FairWarning
Footballguy
Sounds like a Stafford-type, and he won a SB.
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.
Blown Call At End Of Lions-Cowboys Game - Ref Crew Apparently Pulled From Playoffs Per Thread (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter rockaction
- Start date
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Stafford’s much more athletic than Goff. He can move around a bit. I’ve even seen him truck DBs in the open field. Stafford also has a Marino/Mahomes level arm.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Of course, I don't think I've ever indicated otherwise.
rockaction
Footballguy
Somehow the story about Stafford being an average quarterback got cemented into public consciousness and nobody really talks about the Detroit dysfunction around him for his time there.
Detroit isn't even close to dysfunctional now, but it was back then. Stafford's career numbers and impact on his team will always be skewed because of it.
Ironically it kind of feels like the lions are SuperBowl team if they just kept stafford around...
rockaction
Footballguy
Yeah, there's a ton of irony there, but they'd have to be paying Stafford a whole lot more than they're paying Goff.
In addition to that, there were some front office changes that played a significant role in Detroit's resurgence. I'm not sure that structure was in place when Stafford left, and neither side could have known what was to come. Detroit fans like Bobby Layne know better than I about the timeline and actual structural changes, so I'll defer to them on the matter.
The Stafford trade netted the Lions Goff, Jamo, Gibbs, LaPorta, and Melifonwu. So no chance they are a Super Bowl contender.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
Plus it was Stafford that wanted to leave.
FairWarning
Footballguy
If Detroit makes the SB, that is 2 appearances for Goff, can’t be that bad.
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
- Brad Holmes, 2023
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
Good Lord
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
It would be amazing if jon could string together a handful of posts demonstrating the ability to see things from the perspective of the Dallas defense. Maybe 3 posts in a row. That would be nice.Good Lord
It would be amazing if jon could string together a handful of posts demonstrating the ability to see things from the perspective of the Dallas defense. Maybe 3 posts in a row. That would be nice.Good Lord
Oh I understand that the Dallas defense would have gotten screwed. Bit I also understand how requirement documents work as I have written many. You never use 'will' to describe a requirement as it is considered as information only.
Football Jones
Footballguy
Goff got run out off town in LA (by Stafford) so the Rams could have a legit chance in their window. It's exactly what should happen in Detroit, only Hooker is the likely successor this time.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
It would be amazing if jon could string together a handful of posts demonstrating the ability to see things from the perspective of the Dallas defense. Maybe 3 posts in a row. That would be nice.Good Lord
Oh I understand that the Dallas defense would have gotten screwed. Bit I also understand how requirement documents work as I have written many. You never use 'will' to describe a requirement as it is considered as information only.
You're definitely a bit blinded by homerism on this whole situation, but I do agree with you that the rules were very poorly worded (and the whole procedure of looking at the ref and rubbing your jersey is silly) and will absolutely have to be updated in the offseason.
Football Jones
Footballguy
Goff simply isn't good enough & given the chance, he'll keep Detroit from capitalizing on their window. Maybe another QB doesn't get it done, either, but Goff certainly isn't going to.
I'm curious when they pull the trigger (this offseason or next).
I'm curious when they pull the trigger (this offseason or next).
You are right that it was for information. However, the ref did not get 68 as reporting so according to the ref he did not report. To the ref making the announcement the only player that reported was #70 (doesn't matter if he didn't actually report but that is who the ref deemed reported and announced it accordingly). So how the rules are written are irrelevant in the outcome. A player reported as eligible. The ref announced the player he believed had reported. Therefore, at that time, that player (#70) was the only eligible player. Nothing else matters.It would be amazing if jon could string together a handful of posts demonstrating the ability to see things from the perspective of the Dallas defense. Maybe 3 posts in a row. That would be nice.Good Lord
Oh I understand that the Dallas defense would have gotten screwed. Bit I also understand how requirement documents work as I have written many. You never use 'will' to describe a requirement as it is considered as information only.
markrc99
Footballguy
Below links to the recent release from the league regarding the reporting requirements as well as the play in question. I believe others have already cited it, if it's been posted I apologize for not seeing it. To me it lends itself to what we should have seen. But to the point of reporting, it shows what Skipper did on a previous play & then what he does on the play in dispute. The hand signaling is the same, but the verbal requirement does not appear to have been met. Decker's hand signal, which doesn't meet the official threshold, is not what Brad Allen was recognizing from Skipper. I feel that the bludgeoning of Allen in social media is grossly unfair!
Going back, Campbell said he was told, either post-play or post-game that you can't have two players reporting on the same play. I think that may have been misinterpreted in here. I think the officials, unfortunately & after the fact, told Campbell that you can't have two players making half-*** attempts or even legit attempts at reporting & then expect us to inform the defense only of the one you want... Anyway, of much greater interest to me is that on this replay we see fully what Allen does after informing the defense. He returns back to the same spot he was at, maybe 20' away from the huddle. It could NOT have been any easier for Goff, Decker or Skipper to tell Allen there has been a mistake.
With respect to Goff, to me, he doesn't take command of the situation. A real leader goes to Allen, worst case, he's rebuffed. Then you switch Skipper's role with Decker's. You line up, plenty of time for all of this, then you look back to your sideline for an on/off. Two out of three are down. Off is off, I don't know is off. That he ran this play would've been inexcusable had ... Decker dropped the ball. If that had been the outcome instead, we wouldn't even know Brad Allen's name. In that scenario we'd be talking about what we should be talking about anyway. WhyTF did they run that play & why didn't anybody go to Allen?
rockaction
Footballguy
There's a doctrine of law in tort law called contributory negligence. Contributory negligence is when a plaintiff has been involved in a situation where the defendant has been shown to have breached a duty of care that led to the plaintiff's injury, yet that plaintiff is also responsible for not acting prudently or wisely given the situation at hand. In some cases, the plaintiff will have been said to have contributed to his own injuries, and the damages claim will proceed thusly, with the plaintiff accepting a portion of the damages as his own fault and leaving the defendant to only pay some set portion of the damages.
This sounds a bit like that.
This sounds a bit like that.
You are right that it was for information. However, the ref did not get 68 as reporting so according to the ref he did not report. To the ref making the announcement the only player that reported was #70 (doesn't matter if he didn't actually report but that is who the ref deemed reported and announced it accordingly). So how the rules are written are irrelevant in the outcome. A player reported as eligible. The ref announced the player he believed had reported. Therefore, at that time, that player (#70) was the only eligible player. Nothing else matters.It would be amazing if jon could string together a handful of posts demonstrating the ability to see things from the perspective of the Dallas defense. Maybe 3 posts in a row. That would be nice.Good Lord
Oh I understand that the Dallas defense would have gotten screwed. Bit I also understand how requirement documents work as I have written many. You never use 'will' to describe a requirement as it is considered as information only.
True, except the female ref came in and said she had 68 reporting in, but was over ruled by the head ref. But in the end, it comes down to what the head ref decides.
Sounds fair. I would find the refs at least 75 percent at fault and award the Lions 1.5 points.
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
I’ve seen you write this several times, I haven’t seen it anywhere else. Do you have a reliable link?
Bankerguy
Footballguy
You are right that it was for information. However, the ref did not get 68 as reporting so according to the ref he did not report. To the ref making the announcement the only player that reported was #70 (doesn't matter if he didn't actually report but that is who the ref deemed reported and announced it accordingly). So how the rules are written are irrelevant in the outcome. A player reported as eligible. The ref announced the player he believed had reported. Therefore, at that time, that player (#70) was the only eligible player. Nothing else matters.It would be amazing if jon could string together a handful of posts demonstrating the ability to see things from the perspective of the Dallas defense. Maybe 3 posts in a row. That would be nice.Good Lord
Oh I understand that the Dallas defense would have gotten screwed. Bit I also understand how requirement documents work as I have written many. You never use 'will' to describe a requirement as it is considered as information only.
True, except the female ref came in and said she had 68 reporting in, but was over ruled by the head ref. But in the end, it comes down to what the head ref decides.
Is there a link for this?
abrunn1133
Footballguy
IMO, the only thing that matters is whether or not the Cowboys were informed that #68 was eligible. If they were, then this directly cost the Lions the win. If they were not, then nobody knows if the result of the play would have been the same if the Cowboys were aware.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
The easiest way for the conversion play to go off without a hitch was for 68 (and only 68) to approach and report to the ref. Paraphrasing, Campbell essentially said he had no interest in that, as it would have tipped off the Cowboys to what they were doing. He said he didn't hear the announcement that only 70 was declared eligible over the stadium loudspeaker, but when asked if he considered talking to the ref standing right next to him, he again said he wouldn't have done that, as that, too, would alert the Cowboys as to what they were doing. When he elaborated further, he said the lead up to the play and having 3 linemen go toward the ref was intended to confuse the Cowboys. Bottom line, it appears the Lions were perfectly happy running a play that wasn't fair or on the up and up. They were quick to claim the 2 points and could care less whether Dallas got a fair shake on the play. They essentially took the stance of "not our problem" when 68 was not announced as eligible.
If the Lions only had 68 alone approach the ref and report as eligible, the play would lose the element of surprise and likely wouldn't work. We don't know that for certain, but it's a safe bet that 68 would have been covered, and the Lions would have needed someone else to get open. Once 70 was declared as the only eligible player, whether another official thought 68 had reported as eligible made absolutely no difference. As Dean Blandino explained, once the ball was snapped, there was no possible way within the rules to undo the play. The only way the Lions were cheated out of 2 points would be to admit that the Cowboys were cheated by not being informed about 68 being eligible.
You are right that it was for information. However, the ref did not get 68 as reporting so according to the ref he did not report. To the ref making the announcement the only player that reported was #70 (doesn't matter if he didn't actually report but that is who the ref deemed reported and announced it accordingly). So how the rules are written are irrelevant in the outcome. A player reported as eligible. The ref announced the player he believed had reported. Therefore, at that time, that player (#70) was the only eligible player. Nothing else matters.It would be amazing if jon could string together a handful of posts demonstrating the ability to see things from the perspective of the Dallas defense. Maybe 3 posts in a row. That would be nice.Good Lord
Oh I understand that the Dallas defense would have gotten screwed. Bit I also understand how requirement documents work as I have written many. You never use 'will' to describe a requirement as it is considered as information only.
True, except the female ref came in and said she had 68 reporting in, but was over ruled by the head ref. But in the end, it comes down to what the head ref decides.
Is there a link for this?
Here
Was the female ref an authorized representative to report to? She may have came in and said 68 was in an eligible position based on where he lined up (which he was) but if you only report to the head ref and he didn't acknowledge 68 is eligible then he wasn't eligible. Doesn't matter if the female ref thought otherwise.
However, I am not aware of the reporting rules to the extent of whether or not a player can report to multiple officials or just the head official. Seems like that it is only the head official that has reporting/announcing responsibilities.
rockaction
Footballguy
I DO NOT WANT ANYONE TO TAKE THIS AS SEXIST
That female referee makes so many bad calls during the year it's astounding. They're always covering for her spots and false start flags. It's terrible. She's terrible. Yes, she's under more scrutiny because she stands out as female.
I don't care. I watch. She's awful. She must go.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
Bet?
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
I've been clear from the beginning that I don't think this play cost the Lions the game. But the above is ridiculous. There was nothing "unfair" about what the Lions did. They were acting within the rules in an effort to throw Dallas off the scent. Maybe they got too cute. Maybe it wouldn't have worked anyway. But it's no less "on the up and up" than a fake punt or a play-action pass.
There's also something I think people are missing about the play call that both explains what Detroit was trying to do and why Allen may have gotten it wrong, and it has nothing to do with any actions by Decker or Skipper. Normally, when you bring in an extra lineman, he declares himself eligible. And indeed, Skipper had already done that earlier in the game. The whole idea was that Detroit would bring in the extra lineman but have someone else be the ER, and hope the alignment confused Dallas for long enough for Decker to get open. Again, maybe the Cowboys would still have sniffed it out. But it wasn't simply a case of hoping they didn't hear the number.
And what I suspect (but can't prove) is that when Allen saw Skipper running on the field and in his direction, he just jumped to the conclusion that he was the ER, which is why he started walking away toward the Dallas huddle before Skipper even got to him
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Let’s try this again. The Cowboys were informed that only 70 was eligible. The Lions completed the pass to 68. Yet the Lions wanted the play to stand, which blatantly was unfair to Dallas. The Cowboys covered the players they were told to cover.
The media should ask Campbell if the play as it went off was fair to the Cowboys. The follow-up question should be if the same thing happened to the Lions and their opponent was awarded points by a player that wasn’t eligible if he would be fine with it.
That’s the thing that irks me about this. The Lions and their fans have been acting like they had the game won and were cheated, but the first conversion attempt was not a fair play and would never have counted. Once 70 was announced as eligible there was a 0% chance that the play would count. They didn’t deserve a penalty, but they didn’t deserve the points either. No one knows what would have happened if the play was run with 68 as eligible.
The media should ask Campbell if the play as it went off was fair to the Cowboys. The follow-up question should be if the same thing happened to the Lions and their opponent was awarded points by a player that wasn’t eligible if he would be fine with it.
That’s the thing that irks me about this. The Lions and their fans have been acting like they had the game won and were cheated, but the first conversion attempt was not a fair play and would never have counted. Once 70 was announced as eligible there was a 0% chance that the play would count. They didn’t deserve a penalty, but they didn’t deserve the points either. No one knows what would have happened if the play was run with 68 as eligible.
kutta
Footballguy
I don’t think there are many Lions fans, myself included, who say that the Lions should have been awarded the win. But all Lions fans, and all football fans, should agree that the Lions most likely got robbed of the CHANCE for the win because the refs screwed up.
Yes, there’s all kinds of caveats. The Lions maybe could have recognized the refs messed up and tried to correct it. They should have kicked it from the 7. They should have kicked it from the 4. They shouldn’t have tried to “trick” the Cowboys. Whatever.
We will just never know what would have happened had the refs not called the wrong guy eligible (to which I think most sane people agree). But that also means the Lions lost a legit CHANCE to win the game because the refs messed up.
Thats it.
STEADYMOBBIN 22
Footballguy
Which scenario increases the chance of winning the game:
A - Lions attempt to confuse the Cowboys with subterfuge
B - Lions make no efforts to cause confusion and run the play as routinely performed
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
Totally agree. There was no way to "fix" this once #70 was announced as eligible. The play as it was run wasn't fair to Dallas. They didn't know they had to cover #68.
Fortunately, the Lions had two more chances to score, including one from that line of scrimmage. It wasn't fair to them because they didn't get the trick play they wanted, either. But two more chances means the mistake didn't have to be the end of the story.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Seems like the play as routinely performed involves trying to confuse the defense, just like most other offensive plays run in the NFL every week. Here is perhaps a better dichotomy - which scenario increases a team's chances of winning the game:
A - Running the play you've been practicing and saving for a situation just like this, or
B - Having the play you've been practicing and saving for a situation just like this screwed up by an official's mistake?
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Still think the most absurd part of this whole situation is Cowboys fans' reluctance to admit the officials screwed up. They just have to find a way to make this primarily the Lions fault somehow. Reads like insecurity (which I guess makes sense given Dak's playoff history).
STEADYMOBBIN 22
Footballguy
You couldn’t answer the question.
STEADYMOBBIN 22
Footballguy
Of corse the refs screwed up. The Lions however contributed to the confusion and had they not, the Lions would have been able to run a play that the Cowboys were sniffing out already.
Yes, Cowboys fans are super insecure that some dude we’ve never met named Dak Prescott might not play well in a playoff game. You got us.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
As pointed out, it was a poorly constructed question, but if you're asking generally which is more effective on offense:
A - trying to confuse the defense
B - not trying to confuse the defense
I think everyone would agree A gives you a better chance of succeeding. That's why every NFL offense does it.
STEADYMOBBIN 22
Footballguy
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Perhaps you have me confused with a Lions fan? I have no dog in this fight, I'm just annoyed with bad officiating ruining otherwise great games. I'm sorry your homerism is preventing you from having a rational discussion about the situation.
jabarony
Footballguy
Some of you cowboys fans are very strange. The discussion is that the refs blew the game-defining 2pt call (and won’t admit it).
Blaming the Lions, defending the refs, saying the cowboys would have stopped them anyways, bringing up other ref errors to justify the last one, etc. all very weird. The refs, seemingly mostly the head ref, 100% did not do his job.
Blaming the Lions, defending the refs, saying the cowboys would have stopped them anyways, bringing up other ref errors to justify the last one, etc. all very weird. The refs, seemingly mostly the head ref, 100% did not do his job.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
I, for one, am absolutely astounded that the Lions tried to employ SUBTERFUGE on offense! Is there even any precedent for such a thing? This is a gentleman's game, how dare they attempt deception to gain an advantage?
- Cowboys homers on the board, inexplicably pretending that the concept of a trick play was invented by Dan Campbell last week
- Cowboys homers on the board, inexplicably pretending that the concept of a trick play was invented by Dan Campbell last week
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
Noone has done that
Cowboys fans have pointed out that some Lions fans think the win was stolen from them. That if the correct announcement was made that they would have won anyway. That’s not a given
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
I'll see your denial with a similar denial - I haven't seen any Lions fans say that.
Again, as a dispassionate observer, what I have seen are Lions fans be (understandably) upset that the ref's mistake screwed up the opportunity to run the play they wanted to execute in that spot. It seems they mostly all acknowledge that in spite of this, they had multiple other chances to win the game that they failed to execute, that the refs also missed calls that would have benefitted the Cowboys, that this single play is not the reason they lost, etc. But it makes sense that Lions fans would be upset about the ref's mistake. That's what sports fandom is like, especially in the heat of the moment.
The part that doesn't make sense to me is Cowboys fans' insistence on pinning the blame on the Lions for the mistake. As far as I can tell in the limited conversations I've had about it (I could be wrong), most neutral observers are generally in agreement that this was first and foremost poor officiating; that the outcome of this particular play (not the entire game) was negatively impacted by a referee's error. It seems to be (again, I could be wrong) only Cowboys fans who are trying to find ways to absolve the ref and make this the Lions fault, as if they need that to legitimize the win or something. The Cowboys won, I think they probably still would have won if this mistake never happened. I think we all just wish this mistake (and other mistakes by the refs) never happened so we could've seen how the game would have played out naturally.
So that's the part I'm stuck on, why does it seem to be so important to Cowboys fans that the blame be placed on the Lions for the error? Just a quick scroll through the thread shows this being referred to as "shenanigans," "chicanery," "subterfuge," etc. which is silly. We're all adults who have probably been watching football for decades, there was nothing especially unusual about the deceptive nature of this play. We don't need to pretend that the Lions were trying something so absurd and unprecedented that the refs couldn't possibly have been expected to get it right. They wanted to run a trick play and that opportunity got blown up by an official making a mistake.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
I don't really care who won. Almost a week later, there are still articles / blog posts / YouTube videos coming out rehashing how the Lions were deprived of a victory. The comments on those have hundreds of people saying DET won the game, and the refs stole a W. Around Detroit, there are billboards that list the Lions record each week. Someone has painted over the 11-5 with 12-4 instead. For the 10th time, no one knows what would have happened if the play had gone off as designed. Like everyone else, I have no idea who would have gone on to win the game. I'm not picking sides or awarding a win to either team, I'm just saying the outcome would still be in question. As a football fan, it sukks that we didn't get to see what would have happened.
I struggled to come up with a similar analogy. The closest I could come up with was a basketball example. Say there were a seconds left with the home team with the ball down by a point. In live action and the clock running, one of their players dribbles the ball up court, but another player on offensive runs AWAY from the basket toward a ref at the sideline. He starts to raise his hands as players do to make a T with his hands but then doesn't (and doesn't say anything to the ref). Meanwhile, the player with the ball starts to drive to the basket. As the player with the ball gets to the free throw line, the ref blows his whistle and awards a time out with barely any time left on the game clock. The defense hears the whistle and lets up and makes very little attempt to stop the player with the ball, and that player shoots a layup that goes in. The crowd goes wild, and the home team and their fans start celebrating.
What would happen in that situation? The home team would say they never actually called timeout and did that intentionally to confuse the defense. But the ref awarded timeout, the basket would be wiped out, and the home team would get the ball at half court still down a point with a fraction of a second on the game clock. The home team would argue they had the player do that by design, he never asked for a timeout, and the basket should count. The visiting team would say they heard a whistle, so they stopped playing. The refs would say the play was dead at that point. In this case, the home team did not break any rules, they executed the play they had drawn up to confuse the defense, and, in their mind, they ended up making a basket to win the game.
I'm sure many people will say "well that's completely different," but in a lot of ways it's not. Technically, the ref screwed up, but if the player didn't run to the ref seemingly to call timeout, then no timeout would have been granted. Similarly, if the player didn't do that, we have no idea if the other player would have been able to advance to the basket and make the layup.
On the Lions 2-point conversion attempt, if 68 was the only player to approach the ref and declare his eligibility, he would have been announced as eligible, and the play could have been run without potential disruption. But the Lions didn't want to do that. That doesn't mean the refs didn't muck it up, but it opens up the possibility of miscommunication when there didn't need to be any.
I struggled to come up with a similar analogy. The closest I could come up with was a basketball example. Say there were a seconds left with the home team with the ball down by a point. In live action and the clock running, one of their players dribbles the ball up court, but another player on offensive runs AWAY from the basket toward a ref at the sideline. He starts to raise his hands as players do to make a T with his hands but then doesn't (and doesn't say anything to the ref). Meanwhile, the player with the ball starts to drive to the basket. As the player with the ball gets to the free throw line, the ref blows his whistle and awards a time out with barely any time left on the game clock. The defense hears the whistle and lets up and makes very little attempt to stop the player with the ball, and that player shoots a layup that goes in. The crowd goes wild, and the home team and their fans start celebrating.
What would happen in that situation? The home team would say they never actually called timeout and did that intentionally to confuse the defense. But the ref awarded timeout, the basket would be wiped out, and the home team would get the ball at half court still down a point with a fraction of a second on the game clock. The home team would argue they had the player do that by design, he never asked for a timeout, and the basket should count. The visiting team would say they heard a whistle, so they stopped playing. The refs would say the play was dead at that point. In this case, the home team did not break any rules, they executed the play they had drawn up to confuse the defense, and, in their mind, they ended up making a basket to win the game.
I'm sure many people will say "well that's completely different," but in a lot of ways it's not. Technically, the ref screwed up, but if the player didn't run to the ref seemingly to call timeout, then no timeout would have been granted. Similarly, if the player didn't do that, we have no idea if the other player would have been able to advance to the basket and make the layup.
On the Lions 2-point conversion attempt, if 68 was the only player to approach the ref and declare his eligibility, he would have been announced as eligible, and the play could have been run without potential disruption. But the Lions didn't want to do that. That doesn't mean the refs didn't muck it up, but it opens up the possibility of miscommunication when there didn't need to be any.
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
That's not a terrible analogy, but now imagine that prior to the game, the coach met with the officials and informed them that they had this trick play up their sleeve and would likely run it in such a situation, specifically to avoid the exact issue that a referee would get confused and blow the whistle erroneously.
None of us were present for that discussion so obviously I have no proof that this happened, but Campbell claims that it did and it seems extremely plausible. And when I consider it in that light, Occam's razor leads me to believe that this was a huge miss on the part of the referee.
