How is this fair? Replay Review Colt/Bears

[Unit14]

This just didn't seem right to me. During the Colts/Bears game on Sunday night there was a fumble, I believe on a kickoff or punt return. The officials ruled down by contact, although the scrum to recover the ball continued. Da Bears threw the red flag and after further review it was clear that there was a fumble, so the challenge was correct, but because the referees didn't know who recovered the ball, after being ruled down by contact, the Bears were charged a timeout.

So, Da Bears lose a timeout because the referee's didn't get the call right. I understand how they got it wrong and at full speed that's all understandable. But the replay booth told the announcers that the issue was just that they didn't know who recovered the fumble so they couldn't reverse the call. Well, since you can't have a do over, and you can't figure out what happened in the pile, I think an admission of a mistake would be easier to swallow than just telling Lovie that his challenge was no good and he loses a timeout.

Any thoughts?

[JasonTX]

In other words there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the ruling on the field. In that case you lose the challenge. This is not the fault of the official.

[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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Unit14

I think an admission of a mistake would be easier to swallow than just telling Lovie that his challenge was no good and he loses a timeout.

Any thoughts?

Yes. Exactly how do you know what Lovie was told?

If the call on the field is not reversed, then the timeout is forfeited, period. There's no way around that. That's the rule.

[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.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by 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.

Everything you are saying is correct. The announcers did say the replay official told them it was a fumble but because the recovery was a scrum, they could not say for certain that the Bears recovered. The rule change last year was to allow for the defensive team to retain the ball in the event a runner was ruled down by contact and the defensive team obviously would have gained possession had the whistle not been blown. I'm guessing the same could be applied if the offense recovered the ball behind the spot of the fumble and maybe lose the ability to gain a first down.

The best way to handle it would probably be to tell the coach before they went into replay that if we determine it was a fumble but probably can't determine who recovered (and thus charge him with a timeout), does he still want the challenge. If he says yes, at least he is going into it knowing the possible ramifications.

This is an interesting scenario that may not have been fully considered when they put the rule in last year. I'm sure this will be part of the Official Review on the NFL network this week.

[Unit14]

bisonlj - Thanks for that response. I think that's what I was looking for, and maybe that's the way it happened, but Lovie should've been told that no matter what we see on the tape we don't know what happened in the scrum and it won't change the outcome. Therefore, don't waste a timeout.

[Raymond]

Just taking a stab here but maybe the rule in this case is that since the outcome of the play didn't change that the coach lost the challenge. Yes, there was a fumble, but the possession didn't change.

Similar to a 4th down play in which a player is marked short of the yard to gain. Coach challenges and the spot is determined to be wrong but the team still doesn't make a first down when the ball is re-spotted then the team is still charged a time-out.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Everything you are saying is correct. The announcers did say the replay official told them it was a fumble but because the recovery was a scrum, they could not say for certain that the Bears recovered.

I was watching the game and I thought that was Michaels/Madden speculation. I respect Michaels' work, but he's not always right when it comes to officiating things and don't get me started on Madden.

But unless they came back on later and said "the replay official told us this" and I missed it, I thought it was just announcer speculation.

I do not recall a replay official telling an announcing team anything during a game. Maybe it has happened, but I don't recall it. AFAIK, the replay official and those with him are technically part of the officiating crew, are they not? And only a pool reporting circumstance can get clarification from someone on the officiating crew, is that not the case?

Not saying anything about the validity of the call, because it was confusing - seemed to me that the runner could have been called down by contact because "contact" can be a swipe that barely touches the runner while he's down (that I've seen).

Just saying that it was my recollection that Michaels and Madden were speculating, not that the replay official told them anything. Because I don't believe replay officials speak to reporters or announcers. If they do, I've missed prior instances of it.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

Just saying that it was my recollection that Michaels and Madden were speculating, not that the replay official told them anything. Because I don't believe replay officials speak to reporters or announcers. If they do, I've missed prior instances of it.

They did say later that they got the information from the replay official. Whether that was direct communication or a false statement is up for debate. Just because they said that doesn't make it true.