kalibane wrote:Pretty much. The Rule I think ties in with the whole holy roller thing. But in this case no lion had an opportunity to recover the ball, nor was it a ploy to extend the play artificially. To me, clear case of the letter of the rule not serving the spirit of the rule. Something like this that doesn't change the outcome of the play is not why the rule was written.
they would have stopped it to review the play to determine if it was an intentional act.
The POPE wrote:Can they review 'intent'? I don't think so, but I'm open to correction. Like let's say the ref thought KJ *did* do it intentionally and called it- they wouldn't review it to potentially say "Nah, doesn't really look like he meant it", would they?
I'm trying to think of another penalty that depends on ref judgment of player intent that's reviewable, but haven't thought of one yet.
I don't really know of any with "intent" either, but I think some of these reviewable plays are ridiculous. The play reviewed in the Green Bay game comes to mind. Reviewing for twelve men on the field with a challenge. Cmon Man. If the Refs didn't catch it then it should not be reviewable. The player had 1 foot on the field and no impact on the play. I know what the rule is, but the fact that, that can even be challenged and reviewed and therefore penalized is horse dung.
Thank god the same rules do not apply to batting the ball.
The Pope
c_hawkbob wrote:Who's supposed to call for the huddle? The only ref in position to see it is the Back judge, he tells the umpire "no foul" and the the ruling stands. All this "they should taken their time and huddled up and got the call right" is just sports talk radio blather. (and it's all over it, at least the three national shows I've listened to)
you can be sure that the control center in New York would be in direct communication with the lead official during that conference, so essentially they would be reviewing it, just that the final decision would be the responsibility of the field crew.
I really do think they need to re-visit this rule in the offseason. It would have been a travesty to have given the ball back to Detroit on a technicality like that.
c_hawkbob wrote:Crew chief? Is that a thing? I thought that was a function of the Umpire ...
And on what grounds do you suggest he second guesses the Back Judge unless he were in a position to have a better angle at it or something?
I get it, it was a bad call, but as the rules are written it's solely on one guy, the Back Judge. Not the Umpire or the crew for not following procedure or something.
BTW, I don't care. This is just Karma balancing the scales for the Testaverde Helmet TD and XL and the decades of sh!t that always used to seem to go against us because we were perceived as the Washington Generals of the NFL. It's good to be the Globetrotters for a change.
Everything that happened procedurally was according to Hoyle, the only error was on the Back Judge alone and any attempt to intercede would have been a violation of procedure.
Belichick was talking the other day about rules and such and he said they take time every year to teach the new players the different rules from College to the NFL. He also said they go over game situations and have someone go through the rule book with the team so everyone is aware of almost all rules.
Like the poster above asked, do we do that, too, or is it something that might need to be added as part of the OTA's or TC?
c_hawkbob wrote:You're mistaken about the guy in the white hat, that is the Umpire and he's the guy in charge. There is no title "crew chief" and they are all referred to as referees. Here are their official titles and responsibilities: http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/jurisdiction
As for the replay guys in New York getting involved, that would have been a direct violation of procedures as subjective call are not allowed to be reviewed.
Everything that happened procedurally was according to Hoyle, the only error was on the Back Judge alone and any attempt to intercede would have been a violation of procedure.
c_hawkbob wrote:Alright, I stand corrected on the particulars of the officiating crew titles, but let's not let that get in the way of the germane procedural points of the conversation: that there are still no grounds or even a even a proper procedural avenue for anyone on the officiating crew on the field or in New York to have even taken a second look at, let alone overruled the subjective evaluation of the back judge on this play.
c_hawkbob wrote:Alright, I stand corrected on the particulars of the officiating crew titles, but let's not let that get in the way of the germane procedural points of the conversation: that there are still no grounds or even a even a proper procedural avenue for anyone on the officiating crew on the field or in New York to have even taken a second look at, let alone overruled the subjective evaluation of the back judge on this play.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 114 guests