK so this adds another angle to it. What do you mean "crossed the plane in time"?
After celebrating what was likely a TD, and everyone looking around at the refs for confirmation, there is almost zero way they get lined up again and onsides. They thought there was a TD. It wasn't. The refs didn't make the "wrong" call, they made a call that appeared correct on the field. Everyone thought so, but when you slow down the tape, it wasn't as it appeared live. That's human error. They aren't perfect, but got it right upon review.
If you really want to gripe, he has to get in the EZ there before going down. Its the WRs fault, or Staffords. Place the ball better or catch it without falling and its over. End of story.
Ivermectin Man
Like I said, I think this is a very minority opinion. Basically everyone believes he was down before contact.
If you really are this upset at the NFL for the call, there's quite a few stills that show (1) his knee down, (2) a Falcons player touching him, and (3) the ball not crossing the goal line.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote