2015-16 NFC North/NFL thread

[wadesworld]

If you were in a PED Pool (Dead Pool but for those who will test positive) isn't Clay your first pick?

The rest of my team: Gronkowski, Peyton Manning, Seattle, Darrelle Revis, AP (after ACL, maybe not this year).  Second team: Drew Brees, Sean Lee, i'm sure i'll have 5 more after looking at this weeks fantasy roster...

Uhh, I would take about 98% of players in the NFL.

[naginiF]

Uhh, I would take about 98% of players in the NFL.

Fair.  I do wish that instead of a replay flag a coach could have any one player tested on the spot.

[brandx]

Is it legal to bat the ball out of the endzone?

Edit: Wow. Yes it was. Should have been Lion's ball

I guess there's a reason Seattle wins so often at home. Maybe there needs to be a situation like in baseball where you can protest a game and if it is a clear officiating error - as this was - then you pick up the game from where the mistake was made.

I know the logistics would be hard in the NFL, but that's twice now that they have gotten a gift-wrapped win.

[jesmu84]

I guess there's a reason Seattle wins so often at home. Maybe there needs to be a situation like in baseball where you can protest a game and if it is a clear officiating error - as this was - then you pick up the game from where the mistake was made.

I know the logistics would be hard in the NFL, but that's twice now that they have gotten a gift-wrapped win.

Even worse that this wasn't with replacement refs

[tower912]

It is the Lions.    The rule of thumb for the Lions is that they will always find a way to lose that no one has ever seen before.    Calvin Johnson not completing the process.    A picked up pass interference call.    Going back to Vince Evans.    The question is never whether they will lose.   The question is what unique way will they find to lose.   No anger.   Amusement. 


So, watching Sportscenter this morning with my 8 year old.   "Dad, that's not fair" in reference to how the Lions lost the game.    "(Son), the Lions are going to lose.   It is what they do.   And they will find ways to lose that no one has ever seen before.    Watch football.   Love football.   But never watch a Lions game expecting them to win.   Watch them wondering what creative way they will find to blow it.   Because if you become emotionally attached to the outcome of a Lions game, you will end up with a broken heart."

[MerrittsMustache]

So, watching Sportscenter this morning with my 8 year old.   "Dad, that's not fair" in reference to how the Lions lost the game.    "(Son), the Lions are going to lose.   It is what they do.   And they will find ways to lose that no one has ever seen before.    Watch football.   Love football.   But never watch a Lions game expecting them to win.   Watch them wondering what creative way they will find to blow it.   Because if you become emotionally attached to the outcome of a Lions game, you will end up with a broken heart."

Who knew that Cubs fans and Lions fans had so much in common?

[MerrittsMustache]

I guess there's a reason Seattle wins so often at home. Maybe there needs to be a situation like in baseball where you can protest a game and if it is a clear officiating error - as this was - then you pick up the game from where the mistake was made.

I know the logistics would be hard in the NFL, but that's twice now that they have gotten a gift-wrapped win.

The major problem with the NFL's current replay system is that certain very correctable plays are considered to be "non-reviewable." When the head of officiating states that a call was blatantly wrong but also that it couldn't be corrected, there's a serious flaw in the system that needs to be corrected.

[brandx]

It is the Lions.    The rule of thumb for the Lions is that they will always find a way to lose that no one has ever seen before.    Calvin Johnson not completing the process.    A picked up pass interference call.    Going back to Vince Evans.    The question is never whether they will lose.   The question is what unique way will they find to lose.   No anger.   Amusement. 


So, watching Sportscenter this morning with my 8 year old.   "Dad, that's not fair" in reference to how the Lions lost the game.    "(Son), the Lions are going to lose.   It is what they do.   And they will find ways to lose that no one has ever seen before.    Watch football.   Love football.   But never watch a Lions game expecting them to win.   Watch them wondering what creative way they will find to blow it.   Because if you become emotionally attached to the outcome of a Lions game, you will end up with a broken heart."

There's hope, Tower.

I was a Packer fan in the 70s and 80s.

[GooooMarquette]

The major problem with the NFL's current replay system is that certain very correctable plays are considered to be "non-reviewable." When the head of officiating states that a call was blatantly wrong but also that it couldn't be corrected, there's a serious flaw in the system that needs to be corrected.

+1

[jsglow]

The major problem with the NFL's current replay system is that certain very correctable plays are considered to be "non-reviewable." When the head of officiating states that a call was blatantly wrong but also that it couldn't be corrected, there's a serious flaw in the system that needs to be corrected.

Agree 100%.  In this situation one ought be able to review the exact rule with the NFL office and THEN watch the tape. This isn't an 'inadvertent whistle' situation where you would need to allow the play on the field to stand.  It's also not open to any reasonable interpretation that the player didn't intentionally knock it out.  Obviously he did and the NFL is simply butt covering.

Look, I dislike both the Lions (sorry Tower) and the Seahawks but I do like games to be officiated correctly.  If the rule states that the ball should have been Detroit's on the six inch line than that's what should have happened. 

[jsglow]

And let me add this.  There seems to be instances where they do exactly that.  Think back to the Dez Bryant non catch.  The rule says categorically you must maintain control all the way to the ground without any bobble or re-grip.  Hitting the ground caused Dez to bobble.  Therefore incomplete by rule.  So they took a very carefully written rule (doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, still the rule) and applied it correctly after watching the tape 50 times. 

[JWags85]

Trent Dilfer made an interesting point.  He talked about how sometimes there is holding that occurs on the opposite side of a run play that doesn't materially effect the play and thus is not called.  There was no Lion within 10 yards of Wright when it happened.  He didn't directly prohibit a Lions recovery by a purposeful bat out.  The ref may have deemed the ball was going out of bounds regardless with no Lions anywhere near recovery.

Listen, I get the rule, but I feel this was less of a "blown call" and more of a judgement call by the referee.  Regardless it was incredibly stupid by Wright.  There are far less obvious ways to get that ball out of bounds.

[jsglow]

Trent Dilfer made an interesting point.  He talked about how sometimes there is holding that occurs on the opposite side of a run play that doesn't materially effect the play and thus is not called.  There was no Lion within 10 yards of Wright when it happened.  He didn't directly prohibit a Lions recovery by a purposeful bat out.  The ref may have deemed the ball was going out of bounds regardless with no Lions anywhere near recovery.

Listen, I get the rule, but I feel this was less of a "blown call" and more of a judgement call by the referee.  Regardless it was incredibly stupid by Wright.  There are far less obvious ways to get that ball out of bounds.

That is a great point and I think we can all agree that a hold 20 yards away on the backside shouldn't be called because it absolutely doesn't affect the play.  But here, Wright's willful action absolutely affected the play.  It specifically determined possession by rule.  Now for him to know the rule would be a stretch but that shouldn't matter.  Any viewing of the tape demonstrates that the ball way not yet out of the endzone and that Wright intentionally batted it out.  Perhaps foolishly but that's what happened nonetheless.

Let me further add that this might require a change such that this type of play can be reviewed.  If it's presently not allowed for review, then it simply goes down as a blown call where no recourse presently exists.   Look, we have instant replay today because Jerry Rice didn't come close to catching that ball against the Packers in the playoffs 20 some years ago.

[MerrittsMustache]

Trent Dilfer made an interesting point.  He talked about how sometimes there is holding that occurs on the opposite side of a run play that doesn't materially effect the play and thus is not called.  There was no Lion within 10 yards of Wright when it happened.  He didn't directly prohibit a Lions recovery by a purposeful bat out.  The ref may have deemed the ball was going out of bounds regardless with no Lions anywhere near recovery.

Listen, I get the rule, but I feel this was less of a "blown call" and more of a judgement call by the referee.  Regardless it was incredibly stupid by Wright.  There are far less obvious ways to get that ball out of bounds.

That's an interesting point, but it's a flawed point because the batting of the ball was so obvious.

If a team runs a sweep to the left and a WR split wide right, 30 yards away from the play, grabs a defender by his jersey and flings him to the ground, he's going to get flagged for holding because it was such an obvious penalty. If he gets his hands inside and gets ahold of the defender's shoulder pads, they'll let it slide.

You also can't assume that Wright was going to recover the ball. He may have muffed it while trying to pick it up or he may have had it stripped while trying to run it back or who knows what? The official can't assume that Wright was going to fall on the ball or carry it OOB.

[wadesworld]

Aren't all turnovers reviewed?  So they reviewed the play but they couldn't do anything because they can't review that ruling?

[MerrittsMustache]

Aren't all turnovers reviewed?  So they reviewed the play but they couldn't do anything because they can't review that ruling?

Correct. All TOs are reviewed but the no-call on batting the ball is not reviewable.

[jsglow]

Correct. All TOs are reviewed but the no-call on batting the ball is not reviewable.

I suppose this is where it gets sticky.  We certainly don't want film review to determine IF a penalty should be called.  That would get out of hand.  I think back to the Packers game this weekend.  Raji absolutely facemasked that guy but nobody saw it.  Play on.

[GGGG]

Trent Dilfer made an interesting point.  He talked about how sometimes there is holding that occurs on the opposite side of a run play that doesn't materially effect the play and thus is not called.  There was no Lion within 10 yards of Wright when it happened.  He didn't directly prohibit a Lions recovery by a purposeful bat out.  The ref may have deemed the ball was going out of bounds regardless with no Lions anywhere near recovery.

Listen, I get the rule, but I feel this was less of a "blown call" and more of a judgement call by the referee.  Regardless it was incredibly stupid by Wright.  There are far less obvious ways to get that ball out of bounds.

Then why did the NFL say it was a bad call?

The whole touchback rule is dumb though. In no other instance does the defense get the ball without recovering it first. The offense should get it at the point of the fumble if no one gets possession.

[wadesworld]

Then why did the NFL say it was a bad call?

The whole touchback rule is dumb though. In no other instance does the defense get the ball without recovering it first. The offense should get it at the point of the fumble if no one gets possession.

Agreed.  Or at the very least, the offensive team should get the ball at the defensive team's 20 (not that I think that's right either, but at least it stays with the team that it should stay with).

[GooooMarquette]

The whole touchback rule is dumb though. In no other instance does the defense get the ball without recovering it first. The offense should get it at the point of the fumble if no one gets possession.

Agree.  Makes no sense that the defense should gain possession.  I get that you don't want the offense to benefit from a non-recovered fumble that moves forward, so just give them the ball at the spot of the fumble, or some other designated spot (2-yard line?).

[MerrittsMustache]

The whole touchback rule is dumb though. In no other instance does the defense get the ball without recovering it first. The offense should get it at the point of the fumble if no one gets possession.

IIRC, Blandino said a week or two ago that the league would be looking at this rule in the offseason. Granted, that's probably what he says whenever an issue arises, but still. It appears to be on the radar.

[jesmu84]

Then why did the NFL say it was a bad call?

The whole touchback rule is dumb though. In no other instance does the defense get the ball without recovering it first. The offense should get it at the point of the fumble if no one gets possession.

As I followed this last night, I think I understand a little bit of it. The NFL said it was a bad call because according to the current wording of the NFL rulebook, there is no room for interpretation/subjectivity. Wright batted the ball = Lions ball. However, I'm sure we may see a rule change where there is some allowed interpretation by the refs in this instance going forward. My guess, based on the touchback rule, is that this rule was designed so that some defender couldn't bat it away from an offensive player recovering a fumble for a TD. However, in last night's situation, there was no Lion within 10 yards, so the bat didn't really matter.

In conclusion, it was a missed/bad call last night. In the overall "did the bat affect the play" line-of-thought, the answer has to be "no".

[MerrittsMustache]

As I followed this last night, I think I understand a little bit of it. The NFL said it was a bad call because according to the current wording of the NFL rulebook, there is no room for interpretation/subjectivity. Wright batted the ball = Lions ball. However, I'm sure we may see a rule change where there is some allowed interpretation by the refs in this instance going forward. My guess, based on the touchback rule, is that this rule was designed so that some defender couldn't bat it away from an offensive player recovering a fumble for a TD. However, in last night's situation, there was no Lion within 10 yards, so the bat didn't really matter.

In conclusion, it was a missed/bad call last night. In the overall "did the bat affect the play" line-of-thought, the answer has to be "no".

The rule does not state that a player can't bat the ball out of bounds unless the official believes that the other team has no chance to recover it. It's not like no PI being called because a pass was overthrown by 20 yards. What you're arguing would be like saying that a flag for illegal contact shouldn't be thrown if the QB gets sacked since the QB wasn't going to get the pass off anyway.

[CTWarrior]

My two cents.

I'm not a Lions fan but my Dad was.  If I was a Lions fan watching that game, I would blame the loss on my WR for fumbling, not on the ref.  It seems to me that it would be a bigger miscarriage of justice to give the Lions the ball back for a little-known ticky tack rule (the ball was going to go out of the end zone anyway, and I'm sure if the player knew the rule he would have just grabbed the ball) than for using judgement and letting the play stand the way he did.

OTOH, I agree with those who say that the fumble in the end zone rule itself makes no sense.  In all other instances when the offense fumbles they get it back if no one recovers it inbounds.  Seems to me they should get to keep the ball at the point of the fumble in that instance.  If that was the rule, the Seattle player also would have just grabbed the ball.

[jesmu84]

The rule does not state that a player can't bat the ball out of bounds unless the official believes that the other team has no chance to recover it.[/b] It's not like no PI being called because a pass was overthrown by 20 yards. What you're arguing would be like saying that a flag for illegal contact shouldn't be thrown if the QB gets sacked since the QB wasn't going to get the pass off anyway.

Correct. I tried to make that distinction in my post. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

Your illegal contact scenario is intriguing to me. Perhaps it should be called that way. After all, don't refs ignore holding and other similar penalties if they are away from the play?