Close plays you may have a point. That play was pretty damn obvious.
Sure. From an elevated camera angle, looking right in on the play with nobody blocking view, it was obvious. Too bad the refs can’t just sit up in the booth and watch the cameras.
Serious question, have you ever officiated a sport? If so, which one and at what level?
It was blatantly obvious that the runner was down - a shamefully bad call. No sensible person expects perfection, but we certainly have the right to expect cases as clear as this one to be called correctly.
And the NFL suffers compound embarrassment from having inserted a cutesy, ill-judged rule that nullifies the system they have in place for correcting such unprofessional rulings.
If calling the runner down on that play is a hard call to make then why expect the officials to make ANY correct calls.
I can complain about the fact that they made the wrong call on the field and couldn’t see that the player was obviously down. Multiple body parts touched the ground. It wasn’t even close.
Why not ? It’s the NFL, every game has lots of cameras and plenty of money to do everything right - why don’t they have an extra official up top communicating with the onfield officials in real time ?
They do have a guy up in the booth monitoring exactly this kind of thing. That’s the whole point; they weren’t allowed to go to him because of the penalty on the coach’s challenge flag.
(All touchdowns and turnovers are automatically reviewed by the guy up in the booth.)
Watching it in real time, I thought only his hand ever touched ground. Only on replay was it obvious that his knee and forearm hit the ground. Additionally, I haven’t seen any footage that indicates where the officials were relative to the players. Their view very well may have been blocked by other players.
The league has been trying to crack down on inadvertent whistles. It’s been hammered home to officiating crews that if there’s a doubt about the play, let it continue. I think the officiating crew performed perfectly in this situation. The play would have been overturned on review. Schwartz is the only one on the field who screwed up. Both in the flag and the fact that the defenders obviously hadn’t been coached to play until the whistle.
Rules are supposed to have reasons, to protect against unfairness and abuse. Otherwise they are just arbitrary and mean-spirited. The injured party is not supposed to take it up the rear-end “just because that’s the rule.” The refs and the NFL had the capacity to get the call right and to not impose the unfair penalty on the injured party, ie, the Lions, and they failed to do that. To hell with them.
The problem is the bad rule. The refs weren’t responsible for refusing to enforce it.
Yeah, the rule is beyond moronic. In the past, when coaches challenged plays that couldn’t be reviewed, the refs told them so and play continued. There is absolutely no reason why they shouldn’t do the same thing in this situation.
Exactly this. Even after replay, when the slow-motion showed the runner’s knee touched the ground, when they showed it again at regular speed, it was really tough to tell. Yes, his elbow clearly touched, but it’s not outlandish to say no one official had a clear view at that particular instant.
The “quick whistle” issue is spot-on. Officials are trained to call what they see, not what they THINK they saw. Particularly in the NCAA and NFL, where there is replay, it’s been made clear to the officials that it’s better to let a play run instead of blowing it dead if you’re not positive. If an official blows an early whistle, the play is no longer reviewable. There is no option to “get it right” if they stop the play early. If this play had been the reverse - the runner’s elbow and knee did NOT touch, but the officials blew it dead - the Texans would not have been able to challenge. Tough luck for them. That’s why officials are more likely to let things go if they are not certain of what they see.
In this case, things should have played out exactly right. The officials let the play run, the runner scored, the replay booth would have automatically reviewed and overturned it, and they would have gotten the call right. The only thing that prevented that was Schwartz. That’s totally on him, not the officials, the replay system, or the rules.
Why was it an “unfair” penalty? Schwartz knew the rule, knew he couldn’t challenge a scoring play, but challenged it anyway. As I just addressed, the officials WOULD have gotten it right if he’d just kept the red flag in his pocket. He knew, or should have known, that challenging a scoring play means losing any review opportunity. How is that unfair? Schwartz screwed up here. He’s the one who “injured” the Lions.
Well, yes, there is a reason. That’s now a penalty. I don’t personally think it should be, but it is. Since it’s a penalty, it cancels any automatic review. Schwartz is responsible for knowing that. The officials can’t just disregard the rule book because it’s “stupid” or “unfair.”
No kidding. That’s why my post was critical of the rule, not the refs. What part of my post confused you?
Haven’t refs in the past stopped coaches from throwing the flag to avoid this? I just saw the replays not the actual game, so I don’t know where the officials were during the play but I would think they would say something like “Don’t pull out the flag, it won’t help” to Schwartz if they could.
Being a Bears fan, it amuses me to see an NFC North rival shoot themselves in the foot again, but it is pretty stupid to have this clause that punishes a team like this. Of course the coach should know this and Schwartz screwed up and admitted it. I figure the rules committee will review the rule after this year and adjust it so this kind of stuff doesn’t happen again.
Please don’t claim this should be done this way to prevent a “quick whistle”. Preventing quick whistles should have nothing to do with this. “Exactly right” would be letting the play continue, then ruling on the field that the runner was down. That still allows a challenge. You let them play on if you’re not certain, but then make the right call, not the call that corresponded to letting the play continue, and not the call that leads to an automatic review.
Pretty sure that in the past if you threw a challenge flag in the final 2:00 you wouldn’t get a booth review. Same situation and same reason.
The idea is that inside 2:00, if there is a close call and the offense is hurrying to the line to try and prevent a review, throwing your challenge flag would halt the game and allow the booth officials time to review. That’s unsportsmanlike rules-lawyering, and that’s why (one assumes) this rule is in place to begin with.
Coaches are reminded not to throw challenge flags on any turnover or score at the start of every game. Hard to get too pissed off for the Lions after such a blunder you were just reminded not to do within the past couple hours.
With all due respect, and I’m not being snarky, but how do you know this?
OP here again with his limited knowledge of NFL rules and NFL culture. I have to ask: why is it “unsportsmanlike rules-lawyering” to do something that will **allow **time to review a call? Seems to me that if there is “unsportsmanlike rules-lawyering” in your scenario, it’s on the part of the offense in trying to prevent officials from getting the call right. (Again, maybe my mistake is to assume that the goal is to get the calls right.)
Back when I was a kid and we used to play Monopoly for days on end, we used a house rule that said if somebody landed on your property, you had to actually request the rent–and if you waited till after the next player had rolled the dice, you were out of luck. Well, there were always shifting alliances, the way kids do things, and there were times when Player A would land on Player C’s property, and before Player C could open his mouth to say something like “That’ll be fifty bucks, pay up” Player B would quickly roll the dice, knowing damn well that this would cancel the rent payment. That was certainly unsportsmanlike rules-lawyering. Sounds much more like the offense in your scenario. No?
Or am I completely missing your point?
Indeed, if memory serves, the rule was added because London Fletcher of the Redskins defense once did just this. He knew the Redskins might benefit from review, but the other team’s offense was lining up for the next play. He kicked the ball away, which incurred a penalty, but which stopped the other team from proceeding with a play that would have overridden the review opportunity.
One possible remedy might be to allow the review to proceed in situations where it is automatic (like scoring and turnovers) even when a flag is thrown, while still assessing some yardage penalty.