NFL Thread 2019-2020

[jsglow]

This.  I turned the sound way, way down.

He was terrible.

[jficke13]

The announcers were atrocious.

[Spotcheck Billy]

Both calls were wrong.
As was the missed pass interference.
As was the missed 13 men on the field call earlier in the game.

The only reason not to investigate whether there were some Tim Donaghy-like shenanigans here is that no one would believe NFL officials are competent enough to pull that off.

Why didn't Detroit through a challenge flag instead of running another play after the missed PI call?

I also thought the Lions TD was ruled a TD prematurely but hey, we can replay it now.

[DegenerateDish]

My biggest beef with last night is umpire Jeff Rice can not make that call twice within 9 minutes of each other, and be wrong both times. That's not an overly interpretive call, it's fairly black/white when it comes to other penalties like PI or Roughing. The play is right in front of him, he's literally the closest official to the play, he didn't have to exert himself at all physically to be in a position to make those calls, and he was not overruled either time.

Both the Packers and Lions certainly have infamous instances of getting jobbed by officials (Megatron catch, Fail Mary in Seattle). NFL ignores technology improvements as has been mentioned here, it's frustrating as a football fan to watch that unfold like that last night, in what otherwise was a good divisional game.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Why didn't Detroit through a challenge flag instead of running another play after the missed PI call?

Because they simply aren't overturning calls on the field and coaches want to protect their ability to challenge and time-outs.  I have seen more blatant non-calls challenged, and they aren't being given.  Frankly, official review of PI has been the disaster that many predicted it would be.

[BM1090]

The rule states "It is a foul if an offensive blocker: Thrusts his hands forward above the frame of an opponent to contact him on the head, neck, or face."

IMO, he clearly has his hands on the neck here, pushing the helmet up. It's a penalty.

The other call was definitely bad.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Sorry but no.  That was a short instant in an otherwise longer engagement.  You can pretty much stop action on any NFL play and find a penalty if you looked hard enough. 

It was a bad call.

[Pakuni]

The rule states "It is a foul if an offensive blocker: Thrusts his hands forward above the frame of an opponent to contact him on the head, neck, or face."

IMO, he clearly has his hands on the neck here, pushing the helmet up. It's a penalty.

The other call was definitely bad.

From the 2019 NFL Rule Book, regarding defensive illegal use of hands to the face:

"Contact in close-line play is not a foul, unless it is direct and forcible, or prolonged."

At most, Flowers' hand slid upward and contacted the side of Bakhtiari's chin for a moment. It was not direct, forcible or prolonged.

[StillAWarrior]

The rule states "It is a foul if an offensive blocker..."

Ahem...

Unless, of course, you're trying to make a case that the offensive lineman should have been called since he got his hands in Flowers' case on both of the plays in question.

Rather, each of the plays should have been a no-call because neither the offensive nor defensive player made "forcible" contact (i.e., "direct and forcible, or prolonged").  See Rule 12-1-3(a) and 12-1-7

[jficke13]

I should not feel like I'm doing statutory analysis when watching a football game.

All of this parsing of the rule is terrible, regardless of whether the conclusion was that a flag should or shouldn't be thrown. The very fact that we're having this argument tells me the rulebook/rule-enforcement-regime has failed.

[MUBBau]

New go-to if anyone disagrees with me on this board going forward.

https://twitter.com/tae15adams/status/1184141813755584516

[mikekinsellaMVP]

Because they simply aren't overturning calls on the field and coaches want to protect their ability to challenge and time-outs.  I have seen more blatant non-calls challenged, and they aren't being given.  Frankly, official review of PI has been the disaster that many predicted it would be.

Mid-fourth quarter, two-point lead, a full allotment of timeouts, AR on the opposing sidelines, potential 40-yard pickup that puts you well within your kicker's FG range...

Even if Patricia's gun-shy based on what you said above, that's the spot where I take the gamble on that call.

[BM1090]

Ahem...

Unless, of course, you're trying to make a case that the offensive lineman should have been called since he got his hands in Flowers' case on both of the plays in question.

Rather, each of the plays should have been a no-call because neither the offensive nor defensive player made "forcible" contact (i.e., "direct and forcible, or prolonged").  See Rule 12-1-3(a) and 12-1-7

Not sure how I missed that. Thanks for correcting me.

[Uncle Rico]

Today’s players are simply too big and fast for the current group of referees.

The league ought to create an academy of officiating.  Each year, hundreds of players see their NFL dreams crater.  The league could offer a paid program to teach these guys how to officiate.

Given their youth and relative closeness to playing the game, it would inject football with officials more able to keep up with the speed of the game.

It could be a first step to full-time officials and replenish the college ranks with young, potentially upwardly-mobile officials.

Since it would cost the league and owners money out of their pockets, it’s probably a non-starter

[forgetful]

Ahem...

Unless, of course, you're trying to make a case that the offensive lineman should have been called since he got his hands in Flowers' case on both of the plays in question.

Rather, each of the plays should have been a no-call because neither the offensive nor defensive player made "forcible" contact (i.e., "direct and forcible, or prolonged").  See Rule 12-1-3(a) and 12-1-7

So what we know is that on the first call, the defensive player did "Thrusts his hands forward above the frame of an opponent to contact him on the head, neck, or face," consistent with illegal use of hands. But it becomes a judgement call if it was "forcible or direct". A judgement call made during live action from 5-10 yards away, in real time.

A judgement call that required announcers and experts slow motion replays to even see if he had his hands on shoulder pads or the neck.

Maybe, calls like that are hard to make in real time.

[GB Warrior]

Lost in all of this is that Rodgers, stats aside due to drops, played his best game in maybe 3+ years. That has to be encouraging for them.

[Pakuni]

So what we know is that on the first call, the defensive player did "Thrusts his hands forward above the frame of an opponent to contact him on the head, neck, or face," consistent with illegal use of hands. But it becomes a judgement call if it was "forcible or direct". A judgement call made during live action from 5-10 yards away, in real time.

A judgement call that required announcers and experts slow motion replays to even see if he had his hands on shoulder pads or the neck.

Maybe, calls like that are hard to make in real time.

No, Flowers did not thrust his hands up above the frame. If you watch the play in its entirety, rather than a snapshot, his hands were on Bakhtiari's shoulder pads for the majority of their engagement. His hands slid up slightly near the end of the play.

Yes, calls like that are hard to make. It being hard is no excuse for getting it wrong over and over again by highly paid professionals who are supposed to be the best on the planet at what they do.
Completing a pass in the NFL also is hard, but I don't think anyone is using that fact to defend Jameis Winston's performance on Sunday.

I'm really not getting some Packers' fans efforts to rationalize this. It was their turn last night to benefit from some bad calls. Given the current state of NFL officiating, the role almost certainly will be reversed at some point this season and the Packers will get hosed by bad calls. My guess is when that happens, Packers fans won't be justifying it because it's hard to get it right.

Edit: Just to note. as did StillAWarrior ... I'm not a fan of the Packers or Lions (or Bears or Vikings, for that matter). I had no fantasy or betting interest in the game's outcome. I just hate to see bad officiating decide - or significantly alter - games, as it did here.

[wadesworld]

Lost in all of this is that Rodgers, stats aside due to drops, played his best game in maybe 3+ years. That has to be encouraging for them.

This. He looked like the best QB in the NFL for the first time in the last 3 seasons.

And Jamal looked like a man possessed. He ran hard.

[StillAWarrior]

So what we know is that on the first call, the defensive player did "Thrusts his hands forward above the frame of an opponent to contact him on the head, neck, or face," consistent with illegal use of hands. But it becomes a judgement call if it was "forcible or direct". A judgement call made during live action from 5-10 yards away, in real time.

A judgement call that required announcers and experts slow motion replays to even see if he had his hands on shoulder pads or the neck.

Maybe, calls like that are hard to make in real time.

Honestly, I don't disagree; it's not an easy call to make.  But it is an odd call.  Particularly where the rule specifically says, "Contact in close-line play is not a foul, unless it is direct and forcible, or prolonged."  Note it is "forcible and direct, or prolonged" -- not "forcible or direct."  But the rule seems to make it pretty clear that except in unusual cases, it's not to be called in "close-line play."  I don't think that this was an unusual circumstance.  There's contact pretty much like that on most extended blocking engagement.  Like, for example, the contact that the offensive lineman made with Flowers' face on the two plays in question.

For the record, I'm not particularly a fan of either team, but was rooting for the Packers last night for fantasy reasons.  This isn't an anti-Packers thing.

[forgetful]

Honestly, I don't disagree; it's not an easy call to make.  But it is an odd call.  Particularly where the rule specifically says, "Contact in close-line play is not a foul, unless it is direct and forcible, or prolonged."  Note it is "forcible and direct, or prolonged" -- not "forcible or direct."  But the rule seems to make it pretty clear that except in unusual cases, it's not to be called in "close-line play."  I don't think that this was an unusual circumstance.  There's contact pretty much like that on most extended blocking engagement.  Like, for example, the contact that the offensive lineman made with Flowers' face on the two plays in question.

For the record, I'm not particularly a fan of either team, but was rooting for the Packers last night for fantasy reasons.  This isn't an anti-Packers thing.

The forcible, direct or prolonged (I left that one out, because it was clearly not the case here), is too vague, honestly. The same language is used for hits to the QBs head and other plays. In the Packers game last week, Gary brushed Dak's helmet, didn't even hit him, was called for it. I've seen several calls against O-lineman similar to what was called against Flowers this week.

It usually doesn't get as much attention, because it is usually not followed by big game changing plays, and the announcer doesn't usually fixate on it in slow motion.

The judgmental calls like this (and PI) are just too hard in real time. I wonder if we sometimes see flurries of calls like this, because it was a point of emphasis in a recent officials meeting.

[StillAWarrior]

The forcible, direct or prolonged (I left that one out, because it was clearly not the case here), is too vague, honestly. The same language is used for hits to the QBs head and other plays. In the Packers game last week, Gary brushed Dak's helmet, didn't even hit him, was called for it. I've seen several calls against O-lineman similar to what was called against Flowers this week.

It usually doesn't get as much attention, because it is usually not followed by big game changing plays, and the announcer doesn't usually fixate on it in slow motion.

But I think that the more important part of that phrase is the "contact in close-line play is not a foul..." The general rule is that it's not a foul, and the other language ("forcible and direct, or prolonged") is for those unusual cases when an exception should be made.  There was nothing exceptional about either of those plays.  They were absolutely typical line play where both players made brief contact with the others' face.

While I agree with you that the use of similar language in the QB rule shows that the rules are vague, everyone knows that the level of protection given to QBs is extreme.  I'm not defending the call in the Packer's game last week -- in fact, I haven't seen it -- but they are being very protective of QBs.  That isn't the case for linemen.  Perhaps one could argue that they same language should be interpreted the same way in both cases, but it's not.  And if it was, there should have been offsetting penalties on the two Flowers' plays last night.

The judgmental calls like this (and PI) are just too hard in real time. I wonder if we sometimes see flurries of calls like this, because it was a point of emphasis in a recent officials meeting.

I agree.  However, I don't recall a recent flurry of such calls in the trenches (although I admittedly didn't watch too many game this past weekend).  Just two calls against the same player late in a single game.  And in both cases, the contact by the offensive player was comparable (at least) to the contact by the defensive player.  To me, they just seemed like unusual calls.

[injuryBug]

my guess is someone on the packers sideline said to the refs the Lions Dline have had their hands in our face all game can watch for it.  Slow motion always makes the calls easier.
At full speed hard to tell Refs have keys to watch for when you see a linemen's head jerk back that might be a key.

I agree 100% they should have an academy for refs.  I started reffing HS games recently and it is not an easy gig. 

[BM1090]

Rodgers was excellent in all of 2016 for the first 5 games of 2017. He really only "struggled" last year.

Agreed that he was great last night. Definitely his best game of the year.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Not only am not sure that was Rodgers best game this season (that might have been Minnesota), I know he was clearly better during last year's season opener v. the Bears.  He also had some real good games last year, but the season was a disaster by that point.

[jesmu84]

https://www.barstoolsports.com/barstoolu/rumors-flying-massive-wagers-keep-being-placed-on-games-officiated-by-crew-from-packers-lions-games-last-night