NFC North / NFL Thread 2017-18

[MerrittsMustache]

Everything about that challenge play made zero sense. He was clearly out of bounds. Whoever told Fox to challenge that from the booth is an idiot. The challenge itself was for the spot, not the fumble. In terms of the fumble, it's circumstantial to the challenge. If anything, the call should have stood, then McCarthy could have challenged whether or not it was a fumble.

Just dumbness all around, NFL rules make no sense.

Exactly. That's why Fox was so upset. The challenge was the spot. GB should have had to challenge the fumble.

[GGGG]

That’s not the NFL rule. The rule is that everything is reviewed when either team challenges.

[wadesworld]

That’s not the NFL rule. The rule is that everything is reviewed when either team challenges.

Yeah. And it should. Otherwise what do you do there? He wasn’t out of bounds so the spot WAS wrong. So where should the ball be placed in this case? When he clearly fumbled the ball out of bounds in the end zone.

I guess you can say, “the runner was not out of bounds and the ball hit the pileon. It is a touchdown Chicago.” In which case, the touchdown is automatically reviewed anyways. And then it gets overturned anyways because he fumbled the ball. So the Packers wouldn’t use a challenge, the Bears wouldn’t lose a challenge, and it would be Packers ball at the 20, just like it was.

Not sure there’s much there to complain about.

[MerrittsMustache]

That’s not the NFL rule. The rule is that everything is reviewed when either team challenges.

When did that change? It hasn't always been the case.

[DegenerateDish]

That’s not the NFL rule. The rule is that everything is reviewed when either team challenges.

Yes and no. The order of what happened matters, and what the ruling on the field originally was.

Ruling on the field was that he was out of bounds. If it was a scoring play, then yes, everything is on the table. It was NOT a scoring play. There is not indisputable evidence to overturn the original call, there simply is no way to dispute it. Therefore, there is secondarily zero indisputable visual evidence to rule he fumbled prior to stepping out. You have to clearly rule overturn the first to make the second relevant, no matter who would challenge it.

[MerrittsMustache]

From an ESPN article...

"All reviewable aspects of the play may be examined and are subject to reversal, even if not identified in a coach’s challenge or if not the specific reason for a replay official’s request for review."

As is the norm with the NFL, bad rule that appears to have been applied correctly.

[forgetful]

From an ESPN article...

"All reviewable aspects of the play may be examined and are subject to reversal, even if not identified in a coach’s challenge or if not the specific reason for a replay official’s request for review."

As is the norm with the NFL, bad rule that appears to have been applied correctly.

Why is it a bad rule?  The purpose of replays is to get the call correct.  They got the call correct.  Fox should never have challenged that play.  That was a moronic thing for him to do.

[wadesworld]

Yes and no. The order of what happened matters, and what the ruling on the field originally was.

Ruling on the field was that he was out of bounds. If it was a scoring play, then yes, everything is on the table. It was NOT a scoring play. There is not indisputable evidence to overturn the original call, there simply is no way to dispute it. Therefore, there is secondarily zero indisputable visual evidence to rule he fumbled prior to stepping out. You have to clearly rule overturn the first to make the second relevant, no matter who would challenge it.

From an ESPN article...

"All reviewable aspects of the play may be examined and are subject to reversal, even if not identified in a coach’s challenge or if not the specific reason for a replay official’s request for review."

As is the norm with the NFL, bad rule that appears to have been applied correctly.

So again, how do you want them to handle that play? He clearly wasn’t out of bounds, which means the spot is wrong, which means the challenge was successful. But what would you like the result of that play to be then? Where do you spot the ball? He obviously fumbled the ball and it hit the pileon. Do you want to place it where he lost control of the ball, even though he was never down? Call it a touchdown since the ball hit the pileon and you’re only reviewing the spot and not a fumble? Okay, call it a touchdown. So it goes to review automatically and they call it a fumble, Packers ball at the 20 anyways.

[DegenerateDish]

So again, how do you want them to handle that play? He clearly wasn’t out of bounds, which means the spot is wrong, which means the challenge was successful. But what would you like the result of that play to be then? Where do you spot the ball? He obviously fumbled the ball and it hit the pileon. Do you want to place it where he lost control of the ball, even though he was never down? Call it a touchdown since the ball hit the pileon and you’re only reviewing the spot and not a fumble? Okay, call it a touchdown. So it goes to review automatically and they call it a fumble, Packers ball at the 20 anyways.

This isn't hard to understand...

"The original ruling on the field stands."

[GGGG]

This isn't hard to understand...

"The original ruling on the field stands."

The original ruling was wrong. Why create another delay when the answer is available right there?

[forgetful]

This isn't hard to understand...

"The original ruling on the field stands."

So the wrong call should stand. 

Fox challenged whether the runner was out of bounds before reaching the end zone.  He was not out of bounds.  So you have to overturn the ruling on the field. 

He stayed in bounds, and fumbled out of bounds.  Touchback is the correct call.

For all you know the call on the field was that he fumbled out of bounds but the ball hit the ground before hitting the pylon, so he was out of bounds short of the end zone.  Upon review, the ball hit the pylon first..touchback.

[Pakuni]

It's not a bad rule.
The alternatives would be either another challenge and longer delay, or for the officials to see clear evidence of an erroneous call and ignore it. Either would be worse than what happened in this instance.

[wadesworld]

This isn't hard to understand...

"The original ruling on the field stands."

Huh? The original ruling on the field wasn’t right. So why would it stand? Fox was right, the placement of the ball was wrong, there was indisputable video evidence. So it is hard to understand. Very confusing why they would go with that when the spot was, in fact, wrong.

[DegenerateDish]

The original ruling was wrong. Why create another delay when the answer is available right there?

I guess I'll agree with Dean Blandino that the ruling on the field should have stood.

[DegenerateDish]

So the wrong call should stand. 

Fox challenged whether the runner was out of bounds before reaching the end zone.  He was not out of bounds.  So you have to overturn the ruling on the field. 

He stayed in bounds, and fumbled out of bounds.  Touchback is the correct call.

For all you know the call on the field was that he fumbled out of bounds but the ball hit the ground before hitting the pylon, so he was out of bounds short of the end zone.  Upon review, the ball hit the pylon first..touchback.

Jesus...the ruling on the field was out of bounds at the 3.

Check out Blandino's explanation on Twitter.

[DegenerateDish]

Huh? The original ruling on the field wasn’t right. So why would it stand? Fox was right, the placement of the ball was wrong, there was indisputable video evidence. So it is hard to understand. Very confusing why they would go with that when the spot was, in fact, wrong.

I'm done arguing about this, it's not that hard to keep the call, as Blandino clearly pointed out.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Butch Jones is free to replace John Fox.

[GGGG]

I read what he said. I thought he was saying that he was out prior to him fumbling. He was not questioning if the entire play can be reviewed.

[wadesworld]

I'm done arguing about this, it's not that hard to keep the call, as Blandino clearly pointed out.

That is fine. You have it wrong. Fox challenged the spot of the ball, the spot was wrong and there was clear and convincing evidence to support it, so your solution is to see that the challenge was a good challenge and the spot was wrong but to keep that wrong call. Why you would do that is confusing, no matter what you want to say.

[wadesworld]

Time for the second half of the biannual posts. Bears down.

[MerrittsMustache]

Worst loss since the Bears gave up 54 to Philly with a chance to clinch the division. Completely unacceptable to lose this game. Adios, Foxy.

[DegenerateDish]

That is fine. You have it wrong. Fox challenged the spot of the ball, the spot was wrong and there was clear and convincing evidence to support it, so your solution is to see that the challenge was a good challenge and the spot was wrong but to keep that wrong call. Why you would do that is confusing, no matter what you want to say.

Right, NFL rules expert Dean Blandino and I are both wrong, and you're absolutely right.

My bad.

[MerrittsMustache]

Right, NFL rules expert Dean Blandino and I are both wrong, and you're absolutely right.

My bad.

Are you unfamiliar with wades? 

[Jockey]

Worst loss since the Bears gave up 54 to Philly with a chance to clinch the division. Completely unacceptable to lose this game. Adios, Foxy.

Trubisky - the poor man's Matt Barkley.

[wadesworld]

Right, NFL rules expert Dean Blandino and I are both wrong, and you're absolutely right.

My bad.

And the NFL referees, who went and watched the replay and made the call, and I, and 4+ other posters on here, are all wrong and you're absolutely right.

My bad.

We get it.  You're the local NFL expert, worked in the Bears front office, etc.  You're wrong here though.  It's okay, it happens.  But your word isn't Gospel.  You also wanted to put a million dollars down on the Jets having the worst record in the NFL this year and gawked at anybody who even suggested that some horrible teams could take 1 bad injury to one of their few good players and accidentally win 1 or 2 games and be worse.

You're a smart NFL guy.  But your solution to the problem of a team correctly challenging a play but having it burn them as a result as leaving the incorrectly called, challenged play as that incorrect call is absurd and it's confusing why they would ever do that.  Even if MerritsMustache wants to play some passive aggressive crap as a response.  You have it wrong.