Questionable use of the challenge flag (1 Viewer)

[malice]

Anyone else think this should be added to the list of unchallengeable offenses in the offseason? Sure it's caught on tape, but so is a personal foul away from the play, and you can't beg for that after the fact.

You can't throw a red flag looking for pass interference or holding...

You can't throw a red flag after the ball has been snapped and a play has happened...

How can you challenge a call that was never made in the first place?

I know it's been done a couple times this season (anyone but Belichick use it?), but it seems to go against all the basic rules of instant replay.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I'd rather you be able to challenge more than challenge less. I'd also like to see the 12 men on the field rule change to not make what happened last night a penalty.

 

[ookook]

I am sure that many besides myself thought the exact same thing.

 

[CrossEyed]

I'd rather see them change the rule. There is no advantaged gained when your player is running for the sideline and is 1 yard from it when the ball is snapped.

 

[dgreen]

I'd rather you be able to challenge more than challenge less. I'd also like to see the 12 men on the field rule change to not make what happened last night a penalty.

You have to draw the line somewhere and no better place than the actual white line.

 

[Chunky Soup]

I'd rather you be able to challenge more than challenge less. I'd also like to see the 12 men on the field rule change to not make what happened last night a penalty.

It had absolutely no bearing on the game and nothing to do with what the penalty is about. I don't know why we had to waste time and see a penalty for that.

 

[sho nuff]

They only knew it was 12 men because they had a few extra camera angles.

You think Bill ever goes to the ref when he is about to go under the hood and tells him...look, if you don't have a good shot, we have a few cameras going and you could take a look.

Ok...all kidding aside.

I don't like that use of replay if you are not allowed to review other such penalties (like you said, personal fouls, being hit out of bounds, facemasks, and so on)

 

[Modog814]

I'd rather you be able to challenge more than challenge less. I'd also like to see the 12 men on the field rule change to not make what happened last night a penalty.

That shouldn't be a penalty. He's clearly trying to get off the field, is very close to being off the field and he has not involvement in the play at all. It wasn't like he was strolling over to the sideline, he was sprinting and just barely missed getting off.

 

[Master of Past and Present]

Most the calls that you mentioned are judgement calls. There is no real judgement here. Are there 12 on the field or not? If so, throw the flag that the refs missed. PI and holding are judgement while 12 men on the field is straight foward

 

[noneother]

I agree, the 12th wasn't part of the play.. however the penalty was a "discipline" penalty... more against the coaching staff than the player.. I have no issue with it.. reviewable though.. prolly not

 

[CrossEyed]

I'd rather you be able to challenge more than challenge less. I'd also like to see the 12 men on the field rule change to not make what happened last night a penalty.

You have to draw the line somewhere and no better place than the actual white line.

Common sense not an option? If the player is on the field and participates in the play...If he's running off the field, no penalty.

 

[dgreen]

I'd rather you be able to challenge more than challenge less. I'd also like to see the 12 men on the field rule change to not make what happened last night a penalty.

You have to draw the line somewhere and no better place than the actual white line.

Common sense not an option? If the player is on the field and participates in the play...:flag:If he's running off the field, no penalty.

It's the same as any other sideline call. What about when a player just barely steps out of bounds and is then the first player to touch the ball? It's a penalty because you have to draw the line somewhere. You don't want those to be judgment calls. You don't want to have to debate whether the player intentionally went out of bounds and came back or whether he went "far enough" out of bounds before coming back in. These things work much better when there is a clear line.

 

[ookook]

I have no problem with it being a penalty, I just don't see it as reviewable. There was no call to be questioned.

How about the batting the ball penalty. I understand why a team should not be able to ADVANCE the football that way and I agree. But why tack on 10 yard penalty?

 

[dgreen]

I have no problem with it being a penalty, I just don't see it as reviewable. There was no call to be questioned.

The call to be questioned was that NY had 11 men on the field.

How about the batting the ball penalty. I understand why a team should not be able to ADVANCE the football that way and I agree. But why tack on 10 yard penalty?

I think it's a penalty for the same reason a forward lateral is a penalty.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

How about the batting the ball penalty. I understand why a team should not be able to ADVANCE the football that way and I agree. But why tack on 10 yard penalty?

Something else I'd like to see not be a penalty. If you want to take the risk of batting the ball forwards towards defenders, so be it.

 

[malice]

Most the calls that you mentioned are judgement calls. There is no real judgement here. Are there 12 on the field or not? If so, throw the flag that the refs missed. PI and holding are judgement while 12 men on the field is straight foward

Personal fouls, blocks in the back, chop blocks, and intentional grounding should be included as well then. I would also consider challenging the spot of the ball a judgment call more times than not.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

They only knew it was 12 men because they had a few extra camera angles. You think Bill ever goes to the ref when he is about to go under the hood and tells him...look, if you don't have a good shot, we have a few cameras going and you could take a look. Ok...all kidding aside.I don't like that use of replay if you are not allowed to review other such penalties (like you said, personal fouls, being hit out of bounds, facemasks, and so on)

I agree, makes no sense really. If you can review for this, you should be able to review for other penatlies.I don't care really what way they do it, but it's got to be consistent. So, review for all sort of penalties or get rid of the ones you can review for.

 

[Restricted]

I also questioned if you could challenge them not calling a penalty with the 12 men on the field. Next you're going to tell me they could challenge if they thought someone was off sides of did a false start?

12 men on the field should be a penalty though, even if the player is attempting to get off the field. It's just like an illegal formation and though a technicality it's part of the game.

 

[Cenobite]

There is a reason for that play being a penalty. The offensive team was going to punt. Looking at the personnel of the defense the offensive team could have elected to try a fake. If you have 12 defensive players on the field the offense may not be in a position to decide to try a fake because they don't know which defensive players are in. That is why it is important for the 12th man to get completely off the field within the time allowed. it forces the defense to commit. That being said it was a petty move to throw the challenge flag when most games have a play where the 12th man is a half a step from getting off the field. I remember a recent game where it was clear that the player was not off the field but the challenge was not upheld. I just don't think the penalty is as black and white as we were lead to believe last night.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

There is a reason for that play being a penalty. The offensive team was going to punt. Looking at the personnel of the defense the offensive team could have elected to try a fake. If you have 12 defensive players on the field the offense may not be in a position to decide to try a fake because they don't know which defensive players are in. That is why it is important for the 12th man to get completely off the field within the time allowed. it forces the defense to commit. That being said it was a petty move to throw the challenge flag when most games have a play where the 12th man is a half a step from getting off the field. I remember a recent game where it was clear that the player was not off the field but the challenge was not upheld. I just don't think the penalty is as black and white as we were lead to believe last night.

I think this is correct. The actual penalty was "illegal substitution", not "12 men on the field". I believe this was a new rule several (perhaps many) years ago, put in place to prevent the defense from having 12 or more guys in the huddle to disguise their personel scheme until the last moment.

 

[Wilbur Wood]

Personally, I don't think that this type of "penalty" should be subject to replay review. If the refs on the field (and there are enough of them that should catch any blatant violations) don't see it, it should not be challengeable and hold the game up for 3 minutes to see if they guy's foot was in air over the imaginary white line.

For all those that see it differently and think that this is a good use of instant replay, then I suppose that overhead replay cameras should also be usable to penalize any team that has a player or coach from the sidelines take one step on the playing field during a play or before the whistle is blown. How many times have you seen an excited coach or player from the sideline running down the sideline cheering on a sure TD on a long play and accidently step into the field of play (which technically should be a penalty).

 

[apalmer]

I'd rather you be able to challenge more than challenge less. I'd also like to see the 12 men on the field rule change to not make what happened last night a penalty.

That shouldn't be a penalty. He's clearly trying to get off the field, is very close to being off the field and he has not involvement in the play at all. It wasn't like he was strolling over to the sideline, he was sprinting and just barely missed getting off.

Which is why it's a 5-yard "illegal substitution" penalty and not a 15-yard "illegal participation" penalty.

 

[fatness]

"It shall be OK for a team to have a number of players on the field greater than 11, provided that only 11 participate in the play."

No, that won't work.

15 players on field

Ball snapped.

Offense has to guess which 11 are participating, which 4 are standing still.

 

[Sheriff66]

I think it's a crap rule, why not throw a flag on any play to review a holding call you thought happened ?

 

[CalBear]

If 12 men is reviewable, offsides should be reviewable, too; that's not a judgment call like a personal foul would be.

But I'd rather have them both not reviewable; it's fortunate it didn't have a big impact on the game, because it would be stupid for something important in the Super Bowl to happen because of a ticky-tack call like that.

 

[dgreen]

If 12 men is reviewable, offsides should be reviewable, too; that's not a judgment call like a personal foul would be.But I'd rather have them both not reviewable; it's fortunate it didn't have a big impact on the game, because it would be stupid for something important in the Super Bowl to happen because of a ticky-tack call like that.

The overall cleanliness of the officiating was the icing on the cake last night. It was so nice to have both a well played game and a well officiated game.

 

[the hairy scotsman]

I am sure that many besides myself thought the exact same thing.

I did.Until this year, I thought penalties weren't allowable as a result of a challenge. Is this the year that all changed?At best, it's chicken####.

 

[dgreen]

I am sure that many besides myself thought the exact same thing.

I did.Until this year, I thought penalties weren't allowable as a result of a challenge. Is this the year that all changed?At best, it's chicken####.

I believe too many men on the field has always been reviewable. Forward lateral is another penalty that is reviewable. There are probably some others.ETA: Another reviewable penalty is one I already mentioned. Stepping out of bounds and being the first to touch the ball is reviewable. Oh, and whether a QB is out of the pocket is reviewable for intentional groundin, I think.

 

[malice]

Oh, and whether a QB is out of the pocket is reviewable for intentional groundin, I think.

If it's called, yes, I believe you're right (but I don't think I've seen it outside of the coach/QB arguing afterwards)- but I don't think you can ask for a review to get an intentional grounding call.

 

[AIKENS BACON]

how can review a call that was not made on the field? There was no call to review! Let's review every play to make sure we did not miss anything!

Does not make any sense to me!

 

[bigums]

I think the part that's more bothersome is that a team would get a full 2-3 minutes of TV timeout in that situation and then be able to challenge. Challenges are supposed to be heat of the moment, is it worth the risk of losing a timeout-type of decisions. When you're allowed to look at a play for 2 minutes AND consult with a side judge on rule interpretation before making the challenge it sort of takes the gamble out of the challenge system that's inherent in the way it's designed.

That said, they got the call right and that's really the main point.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

how can review a call that was not made on the field? There was no call to review! Let's review every play to make sure we did not miss anything!

Does not make any sense to me!

this was the confusing part for me as wellfrom the nfl.com gamebook:

4-2-NYG 44 (11:07) (Punt formation) 6-C.Hanson punts 31 yards to NYG 13, Center-66-L.Paxton. 25-R.McQuarters ran ob at NYG 14 for 1 yard. New England challenged the too many players on field ruling, and the play was REVERSED. (Punt formation) PENALTY on NYG-57-C.Blackburn, Illegal Substitution, 5 yards, enforced at NYG 44 - No Play.

The bizarre part is in italics - doesn't make sense.

 

[dgreen]

how can review a call that was not made on the field? There was no call to review! Let's review every play to make sure we did not miss anything!

Does not make any sense to me!

this was the confusing part for me as wellfrom the nfl.com gamebook:

4-2-NYG 44 (11:07) (Punt formation) 6-C.Hanson punts 31 yards to NYG 13, Center-66-L.Paxton. 25-R.McQuarters ran ob at NYG 14 for 1 yard. New England challenged the too many players on field ruling, and the play was REVERSED. (Punt formation) PENALTY on NYG-57-C.Blackburn, Illegal Substitution, 5 yards, enforced at NYG 44 - No Play.

The bizarre part is in italics - doesn't make sense.

I'm not sure what's confusing. The refs, by not throwing a flag, ruled the Giants did not have too many men on the field. The Patriots challenged that ruling.

 

[glock]

how can review a call that was not made on the field? There was no call to review! Let's review every play to make sure we did not miss anything!Does not make any sense to me!

That's what I'm still having trouble wrapping my brain around. If the challenge is of the implied call that there were ELEVEN men on the field -hence no penalty flag thrown- couldn't the challenge flag be thrown at will if in desperate cirumstances?I'd love to see this spelled out. You know, like I'm just a futball fan!

 

[dgreen]

how can review a call that was not made on the field? There was no call to review! Let's review every play to make sure we did not miss anything!

Does not make any sense to me!

That's what I'm still having trouble wrapping my brain around. If the challenge is of the implied call that there were ELEVEN men on the field -hence no penalty flag thrown- couldn't the challenge flag be thrown at will if in desperate cirumstances?I'd love to see this spelled out. You know, like I'm just a futball fan!

That happens all the time. Several times a year, coaches challenge a play towards the end of the game just hoping to get lucky because they have nothing to lose.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

how can review a call that was not made on the field? There was no call to review! Let's review every play to make sure we did not miss anything!

Does not make any sense to me!

this was the confusing part for me as wellfrom the nfl.com gamebook:

4-2-NYG 44 (11:07) (Punt formation) 6-C.Hanson punts 31 yards to NYG 13, Center-66-L.Paxton. 25-R.McQuarters ran ob at NYG 14 for 1 yard. New England challenged the too many players on field ruling, and the play was REVERSED. (Punt formation) PENALTY on NYG-57-C.Blackburn, Illegal Substitution, 5 yards, enforced at NYG 44 - No Play.

The bizarre part is in italics - doesn't make sense.

I'm not sure what's confusing. The refs, by not throwing a flag, ruled the Giants did not have too many men on the field. The Patriots challenged that ruling.

The phrase "New England challenged the too many players on field ruling" is confusing because there was obviously no such ruling. If anything, there was an implicit ruling that the correct number of players were on the field - a ruling that, while not affirmatively made, could be implied by the lack of a penaly flag. If that is really the explanation, that is news to me. I didn't realize until last night that a coach could challenge the fact that a penalty was not called.

 

[dgreen]

how can review a call that was not made on the field? There was no call to review! Let's review every play to make sure we did not miss anything!

Does not make any sense to me!

this was the confusing part for me as wellfrom the nfl.com gamebook:

4-2-NYG 44 (11:07) (Punt formation) 6-C.Hanson punts 31 yards to NYG 13, Center-66-L.Paxton. 25-R.McQuarters ran ob at NYG 14 for 1 yard. New England challenged the too many players on field ruling, and the play was REVERSED. (Punt formation) PENALTY on NYG-57-C.Blackburn, Illegal Substitution, 5 yards, enforced at NYG 44 - No Play.

The bizarre part is in italics - doesn't make sense.

I'm not sure what's confusing. The refs, by not throwing a flag, ruled the Giants did not have too many men on the field. The Patriots challenged that ruling.

The phrase "New England challenged the too many players on field ruling" is confusing because there was obviously no such ruling. If anything, there was an implicit ruling that the correct number of players were on the field - a ruling that, while not affirmatively made, could be implied by the lack of a penaly flag. If that is really the explanation, that is news to me. I didn't realize until last night that a coach could challenge the fact that a penalty was not called.

Prior to every play, the refs count the number of players in a huddle and on the field. So, on every play, the refs make a ruling whether this rule had been violated.As I said, there are some penalties (whether called or determined to not be a penalty by not throwing a flag) that can be challenged. Most can't, but some can.

 

[videoguy505]

No problem with BB's call here. First, it's an easily reviewable, non-judgment call.

And, 12-men has to be a penalty as it is, because if it's not it can be easily abused by teams using it as a fake-out play.

For example, if there's no penalty or repercussion for putting 12 men out there, I could see a team lining up 12 guys on offense, with a WR wide on each sideline, and just having the covered one step out of bounds before the snap, leaving the other one uncovered. If you say "Well, that play is different because it has an effect on what the other team is doing," you've just turned a very clear-cut rule into a judgment call, and it's better to just make it as black-and-white as possible.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I'd rather you be able to challenge more than challenge less. I'd also like to see the 12 men on the field rule change to not make what happened last night a penalty.

When the player is clearly running off the field, and not part of the play, it should be a non-foul. Having said that, if it remains a rule, then use of replay is appropriate.

 

[GregR_2]

12 men on the field was specifically meant by the competition committee to be something that is reviewable. It isn't a matter of it being a loophole in some wording about being able to challenge calls involving the sideline. The rules specifically include it in the itemized list of reviewable calls.Quote from the NFL rulebook:

Rule 15, Section 9:Reviewable plays: The Replay System will cover the following play situations only:...© Other Detectable Infractions...5. Number of players on the field....

 

[GregR_2]

Anyone else think this should be added to the list of unchallengeable offenses in the offseason? Sure it's caught on tape, but so is a personal foul away from the play, and you can't beg for that after the fact.

You can't throw a red flag looking for pass interference or holding...

You can't throw a red flag after the ball has been snapped and a play has happened...

How can you challenge a call that was never made in the first place?

I know it's been done a couple times this season (anyone but Belichick use it?), but it seems to go against all the basic rules of instant replay.

Other penalties that can be assessed based on instant replay:Illegal touching of a kick.

Touching of a forward pass by an ineligible receiver.

Illegal forward pass beyond the line of scrimmage.

Illegal forward pass after change of possession.

 

[Dreamer]

It's a rule, and rules are rules, even when they suck.

I was in a hockey tournament once and every penalty you took resulted in a penalty shot for the other team. With less than a minute left the other team scored to tie the game. When they got back to the faceoff circle and the momentum was going their way, I asked the ref to check the curvature of 2 of their sticks. They were illegal, we got 2 penalty shots, scored both and won the game, and eventually the tournament. The rule sucked, really bad, but rules are rules.

 

[malice]

12 men on the field was specifically meant by the competition committee to be something that is reviewable. It isn't a matter of it being a loophole in some wording about being able to challenge calls involving the sideline. The rules specifically include it in the itemized list of reviewable calls.Quote from the NFL rulebook:

Rule 15, Section 9:Reviewable plays: The Replay System will cover the following play situations only:...© Other Detectable Infractions...5. Number of players on the field....

Thanks for that...interesting they included that one. I guess my problem is, since the challenge in this case can come after the play (in this case, a punt), what's to stop a team from switching from a planned punt to a fake punt (or let's even consider FG attempts) and then just throwing the challenge flag if they aren't successful on the attempt?

 

[BusMan]

I thought the batting call on Bradshaw was interesting. If he had made it look more like an attempt to recover the football he just might have gotten away with it. Or would it still have been batting had he actually tried to recover the football and it happened to squirt forward?

 

[dgreen]

12 men on the field was specifically meant by the competition committee to be something that is reviewable. It isn't a matter of it being a loophole in some wording about being able to challenge calls involving the sideline. The rules specifically include it in the itemized list of reviewable calls.

Quote from the NFL rulebook:

Rule 15, Section 9:

Reviewable plays: The Replay System will cover the following play situations only:

...

© Other Detectable Infractions

...

5. Number of players on the field.

...

Thanks for that...interesting they included that one. I guess my problem is, since the challenge in this case can come after the play (in this case, a punt), what's to stop a team from switching from a planned punt to a fake punt (or let's even consider FG attempts) and then just throwing the challenge flag if they aren't successful on the attempt?

Nothing other than their uncertainty whether the penalty will be called."Free plays" on offense are usually attempted after the offense sees a flag thrown.

 

[Sinn Fein]

It's a rule, and rules are rules, even when they suck. I was in a hockey tournament once and every penalty you took resulted in a penalty shot for the other team. With less than a minute left the other team scored to tie the game. When they got back to the faceoff circle and the momentum was going their way, I asked the ref to check the curvature of 2 of their sticks. They were illegal, we got 2 penalty shots, scored both and won the game, and eventually the tournament. The rule sucked, really bad, but rules are rules.

I'd have kicked your ### and given you at least one more penalty shot for pulling some crap like that

 

[John Mamula]

I'd rather you be able to challenge more than challenge less. I'd also like to see the 12 men on the field rule change to not make what happened last night a penalty.

You have to draw the line somewhere and no better place than the actual white line.

 

[videoguy505]

12 men on the field was specifically meant by the competition committee to be something that is reviewable. It isn't a matter of it being a loophole in some wording about being able to challenge calls involving the sideline. The rules specifically include it in the itemized list of reviewable calls.Quote from the NFL rulebook:

Rule 15, Section 9:Reviewable plays: The Replay System will cover the following play situations only:...© Other Detectable Infractions...5. Number of players on the field....

Thanks for that...interesting they included that one. I guess my problem is, since the challenge in this case can come after the play (in this case, a punt), what's to stop a team from switching from a planned punt to a fake punt (or let's even consider FG attempts) and then just throwing the challenge flag if they aren't successful on the attempt?

Have to have the cooperation of the other team screwing up at the same time, that's hard to rely on. But there are plenty of "free plays" allowed, how about defensive offsides, when the QB can just chuck the hail mary for free, because if it's intercepted or incomplete it'll get reversed? Free plays when the D screws up is part of the game.

 

[Dreamer]

It's a rule, and rules are rules, even when they suck. I was in a hockey tournament once and every penalty you took resulted in a penalty shot for the other team. With less than a minute left the other team scored to tie the game. When they got back to the faceoff circle and the momentum was going their way, I asked the ref to check the curvature of 2 of their sticks. They were illegal, we got 2 penalty shots, scored both and won the game, and eventually the tournament. The rule sucked, really bad, but rules are rules.

I'd have kicked your ### and given you at least one more penalty shot for pulling some crap like that

There was one guy who really wanted to kill me, they had to drag him away and he swore he was gonna wait for me in the parking lot. The thing was sponsored by Budweiser and they gave us everything they had at the end of the day, including a ton of beer. The other team stuck around and we made nice over some Bud light. Hockey is pretty cool.

 

[faux_bear]

Did any of you watch Inside the NFL on HBO this week? They showed extended NFL Films highlights of the game, which included audio from the players, coaches, and even the refs. After this play was challenged, Mike Carey told Belichick that "this one is on us", implying that the refs might not have given the Giants enough time to make a substitution. Ultimately, of course, the challenge was upheld and a penalty was given to the Giants, but it was interesting and odd to hear Mike Carey appear to take blame for the Giants' player not getting off the field in time. Did anyone pick up on this?