Non-call NFL Review (1 Viewer)

[Ryan Klima]

Since when can a play be reviewed to see if a non-called penalty should have been called? I dont recall ever seeing this happen again. For those who didnt see it. The Redskins challenged that there were 12 men on the field after they fumbled the ball and it was declared Vikings ball. Dont get me wrong that wasnt the reason the Vikes lost, they lost cuz they played a horribly ugly game.

Does someone know if this is a valid challenge?

 

[Deadman31]

Yes, something wasn't right about that call. I think if the Redskins were allowed to challenge the 12 men on the field, then the Vikings should been allowed to challenge the catch like they were going to before the fumble. In other words, the fumble should have been voided out and they should have just gone back.

 

[shadyridr]

Ive seen it challenged before.

 

[SayWhat?]

Ive seen it challenged before.

I think it's one of the only violations that can be reviewed, likely due to the fact that it's a black or white call. You either have more than 11 men on the field when the ball is snapped, or you don't.

 

[AB in DC]

I think this is the only penalty/non-penalty that can be challenged.

Though I could be wrong -- they might be able to challenge whether the ball was snapped before 0:00 on the game clock.

 

[Utter Chaos]

They really need to redo the stuff they can and cannot review. The Browns couldn't challenge the spot where a fair catch was made but if the returner ran the ball and was tackled they would have been able to!

If 12 men on the field is reviewable then why not allow holding calls, false starts, illegal blocks, force outs on receptions, etc...to be reviewed?

 

[Evilhomer3k]

Yes, it can be challenged. Yes, the Vikings got royally screwed on that whole deal. Had they been faster with the challenge flag, it wouldn't have mattered.

 

[parrot]

Yes, it can be challenged. Yes, the Vikings got royally screwed on that whole deal. Had they been faster with the challenge flag, it wouldn't have mattered.

How did the Vikes get screwed? They didn't challenge a questionable call, their fault, then they had twelve men on the field.

 

[SayWhat?]

If the Vikes had challenged the Moss catch, they would've simply lost a timeout and one of their challenges. The calls on both plays ended up being correct (a Moss catch and a 12 men on the field penalty by the Vikes).

**And I'm a Vikings homer***

 

[DVDA]

I don't understand what Childress was so upset about. The correct calls were made by the officials. The only thing that they missed was not throwing the flag on the Vikes in the first place.

 

[AB in DC]

There is a rule that refs have to give the defense a chance to rotate players on and off the field -- but only if the offense does so, too. I didn't see if Washington rotated any players, so I don't know if it's even relevant, but Childress probably thought so.

(Though if he had a legitimate beef, he should have raised it before the challenge, not after. By the time it was challenged, it's too late to complain about it)

 

[redman]

Yes, it can be challenged. Yes, the Vikings got royally screwed on that whole deal. Had they been faster with the challenge flag, it wouldn't have mattered.

I don't think it would have mattered. Moss looked like he made the catch to me. Anyway, if you're keeping score on bad calls, the Sellers non-TD looked like a bad reversal to me, and then there was the dubious PI call when Landry hit Jackson on a blitz to apparently end the Vikings's second scoring drive.

 

[David Yudkin]

The reason why 12 men on the field is reviewable is that it is not a judgment call. All the other penalties people mentioned involve a subjective opinion as to whether their should or should not have been a penalty. They clearly had 12 guys on the field and it's reviewable under the rules.

As for giving the defense a chance to switch players, that only applies if the offense substitutes players. WAS did not change any players so MIN did not have the right to insist they wanted to swap out personnel.

The right call was made on this one.

 

[fatness]

From PFT:

We've received plenty of e-mails from unhappy Vikings fans asking how a penalty can be imposed retroactively through replay review. If, some have argued, replay is available to assess penalties that were missed, why can't it be used to spot a false start or an illegal shift or a neutral zone infraction?

These are all good questions, and we assumed that the answer was that the rules specifically permit the use of video replay to determine whether twelve men were on the field.

So we checked the rule book, and there it is. Under Rule 15, Section 9, part ©, item 5, one of the reviewable plays is: "Number of players on the field."

The refs got it right, and kudos to Joe Gibbs for knowing to exercise the challenge. His quick thinking more than makes up for the back-to-back time out thing against the Bills.

 

[Assani Fisher]

Yes, something wasn't right about that call. I think if the Redskins were allowed to challenge the 12 men on the field, then the Vikings should been allowed to challenge the catch like they were going to before the fumble. In other words, the fumble should have been voided out and they should have just gone back.

why do you think this? They were separate plays! One play was run, and there was a questionable call. The coach does not challenge

Another play is run and there is a questionable call. The coach challenges and wins. Now you think they should be able to go back and challenge the previous play? That'd be a horrible set of rules.

 

[nbajam]

They really need to redo the stuff they can and cannot review. The Browns couldn't challenge the spot where a fair catch was made but if the returner ran the ball and was tackled they would have been able to!If 12 men on the field is reviewable then why not allow holding calls, false starts, illegal blocks, force outs on receptions, etc...to be reviewed?

12 men on the field is not considered a judgment call by the official. I didn't see the Browns game, but how do you screw up spotting where a ball was caught at?