Blown Call At End Of Lions-Cowboys Game - Ref Crew Apparently Pulled From Playoffs Per Thread (1 Viewer)

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I haven't seen any Lions fans say that.

There are BILLBOARDS SAYING EXACTLY THAT

I haven't seen any.

That's missing the heart of my point, however. It's not surprising to me that some Lions fan in Detroit spraypainted a billboard indicating he believes the Lions were robbed of a victory or whatever. I don't agree with that guy, but it doesn't seem unusual to me that a passionate Lions fan might feel that way. It does seem unusual to me that Cowboys fans are so hung up on arguing with them about it. It's ok to admit the ref screwed up. You guys still won. With any luck, we'll get to watch a rematch in a couple of weeks and hopefully they don't screw that one up as badly.

 

[Anarchy99]

...

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.

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.

We still don't know what Campbell discussed pregame with the ref. It could have been as basic as "we have a tackle eligible conversion play with an unbalanced line" or he could have mentioned a half dozen other plays that they might run. We don't know how much detail was provided and to whom. I have no idea, but I am guessing he didn't explain to the refs that 58, 68. and 70 would all approach the ref but 68 was the one that needs to be reported as eligible and the other 2 guys were subterfuge. Just guessing, but it could have been as simple as him saying he wanted to run a conversion attempt with 68 as eligible at the end of the game . . . and when that came up 4+ hours later, the ref forgot the number. I doubt Campbell handed out a play sheet to the refs diagraming which players would be going where pre-snap. But it's pretty clear that in his mind he felt was very clear about it, but as you mentioned, none of us were there pre-game to know anything for certain. I'd give him props if he came out and acknowledged that the way things turned out was unfair to the Dallas defense, he could see how it might be confusing to the refs, and he will try better to leave no room for error the next time. He could still be just as peeved about it, but I would respect him more if he acknowledged that. I give him mad props for going for it and points for trying to be creative.

I am still waiting for a team at a key moment have the QB pretend like he is trying to draw the defense offsides, give up. and start walking to the sideline as if he called timeout, only to have the ball snapped to someone else with the ball passed to a WR streaking down the sideline. As long as the other offensive players don't get out of their stances or move, that would be within the rules.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

It does seem unusual to me that Cowboys fans are so hung up on arguing with them about it.

Where? There are more non cowboys fans in here debating with lions fans than cowboys fans

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I doubt Campbell handed out a play sheet to the refs diagraming which players would be going where pre-snap. But it's pretty clear that in his mind he felt was very clear about it, but as you mentioned, none of us were there pre-game to know anything for certain.

I agree we don't know exactly what was said, but Campbell did say he showed the ref the play on paper and went over everything to a T. We'll never know what really happened but I'm inclined to believe he's not just making that up.

I am still waiting for a team at a key moment have the QB pretend like he is trying to draw the defense offsides, give up. and start walking to the sideline as if he called timeout, only to have the ball snapped to someone else with the ball passed to a WR streaking down the sideline. As long as the other offensive players don't get out of their stances or move, that would be within the rules.

I can't remember a specific instance but I'm almost certain we've seen this play before.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It does seem unusual to me that Cowboys fans are so hung up on arguing with them about it.

Where? There are more non cowboys fans in here debating with lions fans than cowboys fans

Here?

 

[Cowboysfan8]

It does seem unusual to me that Cowboys fans are so hung up on arguing with them about it.

Where? There are more non cowboys fans in here debating with lions fans than cowboys fans

Here?

Bye now

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Bye now

Did I misunderstand your question?

 

[markrc99]

"... 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.

You're leaving out or don't know what Campbell said he was told. I've read what Anarchy has above there, but for me it's that they or Allen told him that you can't have two players report in as eligible. So, no, they didn't forget or mess up. Nor does what they told him have anything to do with two players reporting in as eligible on the same play. What's left? What's left is to interpret what that statement means with respect to the very play it applies to! I'm sorry, but you either comprehend that fact or you don't.

What did we see, who are the two players? Obviously, Skipper & Decker. What were they both doing? They both did things to suggest they were reporting in eligible. Which is okay, if both were attempting to report, but we know that isn't what they were doing. The Lions wanted Allen to recognize only the one! We don't know, Campbell addressing the crew meant nothing, the six of them aren't who players report to. Accordingly, he finds Allen, after which , could be that Allen is unsure & makes a call. This is what I believe the evidence supports most.

 

[jabarony]

"... 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.

You're leaving out or don't know what Campbell said he was told. I've read what Anarchy has above there, but for me it's that they or Allen told him that you can't have two players report in as eligible. So, no, they didn't forget or mess up. Nor does what they told him have anything to do with two players reporting in as eligible on the same play. What's left? What's left is to interpret what that statement means with respect to the very play it applies to! I'm sorry, but you either comprehend that fact or you don't.

What did we see, who are the two players? Obviously, Skipper & Decker. What were they both doing? They both did things to suggest they were reporting in eligible. Which is okay, if both were attempting to report, but we know that isn't what they were doing. The Lions wanted Allen to recognize only the one! We don't know, Campbell addressing the crew meant nothing, the six of them aren't who players report to. Accordingly, he finds Allen, after which , could be that Allen is unsure & makes a call. This is what I believe the evidence supports most.

You’re leaving out that #70 never actually even made it to where the ref was talking to #68. The ref walks away before #70 arrives. Then later in the postgame straight out lies and says #70 reported to him when he was actually talking to #68.

Maybe you think #58 was #70???


A good analogy for this event (post game) would be Armando Galaraga’s perfect game ruined by Jim Joyce being followed up by Jim Joyce insisting the runner was safe despite video evidence to the contrary.

Unlike Allen, however, Joyce did what was right, admitted his mistake, and apologized. Galaraga graciously accepted and everyone was relatively satisfied.

 

[TwinTurbo]

I am a Lions fan. I agree in the absense of the referees mistake, there was no guarantee the Lions would have still won. But we will never know because the ref didn't pay attention. What we do know as facts:

1. The ref made a significant mistake and did not live up to the standard required at this level, especially given what was as stake. This crew made multiple mistakes in this game and across the season.
2. The Lions and Cowboys did nothing wrong on the play and the botched call affected both teams.
3. The ref and the NFL refuse to acknowledge any negligence on their part or take any accountability, which is more annoying than the loss itself and ensures this type of nonsense and incompetence will continue to be on full display by this crew in future games.

The only silver and blue lining is this crew was downgraded for the playoffs. But they still get a chance to screw up the ending of the Ravens / Steelers game this week.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

You're leaving out or don't know what Campbell said he was told. I've read what Anarchy has above there, but for me it's that they or Allen told him that you can't have two players report in as eligible. So, no, they didn't forget or mess up. Nor does what they told him have anything to do with two players reporting in as eligible on the same play. What's left? What's left is to interpret what that statement means with respect to the very play it applies to! I'm sorry, but you either comprehend that fact or you don't.

What did we see, who are the two players? Obviously, Skipper & Decker. What were they both doing? They both did things to suggest they were reporting in eligible. Which is okay, if both were attempting to report, but we know that isn't what they were doing. The Lions wanted Allen to recognize only the one! We don't know, Campbell addressing the crew meant nothing, the six of them aren't who players report to. Accordingly, he finds Allen, after which , could be that Allen is unsure & makes a call. This is what I believe the evidence supports most.

Campbell said he spoke to Allen before the game. There's no rule against multiple players reporting as eligible on a single play, nor is there a rule (that I'm aware of) preventing multiple players approaching the referee but only one of them declaring as eligible.

Essentially what you are asking us to believe is that they had a conversation about this potential play before the game, Allen told Campbell they couldn't do what they were planning, but Campbell went ahead and did it anyway? Again, Occam's razor leads me to believe the ref just made a mistake - something they're known to do from time to time - as opposed to a convoluted situation where Campbell is fabricating the conversation he had with Allen, or was told he couldn't do what they wanted to but tried anyway, or something else.

 

[Marauder]

The way I see it, subterfuge is part of the game but you know going in that the trickier you get, the more it increases the risk. One of your players could make a small mistake, or the Refs could make a mistake. They are part of the game too. As long as we have human refs, they are subject to making mistakes. The more complicated you make your subterfuge, the more you are increasing that risk.

When Dan Marino faked the spike and threw the TD pass, it faked out the defense, but there was also a risk that the line judge could have thought he spiked the ball and blew his whistle. Fortunately that didn't happen but it was a low-risk/high reward gamble that Marino was willing to make.

This play was a lot higher risk because it involved a lot of players doing their part correctly and the ref getting the right number of the player who actually audibly reported and if it didn't work it put Detroit in a much worse position. I personally think it was a bad decision to run that play, including all the subterfuge about who was actually reporting. It's high risk and, I think, if the ref had announced 68 as eligible it was a low percentage play. It's not hard to guard an O Lineman if you know he's running a pass pattern, but we'll never know. It's unfortunate that the ref made the mistake but that's part of the risk Campbell was willing to take.

 

[Anarchy99]

You're leaving out or don't know what Campbell said he was told. I've read what Anarchy has above there, but for me it's that they or Allen told him that you can't have two players report in as eligible. So, no, they didn't forget or mess up. Nor does what they told him have anything to do with two players reporting in as eligible on the same play. What's left? What's left is to interpret what that statement means with respect to the very play it applies to! I'm sorry, but you either comprehend that fact or you don't.

What did we see, who are the two players? Obviously, Skipper & Decker. What were they both doing? They both did things to suggest they were reporting in eligible. Which is okay, if both were attempting to report, but we know that isn't what they were doing. The Lions wanted Allen to recognize only the one! We don't know, Campbell addressing the crew meant nothing, the six of them aren't who players report to. Accordingly, he finds Allen, after which , could be that Allen is unsure & makes a call. This is what I believe the evidence supports most.

Campbell said he spoke to Allen before the game. There's no rule against multiple players reporting as eligible on a single play, nor is there a rule (that I'm aware of) preventing multiple players approaching the referee but only one of them declaring as eligible.

Essentially what you are asking us to believe is that they had a conversation about this potential play before the game, Allen told Campbell they couldn't do what they were planning, but Campbell went ahead and did it anyway? Again, Occam's razor leads me to believe the ref just made a mistake - something they're known to do from time to time - as opposed to a convoluted situation where Campbell is fabricating the conversation he had with Allen, or was told he couldn't do what they wanted to but tried anyway, or something else.

Again, I don't pretend to have any idea who said what or when. However, in one of the breakdowns I saw with Dean Blandino, he mentioned that if a coach in a pregame review meeting outlined that 3 players would approach the ref with the intent of only one of them reporting as eligible with the other 2 used as pawns to try to distract the defense, he was pretty resolute in suggesting that the referee would have told Cambell to have only the eligible player report.

It's possible Campbell could have drawn up the ALIGNMENT of the play with X's and O's for the refs to review, illustrating that the player on the left side of the line was the one he intended to be eligible in the unbalanced line. But Blandino felt the 3-card monte element involving multiple linemen was most likely left out of the discussion with the officials.

Blandino acknowledged that he wasn't at that pre-game meeting, but he said the crew would not promote a pre-play diversion to try to deceive the other team. I get it, as the former head of officials, he's going to take their side. But he took offense to the suggestion that Campbell had fully spelled out what the Lions intended on that play.

I'm actually surprised that the media hasn't followed up on exactly what was reviewed and discussed before the game. That would add another layer to help understand what actually happened that resulted in the debacle that we all witnessed.

 

[markrc99]

You’re leaving out that #70 never actually even made it to where the ref was talking to #68. The ref walks away before #70 arrives. Then later in the postgame straight out lies and says #70 reported to him when he was actually talking to #68.

Yeah sure. I never said Skipper was in close proximity to Allen. But when he went onto the field he did things that he had done on previous plays when reporting. Again, this is either comprehension or blatant denial. EVERYBODY knows the Lions were attempting to fool the defense by showing them multiple players reporting as eligible!!!

 

[Alex P Keaton]

You're leaving out or don't know what Campbell said he was told. I've read what Anarchy has above there, but for me it's that they or Allen told him that you can't have two players report in as eligible. So, no, they didn't forget or mess up. Nor does what they told him have anything to do with two players reporting in as eligible on the same play. What's left? What's left is to interpret what that statement means with respect to the very play it applies to! I'm sorry, but you either comprehend that fact or you don't.

What did we see, who are the two players? Obviously, Skipper & Decker. What were they both doing? They both did things to suggest they were reporting in eligible. Which is okay, if both were attempting to report, but we know that isn't what they were doing. The Lions wanted Allen to recognize only the one! We don't know, Campbell addressing the crew meant nothing, the six of them aren't who players report to. Accordingly, he finds Allen, after which , could be that Allen is unsure & makes a call. This is what I believe the evidence supports most.

Campbell said he spoke to Allen before the game. There's no rule against multiple players reporting as eligible on a single play, nor is there a rule (that I'm aware of) preventing multiple players approaching the referee but only one of them declaring as eligible.

Essentially what you are asking us to believe is that they had a conversation about this potential play before the game, Allen told Campbell they couldn't do what they were planning, but Campbell went ahead and did it anyway? Again, Occam's razor leads me to believe the ref just made a mistake - something they're known to do from time to time - as opposed to a convoluted situation where Campbell is fabricating the conversation he had with Allen, or was told he couldn't do what they wanted to but tried anyway, or something else.

Again, I don't pretend to have any idea who said what or when. However, in one of the breakdowns I saw with Dean Blandino, he mentioned that if a coach in a pregame review meeting outlined that 3 players would approach the ref with the intent of only one of them reporting as eligible with the other 2 used as pawns to try to distract the defense, he was pretty resolute in suggesting that the referee would have told Cambell to have only the eligible player report.

It's possible Campbell could have drawn up the ALIGNMENT of the play with X's and O's for the refs to review, illustrating that the player on the left side of the line was the one he intended to be eligible in the unbalanced line. But Blandino felt the 3-card monte element involving multiple linemen was most likely left out of the discussion with the officials.

Blandino acknowledged that he wasn't at that pre-game meeting, but he said the crew would not promote a pre-play diversion to try to deceive the other team. I get it, as the former head of officials, he's going to take their side. But he took offense to the suggestion that Campbell had fully spelled out what the Lions intended on that play.

I'm actually surprised that the media hasn't followed up on exactly what was reviewed and discussed before the game. That would add another layer to help understand what actually happened that resulted in the debacle that we all witnessed.

It’s funny, but you’ve had to type almost this exact same thing like a dozen times in this thread (at least) and we still have people who fail to acknowledge it or recognize the implications of this (highly likely) scenario of what happened pre-game.

We also still don’t have confirmation (as far as I recall) of whether or not the head ref was present for the pre-game discussion with Campbell. Btw — I think it is beyond bizarre that coaches meet pre-game with the crew but the head ref might not attend. Seems just nutso to me.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

EVERYBODY knows the Lions were attempting to fool the defense by showing them multiple players reporting as eligible!!!

I actually think it's pretty clear they were trying to fool the defense by showing them a single player reporting as eligible - they were just hoping the defense would be looking at the wrong player.

What it boils down to is whether we should believe this "subterfuge" was sufficiently confusing for the referee to mistakenly report a different player than the one standing directly in front of him as eligible. To me that strains credulity, I have much higher expectations for the head referee of an NFL officiating crew, but that's not something any facts will change. You either think it's reasonable for the head referee to have been confused by this, or you don't. I don't.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

You're leaving out or don't know what Campbell said he was told. I've read what Anarchy has above there, but for me it's that they or Allen told him that you can't have two players report in as eligible. So, no, they didn't forget or mess up. Nor does what they told him have anything to do with two players reporting in as eligible on the same play. What's left? What's left is to interpret what that statement means with respect to the very play it applies to! I'm sorry, but you either comprehend that fact or you don't.

What did we see, who are the two players? Obviously, Skipper & Decker. What were they both doing? They both did things to suggest they were reporting in eligible. Which is okay, if both were attempting to report, but we know that isn't what they were doing. The Lions wanted Allen to recognize only the one! We don't know, Campbell addressing the crew meant nothing, the six of them aren't who players report to. Accordingly, he finds Allen, after which , could be that Allen is unsure & makes a call. This is what I believe the evidence supports most.

Campbell said he spoke to Allen before the game. There's no rule against multiple players reporting as eligible on a single play, nor is there a rule (that I'm aware of) preventing multiple players approaching the referee but only one of them declaring as eligible.

Essentially what you are asking us to believe is that they had a conversation about this potential play before the game, Allen told Campbell they couldn't do what they were planning, but Campbell went ahead and did it anyway? Again, Occam's razor leads me to believe the ref just made a mistake - something they're known to do from time to time - as opposed to a convoluted situation where Campbell is fabricating the conversation he had with Allen, or was told he couldn't do what they wanted to but tried anyway, or something else.

Again, I don't pretend to have any idea who said what or when. However, in one of the breakdowns I saw with Dean Blandino, he mentioned that if a coach in a pregame review meeting outlined that 3 players would approach the ref with the intent of only one of them reporting as eligible with the other 2 used as pawns to try to distract the defense, he was pretty resolute in suggesting that the referee would have told Cambell to have only the eligible player report.

It's possible Campbell could have drawn up the ALIGNMENT of the play with X's and O's for the refs to review, illustrating that the player on the left side of the line was the one he intended to be eligible in the unbalanced line. But Blandino felt the 3-card monte element involving multiple linemen was most likely left out of the discussion with the officials.

Blandino acknowledged that he wasn't at that pre-game meeting, but he said the crew would not promote a pre-play diversion to try to deceive the other team. I get it, as the former head of officials, he's going to take their side. But he took offense to the suggestion that Campbell had fully spelled out what the Lions intended on that play.

I'm actually surprised that the media hasn't followed up on exactly what was reviewed and discussed before the game. That would add another layer to help understand what actually happened that resulted in the debacle that we all witnessed.

PFT / Florio is calling it out now:

On the lingering Lions two-point controversy, the biggest question is still unanswered

The biggest lingering question from last Saturday's controversial two-point try in the Lions-Cowboys game comes from what was presented to referee Brad Allen before the game.

www.nbcsports.com

I’m convinced someone at PFT lurks in FBGs.

 

[markrc99]

Campbell said he spoke to Allen before the game. There's no rule against multiple players reporting as eligible on a single play, nor is there a rule (that I'm aware of) preventing multiple players approaching the referee but only one of them declaring as eligible.

Essentially what you are asking us to believe is that they had a conversation about this potential play before the game, Allen told Campbell they couldn't do what they were planning, but Campbell went ahead and did it anyway? Again, Occam's razor leads me to believe the ref just made a mistake - something they're known to do from time to time - as opposed to a convoluted situation where Campbell is fabricating the conversation he had with Allen, or was told he couldn't do what they wanted to but tried anyway, or something else.

Campbell's comment that I referenced was post-game... I agree & am also not aware of a rule that says you can't put multiple players in front of the official & have him make the right choice because you told him pregame which of the two you wanted. But if that isn't what it meant, what are they saying? Consider the release from the league shortly thereafter, that the procedure for reporting isn't changing... Do you really want the officials participating in one team's attempt to fool its opponent? It's bad precedent. What happened on the field, what Allen or "they" told Campbell afterwards & the press releases regarding the proper procedure are all related & consistent.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It’s funny, but you’ve had to type almost this exact same thing like a dozen times in this thread (at least) and we still have people who fail to acknowledge it or recognize the implications of this (highly likely) scenario of what happened pre-game.

We also still don’t have confirmation (as far as I recall) of whether or not the head ref was present for the pre-game discussion with Campbell. Btw — I think it is beyond bizarre that coaches meet pre-game with the crew but the head ref might not attend. Seems just nutso to me.

My understanding (which mostly comes from Campbell so it's possible you can think he's lying about it or something) is that the normal pre-game meeting is not with the head referee but with two of the officials from the crew. If anything unclear or unusual comes up during that meeting, they bring it to the head referee who then has a conversation with the coach before the game, which is what happened here. Campbell claims he spoke directly with Allen and spelled out the play before the game. That leaves a lot of room for interpretation about what details were discussed, of course, but I don't think there's any dispute that Allen actually spoke to Campbell about the play before the game.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Consider the release from the league shortly thereafter, that the procedure for reporting isn't changing... Do you really want the officials participating in one team's attempt to fool its opponent? It's bad precedent. What happened on the field, what Allen or "they" told Campbell afterwards & the press releases regarding the proper procedure are all related & consistent.

All I want is for the officials to do their job. If a player is standing directly in front of an official declaring himself eligible, I expect the head referee to get that right and not be confused by other things in his field of vision. On every play there are 22 players flying around the field at full speed, but we're expected to believe that of all things, this situation was too confusing for the referee to reasonably make sense of? C'mon man.

Obviously the league is not going to say the officials made a mistake, and all of their comments are consistent with that. I think if we're parsing the league's view of the situation, however, the fact that this crew was removed from the playoffs speaks volumes. That's how you know what they really think of the way it was officiated.

 

[pinkstapler]

Though the tush push thread was glorious for most of 2023, I think we will need another trick play boned by the refs for this one to really hit those same highs through 2024 (or lows depending how you see it). Either way, I'm rooting for it.

 

[markrc99]

I’m convinced someone at PFT lurks in FBGs.

Thank you for that information & from it:

"I’m not, at least not until someone explains whether Campbell expressly told the officials or Allen that the play would be preceded by a shell game, with the Lions pretending that tackle Dan Skipper would be reporting as eligible while, in reality, tackle Taylor Decker (while flanked by tackle Penei Sewell) reported. As former NFL V.P. of officiating Dean Blandino told PFT this week, “If a coach told officials that, the officials would tell them they couldn’t do it. The referee would never go along with that and would make sure the defense knew exactly who was reporting.”

So, the officials are bound or expected to reject any such shenanigans involving them! I suppose now the counter-argument will now shift to Campbell doing no such thing.... even though he's admitted as much & has been acknowledged throughout this discussion.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I’m convinced someone at PFT lurks in FBGs.

Thank you for that information & from it:

"I’m not, at least not until someone explains whether Campbell expressly told the officials or Allen that the play would be preceded by a shell game, with the Lions pretending that tackle Dan Skipper would be reporting as eligible while, in reality, tackle Taylor Decker (while flanked by tackle Penei Sewell) reported. As former NFL V.P. of officiating Dean Blandino told PFT this week, “If a coach told officials that, the officials would tell them they couldn’t do it. The referee would never go along with that and would make sure the defense knew exactly who was reporting.”

So, the officials are bound or expected to reject any such shenanigans involving them! I suppose now the counter-argument will now shift to Campbell doing no such thing.... even though he's admitted as much & has been acknowledged throughout this discussion.

Campbell has not admitted that he told the officials he intended to have at least 1 player fake being eligible. He’s admitted that he told the officials about the play — which could simply be a generic discussion of the play formation — ahead of time. He’s been silent on what he told the officials about who would report as eligible.

 

[Anarchy99]

I’m convinced someone at PFT lurks in FBGs.

Back when I worked at FBG, other places / sites would occasionally take snippets of things I put in articles, daily emails, or board posts and repurpose what I had written. I would guess that multiple places do that.

 

[markrc99]

Campbell has not admitted that he told the officials he intended to have at least 1 player fake being eligible. He’s admitted that he told the officials about the play — which could simply be a generic discussion of the play formation — ahead of time. He’s been silent on what he told the officials about who would report as eligible.

Ha-ha... wow!

 

[markrc99]

Campbell has talked about trying to fool the defense with respect to formation, not who was reporting as eligible? BUUUHHHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! T

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Campbell has talked about trying to fool the defense with respect to formation, not who was reporting as eligible? BUUUHHHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! T

Share the link. I don’t follow this religiously like others, despite my hatred of the Cowboys. I haven’t seen a clear explanation of what he said to the officials (pre-game) about which player would report eligible. Glad to be wrong.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Interesting perspective from Jason Kelce: https://x.com/colton_pouncy/status/1743309583387369661?s=20

Good insight from Eagles center Jason Kelce on the Lions’ 2-point try. Says the Eagles have a similar play and the coaching point is to run at the official like you’re reporting eligible, but not actually report, to throw off the defense. Also says Detroit’s formation was legal.

 

[markrc99]

"...However, in one of the breakdowns I saw with Dean Blandino, he mentioned that if a coach in a pregame review meeting outlined that 3 players would approach the ref with the intent of only one of them reporting as eligible with the other 2 used as pawns to try to distract the defense, he was pretty resolute in suggesting that the referee would have told Cambell to have only the eligible player report. ... Blandino felt the 3-card monte element involving multiple linemen was most likely left out of the discussion with the officials. ... he took offense to the suggestion that Campbell had fully spelled out what the Lions intended on that play."

Didn't see this earlier but it's what the evidence supports. Allen didn't mess up, he rejected his involvement in Campbell's 3-card monte. The part about the deception, Campbell says he did tell them or Allen. Great add, thank you!

 

[markrc99]

I haven’t seen a clear explanation of what he said to the officials (pre-game) about which player would report eligible. Glad to be wrong.

Your own source & that of Anarchy, Blandino is saying that Campbell is lying. My point wasn't whether Campbell had discussed his plan of deception with the officials or Allen but that he has clearly suggested that he did. The premise the whole board has debated to this point is whether Campbell's plan laid out was too much for Allen. He has said that repeatedly, I went over it pregame, to a tee...right? Sorry for the confusion & thank you again for the link.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

There seems to be some disagreement here as to what exactly Decker and Skipper did before the play. My impression was that Decker walked over to the ref (with Sewell, who has a similar number but didn't do or say anything) and did everything he was supposed to do in terms of reporting, telling the ref he was eligible and pointing at his number. Meanwhile, Skipper ran straight at the ref but also did/said nothing to indicate he was reporting, and in any event by the time he approached him, Allen was already walking away toward the Dallas D.

If that's the case, then Allen definitely effed up, because that would mean that 68 reported correctly, 70 did not report at all, and he nonetheless told Dallas that 70 was reporting. If, on the other hand, Skipper actually did anything to indicate he was reporting, then that would be the Lions fault for leaving things ambiguous

 

[massraider]

Allen was already walking away toward the Dallas D.

If that's the case, then Allen definitely effed up,

Yep
And

Yep

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I haven’t seen a clear explanation of what he said to the officials (pre-game) about which player would report eligible. Glad to be wrong.

Your own source & that of Anarchy, Blandino is saying that Campbell is lying. My point wasn't whether Campbell had discussed his plan of deception with the officials or Allen but that he has clearly suggested that he did. The premise the whole board has debated to this point is whether Campbell's plan laid out was too much for Allen. He has said that repeatedly, I went over it pregame, to a tee...right? Sorry for the confusion & thank you again for the link.

I never got the impression that he discussed any of the shenanigans in terms of how many guys would walk toward the ref. Why would he? I would imagine the part he went over with them was about the formation itself. "We're sending in an extra lineman but he won't be the ER, the tackle on the other side will be. And we'll do some stuff with how the receivers line up to ensure the formation is legal." The reporting stuff was likely just an extra flourish to confuse the Cowboys. One would assume that if that had been a bigger part of the plan, they would have expended more effort ensuring that the refs got it right. But it's pretty clear that had never occurred to the Lions that they wouldn't

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Allen was already walking away toward the Dallas D.

If that's the case, then Allen definitely effed up,

Yep
And

Yep

Right, but I've seen some people in this thread saying they saw Skipper brushing his jersey number. I didn't see that on the replay. I did see Decker do that

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I haven’t seen a clear explanation of what he said to the officials (pre-game) about which player would report eligible. Glad to be wrong.

Your own source & that of Anarchy, Blandino is saying that Campbell is lying. My point wasn't whether Campbell had discussed his plan of deception with the officials or Allen but that he has clearly suggested that he did. The premise the whole board has debated to this point is whether Campbell's plan laid out was too much for Allen. He has said that repeatedly, I went over it pregame, to a tee...right? Sorry for the confusion & thank you again for the link.

I’m looking for more specifics from Campbell. It’s not enough to say “I showed him a diagram of the play” or “we went over it in detail.” Those are the type of non-specific comments coaches (or anyone) make when they have something to hide.

But hey, we might not ever get the whole story, right?

And I do get your point. But others are making a very specific point — and like Florio, I have the exact same question. It would be really easy for Dan Campbell to end the mystery. (Ditto for the NFL/refs - but I don’t trust Goodell or the NFL one iota)

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The longer the discussion drags on and the more I think about it, I think it really is a pretty simple question. I've been guilty myself of chasing down a bunch of different threads but the crux of the issue is pretty basic: did 68 report his eligibility to the official? I believe it's quite clear that he did. In that case what else could possibly matter? 68 reported, the ref made a mistake and somehow missed it and didn't tell the defense. Everything else is ancillary, it all follows from that mistake.

- Could the Lions have responded differently if/when they realized the ref made the mistake? Sure.
- Did this single mistake cost the Lions the game? No.
- Was 70 trying to draw the defense's attention while 68 was reporting? Yep.
- Did Dan Campbell tell the ref about this plan before the game? Who cares?

The only meaningful point of debate is whether you think 68 reported or not. If you think he did, the ref screwed up. If you don't think he did, the Lions screwed up. If your argument is of the form "the ref made a mistake because..." then what difference does the second half of that sentence make?

For me it was bad officiating. A competent referee cannot possibly be confused by the minimal amount of "trickery" the Lions were trying to pull on the defense. I guess if you don't see it that way I'd just have to agree to disagree, I'm not sure what might come out now that would change how I saw it play out. I'm assuming if they were mic'd up or something we'd have heard about it by now. All the evidence we're ever going to have has already been available and it sure looks like 68 did what he was supposed to do, which is literally all that matters.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Allen was already walking away toward the Dallas D.

If that's the case, then Allen definitely effed up,

Yep
And

Yep

Right, but I've seen some people in this thread saying they saw Skipper brushing his jersey number. I didn't see that on the replay. I did see Decker do that

Just saw former OL TJ Lang on Twitch say Skipper was rubbing his belly which indicates jumbo package to the rest of his team. The pulling would be a separate signal to the refs which he did not do.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

The longer the discussion drags on and the more I think about it, I think it really is a pretty simple question. I've been guilty myself of chasing down a bunch of different threads but the crux of the issue is pretty basic: did 68 report his eligibility to the official? I believe it's quite clear that he did. In that case what else could possibly matter? 68 reported, the ref made a mistake and somehow missed it and didn't tell the defense. Everything else is ancillary, it all follows from that mistake.

- Could the Lions have responded differently if/when they realized the ref made the mistake? Sure.
- Did this single mistake cost the Lions the game? No.
- Was 70 trying to draw the defense's attention while 68 was reporting? Yep.
- Did Dan Campbell tell the ref about this plan before the game? Who cares?

The only meaningful point of debate is whether you think 68 reported or not. If you think he did, the ref screwed up. If you don't think he did, the Lions screwed up. If your argument is of the form "the ref made a mistake because..." then what difference does the second half of that sentence make?

For me it was bad officiating. A competent referee cannot possibly be confused by the minimal amount of "trickery" the Lions were trying to pull on the defense. I guess if you don't see it that way I'd just have to agree to disagree, I'm not sure what might come out now that would change how I saw it play out. I'm assuming if they were mic'd up or something we'd have heard about it by now. All the evidence we're ever going to have has already been available and it sure looks like 68 did what he was supposed to do, which is literally all that matters.

The most likely explanation IMO is that, through some combo of what the Lions players were doing and what teams normally do in that situation, Allen made an assumption that Skipper was eligible. And we all know what happens when you make an assumption ...

 

[massraider]

Allen made an assumption that Skipper was eligible

I think it's the most likely reason he messed up.

Extra guy comes in, the extra blocker is the eligible receiver. He assumed.

 

[massraider]

Blandino is saying that Campbell is lying.

Your reading comprehension is not in a good place.

Blandino was discussing a hypothetical.

 

[jon_mx]

"...However, in one of the breakdowns I saw with Dean Blandino, he mentioned that if a coach in a pregame review meeting outlined that 3 players would approach the ref with the intent of only one of them reporting as eligible with the other 2 used as pawns to try to distract the defense, he was pretty resolute in suggesting that the referee would have told Cambell to have only the eligible player report. ... Blandino felt the 3-card monte element involving multiple linemen was most likely left out of the discussion with the officials. ... he took offense to the suggestion that Campbell had fully spelled out what the Lions intended on that play."

Didn't see this earlier but it's what the evidence supports. Allen didn't mess up, he rejected his involvement in Campbell's 3-card monte. The part about the deception, Campbell says he did tell them or Allen. Great add, thank you!

Oh lord, that is the biggest line of crap yet.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

"...However, in one of the breakdowns I saw with Dean Blandino, he mentioned that if a coach in a pregame review meeting outlined that 3 players would approach the ref with the intent of only one of them reporting as eligible with the other 2 used as pawns to try to distract the defense, he was pretty resolute in suggesting that the referee would have told Cambell to have only the eligible player report. ... Blandino felt the 3-card monte element involving multiple linemen was most likely left out of the discussion with the officials. ... he took offense to the suggestion that Campbell had fully spelled out what the Lions intended on that play."

Didn't see this earlier but it's what the evidence supports. Allen didn't mess up, he rejected his involvement in Campbell's 3-card monte. The part about the deception, Campbell says he did tell them or Allen. Great add, thank you!

Oh lord, that is the biggest line of crap yet.

Sorry, can you be more clear about what you mean?

 

[jon_mx]

"...However, in one of the breakdowns I saw with Dean Blandino, he mentioned that if a coach in a pregame review meeting outlined that 3 players would approach the ref with the intent of only one of them reporting as eligible with the other 2 used as pawns to try to distract the defense, he was pretty resolute in suggesting that the referee would have told Cambell to have only the eligible player report. ... Blandino felt the 3-card monte element involving multiple linemen was most likely left out of the discussion with the officials. ... he took offense to the suggestion that Campbell had fully spelled out what the Lions intended on that play."

Didn't see this earlier but it's what the evidence supports. Allen didn't mess up, he rejected his involvement in Campbell's 3-card monte. The part about the deception, Campbell says he did tell them or Allen. Great add, thank you!

Oh lord, that is the biggest line of crap yet.

Sorry, can you be more clear about what you mean?

A 6'-7" 320 LB dude stands a few feet in front of the ref, points and his shirt and says he is reporting and that is some kind of trickery that somehow confuses the ref? The ref was a miserable failure, there was no voodoo trickery involved. A three year old child would not have been tricked. The ref was lazy and sloppy.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

"...However, in one of the breakdowns I saw with Dean Blandino, he mentioned that if a coach in a pregame review meeting outlined that 3 players would approach the ref with the intent of only one of them reporting as eligible with the other 2 used as pawns to try to distract the defense, he was pretty resolute in suggesting that the referee would have told Cambell to have only the eligible player report. ... Blandino felt the 3-card monte element involving multiple linemen was most likely left out of the discussion with the officials. ... he took offense to the suggestion that Campbell had fully spelled out what the Lions intended on that play."

Didn't see this earlier but it's what the evidence supports. Allen didn't mess up, he rejected his involvement in Campbell's 3-card monte. The part about the deception, Campbell says he did tell them or Allen. Great add, thank you!

Oh lord, that is the biggest line of crap yet.

Sorry, can you be more clear about what you mean?

There’s zero evidence that Campbell was trying to get the refs to go along with any subterfuge. The sneaky part of the play was to have a different lineman declare himself ineligible than the one Dallas would be expecting. That was what they explained to the refs beforehand, and then they followed the rules in terms of having that lineman report. But Allen misunderstood them. It’s possible they did something that contributed to his confusion, but all he had to do was pay attention to what they did and told him, and he failed to do that. That’s on him

 

[Alex P Keaton]

"...However, in one of the breakdowns I saw with Dean Blandino, he mentioned that if a coach in a pregame review meeting outlined that 3 players would approach the ref with the intent of only one of them reporting as eligible with the other 2 used as pawns to try to distract the defense, he was pretty resolute in suggesting that the referee would have told Cambell to have only the eligible player report. ... Blandino felt the 3-card monte element involving multiple linemen was most likely left out of the discussion with the officials. ... he took offense to the suggestion that Campbell had fully spelled out what the Lions intended on that play."

Didn't see this earlier but it's what the evidence supports. Allen didn't mess up, he rejected his involvement in Campbell's 3-card monte. The part about the deception, Campbell says he did tell them or Allen. Great add, thank you!

Oh lord, that is the biggest line of crap yet.

Sorry, can you be more clear about what you mean?

There’s zero evidence that Campbell was trying to get the refs to go along with any subterfuge. The sneaky part of the play was to have a different lineman declare himself ineligible than the one Dallas would be expecting. That was what they explained to the refs beforehand, and then they followed the rules in terms of having that lineman report. But Allen misunderstood them. It’s possible they did something that contributed to his confusion, but all he had to do was pay attention to what they did and told him, and he failed to do that. That’s on him

Sorry, do you have a link that shows, in detail, that Campbell explained to the refs beforehand that they would have a different lineman declare himself eligible?

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

"...However, in one of the breakdowns I saw with Dean Blandino, he mentioned that if a coach in a pregame review meeting outlined that 3 players would approach the ref with the intent of only one of them reporting as eligible with the other 2 used as pawns to try to distract the defense, he was pretty resolute in suggesting that the referee would have told Cambell to have only the eligible player report. ... Blandino felt the 3-card monte element involving multiple linemen was most likely left out of the discussion with the officials. ... he took offense to the suggestion that Campbell had fully spelled out what the Lions intended on that play."

Didn't see this earlier but it's what the evidence supports. Allen didn't mess up, he rejected his involvement in Campbell's 3-card monte. The part about the deception, Campbell says he did tell them or Allen. Great add, thank you!

Oh lord, that is the biggest line of crap yet.

Sorry, can you be more clear about what you mean?

There’s zero evidence that Campbell was trying to get the refs to go along with any subterfuge. The sneaky part of the play was to have a different lineman declare himself ineligible than the one Dallas would be expecting. That was what they explained to the refs beforehand, and then they followed the rules in terms of having that lineman report. But Allen misunderstood them. It’s possible they did something that contributed to his confusion, but all he had to do was pay attention to what they did and told him, and he failed to do that. That’s on him

Sorry, do you have a link that shows, in detail, that Campbell explained to the refs beforehand that they would have a different lineman declare himself eligible?

Of course not. The only people who know exactly what was said in that meeting are Campbell and the refs, and they both seem to be done talking about it.

But considering that the entire point of the play was to have a different lineman than the one Dallas was expecting declare himself eligible, it would seem pretty logical that's what he discussed with them. What else would he have talked about?

 

[Alex P Keaton]

"...However, in one of the breakdowns I saw with Dean Blandino, he mentioned that if a coach in a pregame review meeting outlined that 3 players would approach the ref with the intent of only one of them reporting as eligible with the other 2 used as pawns to try to distract the defense, he was pretty resolute in suggesting that the referee would have told Cambell to have only the eligible player report. ... Blandino felt the 3-card monte element involving multiple linemen was most likely left out of the discussion with the officials. ... he took offense to the suggestion that Campbell had fully spelled out what the Lions intended on that play."

Didn't see this earlier but it's what the evidence supports. Allen didn't mess up, he rejected his involvement in Campbell's 3-card monte. The part about the deception, Campbell says he did tell them or Allen. Great add, thank you!

Oh lord, that is the biggest line of crap yet.

Sorry, can you be more clear about what you mean?

There’s zero evidence that Campbell was trying to get the refs to go along with any subterfuge. The sneaky part of the play was to have a different lineman declare himself ineligible than the one Dallas would be expecting. That was what they explained to the refs beforehand, and then they followed the rules in terms of having that lineman report. But Allen misunderstood them. It’s possible they did something that contributed to his confusion, but all he had to do was pay attention to what they did and told him, and he failed to do that. That’s on him

Sorry, do you have a link that shows, in detail, that Campbell explained to the refs beforehand that they would have a different lineman declare himself eligible?

Of course not. The only people who know exactly what was said in that meeting are Campbell and the refs, and they both seem to be done talking about it.

But considering that the entire point of the play was to have a different lineman than the one Dallas was expecting declare himself eligible, it would seem pretty logical that's what he discussed with them. What else would he have talked about?

Already covered in here by Anarchy like 100 times……

 

[Football Jones]

I can’t believe this is still going on.

It would be one thing if Detroit deserved to win, but they were clearly the inferior team that game (which is why Campbell was willing to take so many chances) & were damn lucky to even be in it at the end.

Take the L & move on. Maybe it’ll be different next time.

 

[markrc99]

I’m looking for more specifics from Campbell. It’s not enough to say “I showed him a diagram of the play” or “we went over it in detail.” Those are the type of non-specific comments coaches (or anyone) make when they have something to hide. But hey, we might not ever get the whole story, right? And I do get your point. But others are making a very specific point — and like Florio, I have the exact same question. It would be really easy for Dan Campbell to end the mystery. (Ditto for the NFL/refs - but I don’t trust Goodell or the NFL one iota)

Something else from Campbell, like what do you suppose? The front end of this, this thing .. I think we already have. We know now that Campbell trying to manipulate the procedure for reporting isn't anything that's acceptable to the officials. Yet, it occurred. I'm confident that had everything to do with the call Allen made.

 

[Football Jones]

This is no longer about Brad Allen & the state of officiating. It's about losing the game for the vast majority of Lions fans. A game in which they got outplayed, no less.

I’ve got news for those who think the NFL punished the refs solely for the play in question. The NFL sent a vid out explaining the proper procedure to report, in which Decker missed a step. They punished the crew more for giving the tripping penalty to the wrong team. Never in my long history of watching the NFL have I seen or heard of such a thing. That was ridiculous & deserves the demotion.