How is this fair? Replay Review Colt/Bears

[Unit14]

I'm not blaming the officials on the field. I'm not blaming anybody. There was enough evidence to say there was a fumble, but since the whistle had blown and the runner was ruled down by contact, they didn't know who should be awarded the ball.

So, why not say "Coach, there was a fumble, but since the play was whistled dead, we can't base any decision on what happened next, since the play was dead. So, save your challenge and subsequent timeout for another time." Or, after reviewing say "After further review, the ruling on the field stands, but since the play had been whistled dead, the bears are not charged a timeout.

Because, truly, the challenge was correct.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Unit14

I'm not blaming the officials on the field. I'm not blaming anybody. There was enough evidence to say there was a fumble, but since the whistle had blown and the runner was ruled down by contact, they didn't know who should be awarded the ball.

So, why not say "Coach, there was a fumble, but since the play was whistled dead, we can't base any decision on what happened next, since the play was dead. So, save your challenge and subsequent timeout for another time." Or, after reviewing say "After further review, the ruling on the field stands, but since the play had been whistled dead, the bears are not charged a timeout.

Because, truly, the challenge was correct.

Because they would violate the rule. And the officials have no idea what the video would show or would not show. And if I remember correctly, the officials did not blow the whistle at the time of the play. They seemed to wait or it was not clear there was a whistle blown when I watched the play live. I am under the impression they are asked to officiate plays this way. If the coach never challenges, then this is not a problem. The problem is if there is a challenge they must review the challenge and the rules apply if they lose. I do not see how the officials could have done that without violating a major rule.

Peace

[Adam]

I didn't see the play, but I thought if they blow the whistle saying the runner was down, the play isn't reviewable. That's why they went to delaying the whistles on these plays.

[grantsrc]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I didn't see the play, but I thought if they blow the whistle saying the runner was down, the play isn't reviewable. That's why they went to delaying the whistles on these plays.

That changed last year in the NFL. They need to be able to determine who has the ball at the end of the play in order for the challenge be upheld. Sounds like that isn't the case in this situation.

[Unit14]

I don't claim to be overly knowledgeable of the NFL rules. I've refereed HS and Youth Football Leagues and I'm definitely a fan of the NFL so I'm not completely clueless either. In this case, I just think this is an interesting conversation or argument.

I believe the NFL rules says that a timeout is charged if there isn't enough evidence to overturn the call on the field. In this case, there was apparently enough evidence to say it was a fumble, which was the challenge, but there wasn't enough evidence to say who's ball it was. So, to me, Lovie got the challenge right, but there wasn't enough evidence to say who recovered the ball. So, Lovie was right in his challenge, and shouldn't be charged a timeout. I don't have a NFL rulebook, so I don't know if this is defined anywhere.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Unit14

So, Lovie was right in his challenge, and shouldn't be charged a timeout. I don't have a NFL rulebook, so I don't know if this is defined anywhere.

I am not sure you know what Lovie was told or why Lovie wanted to challenge.

Peace

[Unit14]

What was announced was that Lovie was challenging that there was a fumble. There was a fumble and the replay booth told Madden that the reason the play could not be overturned was because they didn't know who to give the ball to.

You're right, I wasn't part of the conversation.