2015-16 NFC North/NFL thread

[MerrittsMustache]

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?

Only in extremely rare situations.

One could argue, fair or not, that the illegal contact played a part in the QB not being able to get the pass off. It would open up an enormous can of worms.

[wadesworld]

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?

But the illegal contact may have prevented the WR from coming open half a second earlier, which may have caused the QB to hold onto the football for an extra half of a second, which may have allowed the sack.

[jesmu84]

https://twitter.com/TDESPN/status/651454695257432064

[jesmu84]

But the illegal contact may have prevented the WR from coming open half a second earlier, which may have caused the QB to hold onto the football for an extra half of a second, which may have allowed the sack.

To you and Merritt, good points. Well taken.

I guess I just don't know. Last night it should have 100% been called. May need a tweak in the rulebook for the future.

[Benny B]

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.

It's actually quite simple:

When a team throws the red flag, they are not challenging an official's judgment, they are challenging the ruling on the field.  So what's the difference?

On a fumble where the fumbling team claims the runner's knee was down, the ruling itself is objective - was control lost or was the knee/elbow down first... if the evidence to the contrary is indisputable, the ruling will be overturned.  Sure, there could be some judgment involved in determining when control was lost, but unless the referee's judgment is also indisputable, then the call on the field is going to stand.

However, if you have a ruling on the field that cannot be determined objectively - e.g. just about every penalty (except 12 men) - all you can challenge is the official's judgement, and by definition, challenging an official's judgment essentially concedes the existence of dispute, and such being the case, the call on the field will always stand.

In this case, it's the judgment call of the official as to whether the ball was intentionally batted out or not... if there was a scramble, or if the player muffs a legitimate attempt to obtain possession, and the ball inadvertantly goes OOB, that's not a penalty.  In this case, how can one objectively determine whether the ball was intentionally batted OOB?  Nobody knows what was in the defender's head.  Maybe he was trying to palm the ball.  Maybe he was trying to bat it back to himself but had an inopportune muscle spasm at the last second.  Maybe he decided at the last second not to attempt to gain possession.  Who knows.  We've all made up our own minds on what happened, but we've done so strictly by using our own judgment, i.e. no one has presented indisputable evidence that the player intentionally batted the ball OOB (which just so happens to be the necessary threshold to overturn the call).  It may be a "bad" judgment call, but it's still a judgment call, and therefore, there's no way it can possibly be overturned.

In my judgment, it was a bad call.  But not reviewing it and letting the outcome stand is the correct call.

[tower912]

http://www.freep.com/story/sports/nfl/lions/2015/10/06/detroit-lions-losses/73471546/

I forgot the Thanksgiving loss to the Texans.    The one where Schwarz threw the challenge flag on the scoring play, thereby preventing a review and earning an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. 

[MerrittsMustache]

It's actually quite simple:

When a team throws the red flag, they are not challenging an official's judgment, they are challenging the ruling on the field.  So what's the difference?

On a fumble where the fumbling team claims the runner's knee was down, the ruling itself is objective - was control lost or was the knee/elbow down first... if the evidence to the contrary is indisputable, the ruling will be overturned.  Sure, there could be some judgment involved in determining when control was lost, but unless the referee's judgment is also indisputable, then the call on the field is going to stand.

However, if you have a ruling on the field that cannot be determined objectively - e.g. just about every penalty (except 12 men) - all you can challenge is the official's judgement, and by definition, challenging an official's judgment essentially concedes the existence of dispute, and such being the case, the call on the field will always stand.

In this case, it's the judgment call of the official as to whether the ball was intentionally batted out or not... if there was a scramble, or if the player muffs a legitimate attempt to obtain possession, and the ball inadvertantly goes OOB, that's not a penalty.  In this case, how can one objectively determine whether the ball was intentionally batted OOB?  Nobody knows what was in the defender's head.  Maybe he was trying to palm the ball.  Maybe he was trying to bat it back to himself but had an inopportune muscle spasm at the last second.  Maybe he decided at the last second not to attempt to gain possession.  Who knows.  We've all made up our own minds on what happened, but we've done so strictly by using our own judgment, i.e. no one has presented indisputable evidence that the player intentionally batted the ball OOB (which just so happens to be the necessary threshold to overturn the call).  It may be a "bad" judgment call, but it's still a judgment call, and therefore, there's no way it can possibly be overturned.

In my judgment, it was a bad call.  But not reviewing it and letting the outcome stand is the correct call.

That's all well and good, but why did the NFL come out and say it was the wrong call?

[MU82]

In this case, how can one objectively determine whether the ball was intentionally batted OOB?

I am neither a Seahawks fan nor a Lions fan nor a Seahawks hater nor a Lions hater. My favorite team isn't even in either of those teams' divisions. I have training as an official, too. So I am 100% confident that I can objectively determine whether the ball was intentionally batted OOB.

And my determination is absolutely that the batting was intentional, Seattle should have been penalized and Detroit should have kept the ball with a first down inside the 1.

NFL honchos easily determined it, too, which is why they made the rare admission that their officials blew it.

I do agree with your conclusion that there really wasn't anything that could be done once the refs blew the call, though. I even understand how the ref closest to the play, in the heat of the moment at full-speed, might not have been able to determine that the batting was intentional.

I firmly believe replay rules should be expanded to allow challenges and reviews of this kind of issue.

It's water under the bridge now, though. Can't go back and replay the game from that point.

[Benny B]

That's all well and good, but why did the NFL come out and say it was the wrong call?

Because it's pretty apparent to everyone watching at home that the ball was intentionally batted out of bounds.

That doesn't change the fact that you can't review anything that's strictly a judgment call, no matter how wrong or egregious it may be.  Even if it was obvious, you're opening the door to reviewing anything that's a judgment call.

[GGGG]

Well this made me sad...

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/10/08/former-packers-colts-coach-lindy-infante-dies-at-75/

[Sir Lawrence]

Well this made me sad...

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/10/08/former-packers-colts-coach-lindy-infante-dies-at-75/

"Infante We Trust"

[Spotcheck Billy]

well at least he outlived his dog

[brandx]

well at least he outlived his dog

Wasn't Devine the guy whose dog was killed?

[Archies Bat]

Wasn't Devine the guy whose dog was killed?

Devine definitely had his dog killed, but I think Lindy had his die also.

[wadesworld]

What is the definition of a receiver being "in the area" when it comes to intentional grounding?  There are calls every game that seem like an obvious intentional grounding where it's determined a receiver was "in the area."

[DegenerateDish]

Hell of a play by Cutler, great effort today, wow.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

The most Cutler way to win the game, dropped snap to a touchdown.

[JWags85]

2 weeks in a row, Cutler leads game winning drives.  And the Cubs are tied.  Gonna be a quiet Monday for Chicago meathead sports radio callers.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Stafford is terrible.

[mu-rara]

Wasn't Devine the guy whose dog was killed?

http://thewisconsinsportsbar.blogspot.com/2008/08/myth-of-dan-devines-dog.html

[4everwarriors]

Crean sucks

[MU B2002]

So quiet here when the Bears win.  Could be back to .500 this week, never in my wildest dreams did I think that was possible this season.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

So quiet here when the Bears win.  Could be back to .500 this week, never in my wildest dreams did I think that was possible this season.

It almost sucks a little. We all know the Bears ain't going to the playoffs, I would love the draft pick but I also love Cutler sticking his middle finger to all the haters.

[wadesworld]

It almost sucks a little. We all know the Bears ain't going to the playoffs, I would love the draft pick but I also love Cutler sticking his middle finger to all the haters.

 

He has beat Oakland and Kansas City.  Those 2 teams are a combined 3-7.

Jay has 6 TDs and 5 turnovers in 4 games this season, with a QB rating of 85.4.  The guy is really sticking it to all his haters!

[GooooMarquette]

It almost sucks a little. We all know the Bears ain't going to the playoffs, I would love the draft pick but I also love Cutler sticking his middle finger to all the haters.

Seems like he's sticking his middle finger to Bears fans who would rather have a better draft position.  As a Packers fan, I think it'd be great if the Bears continue to win a few squeakers against other teams that aren't going anywhere.