MNF - Seahawks vs. Lions game thread.

[kalibane]

Here is the funny thing, because I'm in a Sports Group on Facebook with a bunch of Lions fans. These same people who whined and complain about the Calvin Johnson game winning incompletion (which for the record I still maintain was a catch, regardless of the letter of the rule) now want the exact letter of the rule followed in this instance and claim they were robbed. Can't have it both ways people.

[burrrton]

Robbed?? How anyone can argue they "should" have gotten a win with a straight face is beyond me.

It would have been a gift, another chance based on a technicality, not anything they 'earned'.

Give me a break.

[NorthHawk]

Let's see.
If KJ picks up the ball cleanly and runs out of the End Zone (or tries to and fumbles it out of bounds), the play is legal.
If he bats it out of bounds its a penalty.
In the field of play it is legal.

Does anyone know why the difference?
Usually there was some type of play that caused a rule to be added because it gave a team some advantage.

I can only guess that they think it's more exciting if the players have to scramble to pick up the ball.

[kalibane]

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.

[NorthHawk]

Oh, yeah.
Holy Roller play.
That is still haunting me after about 40 years.
Damn Casper.

[RiverDog]

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.

That's my take, too. There was absolutely no advantage to have been gained by batting the ball out of bounds. I could handle a 5 yard penalty, spotting the ball on the 15 rather than the 20, but allow the change of possession. You have to make the punishment fit the crime, and had that call been made, it would have bailed out the Lions on a technicality, something the league is trying to avoid. No one knew what the rule was, and I suspect the replay crew in New York didn't know, either, or else they would have stopped it to review the play to determine if it was an intentional act.

That being said, it was an incredibly stupid thing for KJ to have done. He should have just caught the ball and ran out of the end zone. Not that I profess to have known about that rule, but it's never going to be a penalty to just grab the ball and fall on it instead of batting or kicking it.

[burrrton]

they would have stopped it to review the play to determine if it was an intentional act.

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.

[The POPE]

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.[/quote]

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

[RiverDog]

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

They did come out and say that the play is not reviewable, so you're right about the replay crew getting directly involved. But there's nothing stopping the crew on the field from huddling and deciding between themselves if there was a foul or not, and 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'd have to watch the replay, but it didn't appear to me that there was much of a conference after the play.

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]

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)

[RiverDog]

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)

I would guess that the crew chief would call for the huddle. I can imagine a conversation going something like "are you sure that's what you saw? The replay guys think it was intentional."
, give the back judge some time to reflect on his call/no call. They do it all the time. I don't know why this situation should be any different.

[c_hawkbob]

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.

[burrrton]

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.

As you pointed out, though, there's nothing to "review" if the infraction depends on judging "intent" (and not something you can establish with video, like whether the ball touched his hand).

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.

Yup.

[RiverDog]

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.

The crew chief is another name for the Referee, the guy in the white hat that stands behind the quarterback and is in direct communication with the replay center in New York. Although I have no idea what kind of communication occurs between the crew chief and New York, it's not fantasizing to imagine a conversation between them if the replay center thinks a bad call was made or that the rules were not being interpreted properly. Whether or not that actually occurred, I haven't a clue, but it's a reasonable assumption that it should have if it didn't. They meet up all the time and frequently make a collective decision to throw a flag or to pick one up.

I am with you foursquare in your last paragraph. Yesterday, I had to educate an obnoxious Seahawk hater/Packers fan about the Testeverde helmet touchdown, undoubtedly one of the most outrageous calls in all of sports history when you considering the impact it had on the game, the season, and the career of a head coach. Based on that call alone, I don't feel the urge to feel embarrassed or apologize for anything.

[c_hawkbob]

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.

[NorthHawk]

It seems not very many people in the stadium or on TV knew that rule.
At least they weren't very forthcoming if they did.

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?
I'd like to think that with all of the money spent on medical staff, players and coaches, we would spend a little bit on having someone on hand who is an expert on the rules so if strange or uncommon situations arise, they know the rules and can advise the coaches on the field.

[burrrton]

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.

And even then, if he didn't think it was intentional (tough to defend that position, but still), it would have been the *correct* call.

There seems to be this attitude that his hand touching the ball was an automatic penalty (or should have been), but that's not the case at all, and there was no option to review it.

[burrrton]

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?

This is the type of rule that probably wouldn't be covered in an 'rule review' by teams.

It's so arcane that it didn't even occur to the officials on the field until it was mentioned to them later, and before the hooplah, you can bet there isn't a coach in the NFL that would have thought what KJ did was a violation.

It's legal in most circumstances, it's legal with other parts of the body, and so on and so forth. Stupid rule.

[kalibane]

Apparently Mike Tirico is like an NFL rules encyclopedia and he missed it. I've heard two people affiliated with the NFL network who stated it's the first time they've ever seen Tirico whiff on a rules violation like that.

[obiken]

Killi, who cried for us when the ref cost us the Ram game?? Oh the league apologized. Kind of like getting shipment of TP when you already used Kleenex.

[RiverDog]

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.

I beg your pardon, but I'm not the one that's mistaken. You are. The umpire is not the official in charge or the guy wearing the white hat. It is the Referee, a.k.a. the "crew chief."

I read your link. Now if you would, please take a few minutes and read mine, also from NFL.com. It's better than your all text version as it lets you visualize the refs with a nice graphic that shows their position on the field and the color of their hats. Arrow down to the middle of the page and you'll see the graphic. Pay particular attention to the official in the white hat and hover your cursor over his representation on the graphic and a description will pop up. Please note what his title is and what the first line in his general responsibilities says (Sorry, I can't copy and paste):

http://operations.nfl.com/the-officials ... positions/

I was wrong about the umpire's position on the field, so I won't demand a beer coupon from you.

Like I said, I don't know what kind of conversations transpire, if any, between the "crew chief" and the replay center outside of those on official reviews, but it's reasonable to assume that contact is not only permitted but encouraged any time the crew chief has a question or requires assistance, especially when obscure rules come into play such as a player that bats the ball forward in the end zone. That doesn't mean that the decision is being surrendered to the replay crew. Of course, I'm only speculating, but I would be very surprised if there wasn't a considerable amount of contact between the crew chief and the replay center besides official replays. If there isn't, there should be.

[c_hawkbob]

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.

[burrrton]

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.

Once again, this. It's a rule that requires the rem to evaluate what was going through the player's mind, so I'm pretty sure that's not reviewable.

I don't think we'll ever hear "After further review, the ruling on the field is overturned- we're pretty sure he meant it."

They *could* review whether his hand touched the ball (and other more binary determinations), but this ridiculous rule doesn't forbid that.

[RiverDog]

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.

Honest question: Do you, or anyone else for that matter, know if conversations between the crew chief and the replay crew, other than those associated with an official replay or challenge, occur during a game?

If they do, then it is my contention that the crew chief could be using the replay center as a resource, not necessarily making a decision for him.