Ilov80s
Footballguy
Lions covered 27 yards in 8 seconds last year to get a play off. No doubt the run off cost them a play.
https://twitter.com/lions/status/912074374773080069
https://twitter.com/lions/status/912074374773080069
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Atlanta at Detroit (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Maurile Tremblay
- Start date
bigmarc27
Footballguy
What does one play last year have to do with today? Golden Tate could have spent 5 seconds arguing he got in before handing the ball back.
The rule isn’t new and it was applied properly.
bigmarc27
Footballguy
Also I see a lot of people saying he wasn’t down...
https://i.redd.it/5n4mymjd7wnz.jpg
He was down... and short of the line.
https://i.redd.it/5n4mymjd7wnz.jpg
He was down... and short of the line.
Insein
Footballguy
If you watch the moving video it doesn't look like he ever was down. That one still shot looks like it but it's an optical illusion cause of the angle.
bigmarc27
Footballguy
Also, i don’t want the previous two posts to seem like I’m gloating. I like the Lions and hate that the game ended in that fashion, but I don’t think there’s much room for interpretation.
He was down as the picture shows, the rule is in the book that all teams to agree to play under, and it was applied correctly across the board.
He was down as the picture shows, the rule is in the book that all teams to agree to play under, and it was applied correctly across the board.
bigmarc27
Footballguy
I mean, I don’t have a response to that. He clearly looks down. I don’t understand how you think you can get a better idea through a moving view than a still shot. His knee is on the ground, what’s the illusion?
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Ilov80s
Footballguy
The point was it is very likely Detroit could have ran another play since some were saying it wouldn't have been possible.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
bigmarc27
Footballguy
The main intent was to keep an offense from gaming the clock to get extra timeouts - normally by faking injuries to stop the clock. It’s why teams have to use a TO if a player gets injured in the final two minutes. If Detroit had a TO remaining, there would not have been a run off.
bigmarc27
Footballguy
Because the play ended in bounds, it was under two minutes, and Detroit didn’t have a TO, so all stoppages require a 10 second run off.
Ive got no issue with someone disagreeing with the rule, but it’s been a rule for awhile and it was interpreted and applied properly. Maybe the offseason adds an amendment on TD reviews. Of course if the play ends in bounds, I feel like the defense would be screwed s bit if it were reverse applied.
Last edited by a moderator:
joeski
Footballguy
I understand what you are saying but I don't agree. And I know that doesn't matter. To end a game because of a league review rule is not right and never will be. My opinion not NFL rules.
msudaisy26
Footballguy
I have no dog in this fight, but how do you punish a team (10 second run off)when the refs got it wrong and replay corrected it. You go to the replay and wind the clock when the ref signals it for play. How can the NFL mess up the simplest crap every time. Remember the Justin Forsett run on Thanksgiving? If you throw a challenge flag on a play that is going to be reviewed anyways then we will no longer review it. Who the hell thinks up rules like this?
Rick James
Footballguy
You'd be punishing Atlanta then by essentially gifting Detroit a 4th timeoutmsudaisy26 said:
TartanLion
Footballguy
Meh. Not gonna argue if it was right or wrong, buts hardly a shock either way. Lions fans are just used to it. I think I decided I'd try to never be angry again after a Seahawk batted the ball out of the endzone and the refs forgot to give a 1st down at the 1 yard line and just ended the game. If only what had transpired in the Steelers/Bears game today had transpired back then in 2015.
Last edited by a moderator:
msudaisy26
Footballguy
Big difference, they get to benefit from the time out too. The problem is if it is called correctly the Lions get another play off.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
Someone on the radio mentioned that the Lions biggest and longest rivalry isn't with any team but with the refs & replay officials.
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
Honestly it doesn't even hurt or shock anymore. It's expected, inevitable, weird stuff happens and you just shrug your shoulders and say "Of course."
This team needs to be tough and just say screw you world, we're not looking for excuses & we're good enough to overcome all this b.s.
#detroitvesuseverybody
We're on to Minnesota.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
AAABatteries
Footballguy
Insein
Footballguy
AAABatteries
Footballguy
Would you change your mind if there was 2 seconds left when he was down? 4? They have to cut if off somewhere and I'm guessing 10 is the average for a hurry up offense to get the next play off.msudaisy26 said:
Insein
Footballguy
No. Refs make official timeouts for other things. This rule will be changed in the off-season I'd imagine.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
I'm not sure why - somebody is getting screwed either way - it sucks for the Lions but I'm not sure I would change it.
Insein
Footballguy
If there's a 4th quarter drive with 10 seconds left and the offense gets to within inches of the first, they will stop the clock to measure. The offense can then get lined up and ready to go before they wind it again. It's essentially another timeout.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
I'm not arguing with you what the rules are - I'm saying I like the rule and don't like this one (assuming what you state is accuarate). I don't see any reason to change it.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
They don't even get it right half the time because there often isn't a right call, it's very subjective at times.
msudaisy26
Footballguy
No one is getting screwed if they don't run the clock out. If the play was called correctly the Lions get another play off, the Falcons get the same advantage of the time out.
Instead Atlanta got all the advantage of not having to play defense on 4th down from the 1/2 yard line.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
AAABatteries
Footballguy
If there had been 2 seconds left the Falcons would have absolutely gotten screwed - its only an argument because there was 8 seconds.
msudaisy26
Footballguy
Why is it so hard to realize that both teams benefit from the time out? This wasn't a player injured or faking an injury, this wasn't a penalty on either team. These reviews happen all the time and basically award extra timeouts throughout the game and no one bats an eye, why now.
Think about it this way, what if they ruled him down? The Lions rush to the line to get another play off and the booth stops the play for a review, the call on the field is confirmed and they run 10 seconds off. They were never going to her another play no matter how it was ruled on the field and what the replay showed and thst is a huge problem.
Think about it this way, what if they ruled him down? The Lions rush to the line to get another play off and the booth stops the play for a review, the call on the field is confirmed and they run 10 seconds off. They were never going to her another play no matter how it was ruled on the field and what the replay showed and thst is a huge problem.
msudaisy26
Footballguy
And if there was 30 seconds left therr would be nothing to talk about. There wasn't 2 seconds.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
You can't be serious with this - in what Universe do the Falcons benefit from a timeout? You know how I can prove you are wrong - they won the game yesterday when there was no timeout - if there was a timeout then there's a chance they would have lost. I completely get people saying they don't like the rule but to say a timeout benefits both teams is just bull####. And that was with 8 seconds - like I said, If there was 2 seconds then it would have been even worse.
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
We’re on to Minnesota.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
Yeah, games don't end until they end - it's kind of important to handle things differently at the end of games.
msudaisy26
Footballguy
There wasn't 2 seconds, quit saying it. You are right a timeout doesn't benefit both teams, that is why defenses never call timeouts.
msudaisy26
Footballguy
Do you not realize how messed up that rule is? No matter what the play was called the Lion's never got to run another play. That is a massive problem. Here are the 4 scenarios
The play is called a touchdown, the replay confirms touchdown or says ruling on the field stands.
The play is called a touchdown, the replay reverses the touchdown, and despite common sense telling everyone in the world that the Lions could have gotten off another play off, they run the time off and the Falcons win without actually having to make a play.
The play is called down by contact at the 1/2 yard line, the Lions rush to the line and get ready to get a play off, and the ref stops the play because he is buzzed from the booth for a review. The play is reversed and ruled a touchdown
The play is called down by contact at the 1/2 yard line, the Lions rush to the line and get ready to get a play off, and the ref stops the play because he is buzzed from the booth for a review. The play is upheld and despite the Lions rushing to the line to get a 4th down play off the just run off the clock and the Lions never get a chance.
Do you really not see the problem here? You are really worried about a phantom extra timeout, instead of the fact that no matter what happened the Lions would never get to run a 4th down play or any team for that matter if it is close to the goal line with under 10 seconds left. It is stupid and needs to be changed.
Last edited by a moderator:
AAABatteries
Footballguy
We are discussing the rule generally - you said the Falcons don't get screwed if a timeout is called - that is demonstrably proven wrong. If you want them to change the rule I'm fine with that - it's a gray rule anyway - but there's no denying the rule can screw the defense if there's no 10 second run off. Whether it would have screwed the Falcons specifically yesterday I don't know but it doesn't matter.There wasn't 2 seconds, quit saying it. You are right a timeout doesn't benefit both teams, that is why defenses never call timeouts.
Last edited by a moderator:
msudaisy26
Footballguy
I can't believe I have to defend the Lions and you don't get this. The Falcons didn't get screwed, in anyway, even with the timeout. They can rest players during that timeout, sub in players. It benefits them too. What they did get was to not even have to play defense on the final play because of a dumb rule. They had to do nothing, let alone over come the massive disadvantage of a phantom timeout.
The NFL and their rules basically said we messed up the call here Atlanta you win, just because, but please tell us how they would have been the one screwed over by this timeout for a review.
Last edited by a moderator:
AAABatteries
Footballguy
msudaisy26
Footballguy
You don't see a problem with stealing a play from a team to determine a game?
You have to be trolling, good day.
Last edited by a moderator:
AAABatteries
Footballguy
Let me try this one last time - I'm discussing this rule generically. In your scenario where there's always a timeout the Falcons would have been screwed if there was only 2 seconds as the Lions get to run a play they wouldn't have gotten to otherwise. I acknowledge the Lions got screwed if they could have gotten the play off but I'm ok with that because in my view somebody is going to get screwed in that scenario.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
AAABatteries
Footballguy
@msudaisy26 - I'm not trolling and the NFL rules committee isn't trolling either - for now at least they agree with me.
