Jump to content

Did the refs REALLY get the call right?


Robb4242
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

9 hours ago, Robb4242 said:

It's probably the correct call, but it would be 10 seconds because that's when the ref straightened up to signal.  At 10 though, it's moot because of the runoff.  The rules where I was reading at first didn't specify that it was based on the official's movements, so I was legit wondering if it reverted back to the technical point that the player was down.

Let me put my 2 cents in the pot!  Here's the thing.. If this was a bad call.. And since it was the last play of the game. If the Refs goofed up? This game could still be changed from a Win to an Lose ,,,But I don't think it will be because I'm sure they all knew how important it was to get it right. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.. But!!! if it was wrong,, I'll guaranty you , they will change the status of the game.. From a Win to a Lose for us.

 lastly,, the only thing that makes me wonder is I saw some more tape at different angles and in those new ones I saw.. it sure looks different than the ones they over turned the call with.. It's all about which tape had the camera straight on the line and not at an angel . Over and Out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Draftnut57 said:

Let me put my 2 cents in the pot!  Here's the thing.. If this was a bad call.. And since it was the last play of the game. If the Refs goofed up? This game could still be changed from a Win to an Lose ,,,But I don't think it will be because I'm sure they all knew how important it was to get it right. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.. But!!! if it was wrong,, I'll guaranty you , they will change the status of the game.. From a Win to a Lose for us.

 lastly,, the only thing that makes me wonder is I saw some more tape at different angles and in those new ones I saw.. it sure looks different than the ones they over turned the call with.. It's all about which tape had the camera straight on the line and not at an angel . Over and Out. 

The league would never do that.  Everyone agrees the refs got it right anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/249867/the-nfl-was-right-to-reverse-golden-tates-touchdown-and-end-the-game

The Detroit Lions went from an apparent game-winning touchdown to a loss Sunday without a single play occurring in between. Here's what happened, along with why I think that referee Walt Coleman and his crew ultimately made the correct call.

With 12 seconds remaining, Lions quarterback Matthew Stafford threw what appeared to be a 1-yard touchdown pass to receiver Golden Tate -- a score that would have lifted the Lions to a 32-30 lead over the Atlanta Falcons. Tate caught a low pass and appeared to dive over the plane of the end zone.

There were eight seconds remaining when Coleman's crew signaled for a touchdown. That stopped the clock, of course. All scoring plays are reviewed automatically by the NFL, and when senior vice president of officiating Al Riveron saw the replay, he noted that Tate's left knee touched the ground before the ball crossed the plane. Because Falcons cornerback Brian Poole touched Tate's shoulder as he was falling, Tate was by rule down by contact.

Then the fun began.

Had the play originally been called correctly, the clock would not have stopped. In all likelihood, it would have expired before the Lions could run another play. To be fair, Lions coach Jim Caldwell said afterwards that his team "certainly" could have gotten another play off.

"We practice it all the time," Caldwell said.

Regardless, the NFL instituted a rule earlier this decade to account for such situations. Rather than allow a team to get a free stoppage of the clock inside of the two-minute mark, NFL rules now require there to be a 10-second runoff to simulate -- as best as can be done -- how much time would have run off absent the incorrect call.

Teams can terminate the 10-second runoff by using a timeout, but the Lions were out of them. So, because there were only eight seconds remaining at the time of the score, Coleman correctly ruled that the game was over.

It was a jarring and counterintuitive ending to a highly competitive game, but it matched the NFL's rules. Consider it from the Falcons' perspective. Would it have been fair to them for the Lions to get another play? By rule, they stopped Tate short of the goal line with the clock running. In the end, the NFL got the best and most accurate outcome it could have hoped for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Robb4242 said:

To answer the title question, it's yes and no.  Yes, absolutely Tate was down before crossing the goal line.  There is absolutely no doubt about that.  In that respect the call was absolutely correct.

 

Here is where, after several hours of sitting on this, I can say now that I think they also got the call wrong.  I believe that this was such an important call in this game that the ONLY thing reviewed was, did the knee touch the ground after the defense made contact with the receiver.  I don't think they looked at anything else.  Why is that important?  Because the clock showed 8 seconds.  In reviews, when a play is overturned, the replay officials and the refs are also supposed to look at the clock.  What did the clock say when Tate was down?  If you go back and look, Tate was touched down with 11 seconds left on the clock.  The correct call would have been to add 3 seconds back to the clock, THEN have the 10 second runoff.  This would have left 1 second on the clock for Detroit to run a play.  I'm **** glad they made that mistake.

From the NFL Rulebook (http://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2017-nfl-rulebook/#rule-15.-officials-and-instant-replay):

As you can see in the picture below (I couldn't get it perfect), The clock is in the process of changing from 11 to 10.  At this point, Tate had already been touched by Poole, so he was technically down.  When replay identified that Tate did not score, the proper thing to do would have been to identify the precise second that he was down.  With that being 11 seconds, the clock should have been adjusted and then the 10 second runoff should have happened, leaving 1 second on the clock.

Tate down.jpg

I believe the Lions could have called a timeout, if they had one. That would have prevented the run off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Robb4242 said:

To answer the title question, it's yes and no.  Yes, absolutely Tate was down before crossing the goal line.  There is absolutely no doubt about that.  In that respect the call was absolutely correct.

 

Here is where, after several hours of sitting on this, I can say now that I think they also got the call wrong.  I believe that this was such an important call in this game that the ONLY thing reviewed was, did the knee touch the ground after the defense made contact with the receiver.  I don't think they looked at anything else.  Why is that important?  Because the clock showed 8 seconds.  In reviews, when a play is overturned, the replay officials and the refs are also supposed to look at the clock.  What did the clock say when Tate was down?  If you go back and look, Tate was touched down with 11 seconds left on the clock.  The correct call would have been to add 3 seconds back to the clock, THEN have the 10 second runoff.  This would have left 1 second on the clock for Detroit to run a play.  I'm **** glad they made that mistake.

From the NFL Rulebook (http://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2017-nfl-rulebook/#rule-15.-officials-and-instant-replay):

As you can see in the picture below (I couldn't get it perfect), The clock is in the process of changing from 11 to 10.  At this point, Tate had already been touched by Poole, so he was technically down.  When replay identified that Tate did not score, the proper thing to do would have been to identify the precise second that he was down.  With that being 11 seconds, the clock should have been adjusted and then the 10 second runoff should have happened, leaving 1 second on the clock.

Tate down.jpg

The call was right, the 10 second run off was right because thats what the rulebook calls for, doesn't matter if the Lions, their fans or anybody else doesn't like it, it was correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Robb4242 said:

Having been on the wrong side of so many of these type calls/games, I'd just rather win legit than have there be questions about it.

We did win legit, by the rules. My memory is horrible but didn't this happen to us ( 10 second count-off ) a few years back ? May have been at the half , but pretty sure we got it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Robb4242 said:

All they need to do is line up and snap it on the officials whistle and try a QB sneak.  They'd likely get that off

 

The offense must be set for 1 second before the ball is snapped or it's a procedure penalty and in this situation would require a 10 second run off.  This is why they went with 10 seconds as a run-off.  You got guys all over the field on both sides of the ball.  

also, this is all based on 'when the ref's signaled TD' which stopped the clock.  Until it was signaled TD, the clock is correctly still running, so for example... if they had called him down and not a TD, the clock would still be running... Lions would be scrambling around with some of the players arguing with the ref, the ref trying to spot the ball, everyone trying to get into position, then they have to be set for 1 second prior to snapping the ball.  

I can't remember the game, but it was like 2 or 3 years ago and our D was on the field and the other team made a play to the goalline with like 8 or 10 seconds on the clock and they tried to get the ball off, but couldn't and missed an opportunity to spike the ball and kick a field goal.  

The key point here which people are missing is that our Offense (despite the INT's) made the Lions burn ALL of their Time-Outs.  If they had not burned their time-outs, you could say they would have had another chance... but I would say, the clock would have expired 40 seconds earlier when they were on about the 45 yard line.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Robb4242 said:

To answer the title question, it's yes and no.  Yes, absolutely Tate was down before crossing the goal line.  There is absolutely no doubt about that.  In that respect the call was absolutely correct.

 

Here is where, after several hours of sitting on this, I can say now that I think they also got the call wrong.  I believe that this was such an important call in this game that the ONLY thing reviewed was, did the knee touch the ground after the defense made contact with the receiver.  I don't think they looked at anything else.  Why is that important?  Because the clock showed 8 seconds.  In reviews, when a play is overturned, the replay officials and the refs are also supposed to look at the clock.  What did the clock say when Tate was down?  If you go back and look, Tate was touched down with 11 seconds left on the clock.  The correct call would have been to add 3 seconds back to the clock, THEN have the 10 second runoff.  This would have left 1 second on the clock for Detroit to run a play.  I'm **** glad they made that mistake.

From the NFL Rulebook (http://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2017-nfl-rulebook/#rule-15.-officials-and-instant-replay):

As you can see in the picture below (I couldn't get it perfect), The clock is in the process of changing from 11 to 10.  At this point, Tate had already been touched by Poole, so he was technically down.  When replay identified that Tate did not score, the proper thing to do would have been to identify the precise second that he was down.  With that being 11 seconds, the clock should have been adjusted and then the 10 second runoff should have happened, leaving 1 second on the clock.

Tate down.jpg

From this angle I can't tell if his knee is down or if Poole has touched him yet, and the clock looks like it is at 10 already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a guy who's actually officiated high school and college games, let me stop this thread from going any further. The game clock doesn't immediately stop on a completed pass until the play is ruled dead by the nearest game official to the ball, which is normally a second or two after the receiver 1) is tackled in bounds, 2) goes out of bounds, or 3) scores a touchdown. By rule, the play isn't ruled dead until the official there says it is, NOT when the guy hits the ground. And as an aside, there is an NFL guy up in the booth to ensure that the clock isn't 'accidentally' freezing in such an event or going in turbo-boost if roles had been reversed. As Vince McMahon would say, the NFL didn't screw the Lions; the Lions screwed the Lions.

Secondly, it didn't take the receiver a full three seconds to be touched by Poole before crossing the goal line in one motion. So in actuality, the game clock was closer to 0:08 being left when the play should've ended than it being 0:11.  

In other words, GAME OVER. Onto Week 4 and Buffalo...

Edited by ratesforless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...