The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 08, 2008, 09:04am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7
How is this fair? Replay Review Colt/Bears

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?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 08, 2008, 09:49am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 762
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 08, 2008, 10:08am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 08, 2008, 10:30am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Quote:
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 08, 2008, 10:40am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 08, 2008, 11:30am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 618
Send a message via MSN to grantsrc
Quote:
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.
__________________
Check out my football officials resource page at
http://resources.refstripes.com
If you have a file you would like me to add, email me and I will get it posted.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 08, 2008, 12:18pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 08, 2008, 01:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Quote:
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.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 08, 2008, 01:17pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Quote:
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 08, 2008, 01:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 08, 2008, 02:06pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 923
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 08, 2008, 02:21pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7
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.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 08, 2008, 02:36pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 14,840
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.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 08, 2008, 02:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 1,023
Quote:
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.
__________________
"And I'm not just some fan, I've refereed football and basketball in addition to all the baseball I've umpired. I've never made a call that horrible in my life in any sport."---Greatest. Official. Ever.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 08, 2008, 03:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 923
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
After further review: NFL Old School Football 13 Wed Sep 26, 2007 09:49pm
My 1st Review Alameda Softball 13 Thu Aug 04, 2005 02:43pm
NCAA Th night: Replay review on 3 pt shot pizanno Basketball 4 Fri Mar 18, 2005 07:18pm
Bears/Lions Game Sal Giaco Football 12 Wed Dec 29, 2004 09:14am
AP review for all! williebfree Basketball 9 Fri Feb 14, 2003 04:31pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:37am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1