I’m sitting here today watching my beloved Giants beat the crap out of the Browns and an interesting play happens. Collins throws a touchdown pass to Toomer(I think, I forget exactly who it was on that play). On the play the Browns commit pass interference and get flagged. Obviously the Giants decline the penalty and take the touchdown. What would happen if after the Giants declined the penalty the play was challenged and overturned? Would they be able to then accept the penalty since they wouldn’t have declined it if it wasn’t a touchdown?
Don’t mind me, forgot to turn the e-mail notification on 
I don’t understand the question. Only the team that the penalty is called against can challenge it (why would the other team do so?). If the Browns challenged the penalty and it were cancelled, the result of the play would still be a TD. There would be no penalty for the Jints to accept or decline. The referee in the booth can review plays on his own, but he’d have no reason to on this play - it’s a TD either way.
Ever notice how NFL refs don’t even ask a team if they want to accept if the answer is obvious? This would be an example.
Elvis, I think he’s talking about the reception being challenged, as in via Instant Replay, not the penalty being challenged.
Anyway, if the play is challenged and overturned (such as if the Eye in the Sky sees that the pass was incomplete) then yes, they can then accept the penalty and get the ball at the spot of the foul (or at the one if the foul is in the endzone).
If that happened the Giants would be able to accept the penalty since declining the penalty was contingent on the touchdown call.
OK, that’s gotta be it.
P.S. Pass interference calls are judgement calls and are unreviewable.
**
I don’t believe so. I believe they always ask.
Here’s another question. In the Chiefs/Raiders game, the Chiefs challenged a call, believing the ball to have been fumbled. The ruling on the field was down by contact, which is not reviewable (the ref never even looked into the little magic box). They still charged the Chiefs with a timeout though! WTF!!??
The officials may not always ask if the choice is obvious, but they will at least tell the other team what the penalty was for.
Ah, yes, the old “down by contact” story … they used to say “inadvertent whistle” instead, but nobody ever believed it.
The Chiefs should not have been charged the timeout. Are you sure they didn’t get it back quietly?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves *
**
Not sure, but when they showed the timeouts right after that, they had indeed subtracted one for the Chiefs.
I just checked the gamebook at NFL.com. They did indeed charge them with a timeout even though it was considered unreviewable. (See page 8 of the gamebook).
They have to do that, or else it would get seriuosly abused. Say a team is down by a couple touchdowns with 5 minutes left to play. The losing coach could throw his little flag after every play. The ref would then have to stop the clock, and go over to ask the coach what he was challenging, while his players got set and rested without the clock running. The coach could then claim he wanted to review something that was unreviewable. If he didn’t lose the timeout, then he would be able to do it over and over. It would save a lot of time unfairly, at least until the two minute warning. It’s the coaches job to make sure he is challenging something that is reviewable.
That has some merit, but if the referee doesn’t announce at the end of the play what they called, how the hell does the coach know if it’s reviewable or not? For that matter, if it’s not reviewable, the refs should just say so and keep the clock rolling.
In the Chiefs game, it wasn’t until after the Chiefs challenged that the ref said it was “down by contact.” If the ruling on the field was that the ground caused the fumble, and therefore was down, it would have been reviewable.