This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I love it...keep these posts coming!
How did the Texans cheat?
He said they didnt? Just like the refs, get your glasses.
I don't disagree that it's a bad rule. I'm just loving that it was Schwartz that was dumb enough to get caught out by it on national TV, just one week after it happened to another coach. Plus, it gives me a certain sense of comfort to see that there are certain constants in this world...the Lions losing a game like this is one of those constants.
Go back to school and figure out how to use a question mark.
Schwartz needs to learn the rules. It was his dumb mistake.
Good luck with that. The NFL rules are always changing, becoming more convoluted and drifting further and further from common sesnse.
Its his job to know the rules. When you don't know something in your professional career it doesn't matter if it changes monthly...its on the individual to be up to date on things. Any failure not to be is on the individual.
It is convoluted to say the Lions benefited from throwing the flag. The wording of the rule does not make sense. The play is automatically reviewed, therefore the throwing of the flag does not benefit them.
I agree to a point. However it glosses over the real mistake here which is the awful rules and the inability of the NFL to acknowledge their mistakes.
His use of a question mark is shaky, but I am assuming he implied " Didn't he say they didn't?". However, it was a nice deflection of addressing the fact that the Lions got hosed by a horrible ruling. His thought apparently didn't translate well to the written word.
Regardless of what he was trying to say, he shouldn't bag on someone when he can't ever write a 4 word sentence with less than 2 errors in it.
I thought the rule only applied to auto-reviews (scoring plays/turnovers). If so, then the clock is stopped, so you are not preventing the other team from "getting a snap off".In fact, there are plenty of times where a coach throws the red flag, and confers with the ref and finds out it is not a challengable play (i.e, whistle blew, judgement call, etc).
The letter of the rule is not even clear.
The problem is that if a coach still wants to waste time to force the booth to look again, he can just call a timeout. So this rule doesn't stop that. The penalty already carries a 15 yard penalty. If that's not enough, have it cost a timeout. Under no circumstances, though, should any penalty include "and out of spite, the refs will cease making any effort to get the call right".
Those aren't the only times when the booth initiates reviews. After the 2 minute warning and in overtime the booth handles all reviews. And the rule Schwartz hit would have been crafted based on the needs of those latter 2 situations, since booth review originally only happened during such times. Scores and turnovers were added recently.
No, that's not a problem. The loophole isn't "using a timeout". The loophole is using the challenge flag to circumvent using a timeout.Using a timeout there is an allowable use of a timeout. No reason to restrict it.
Your way off its very clear.http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/2012%20-%20Rule%20Book.pdfPage 89; Section 9; Instant Replay....team will be permitted two challenges that will initiate Instant Replay reviews, except for plays when the on-field ruling is a score for either team, an interception, a fumble or backward pass that is recovered by an opponent or goes out of bounds through an opponent’s end zone, or a muffed scrimmage kick recovered by the kicking team...Penalty: For initiating a challenge when a team is prohibited from doing so: Loss of 15 yards.Replay Official’s Request for Review. After all scoring plays, interceptions, fumbles and backward passes that are recovered by an opponent or go out of bounds through an opponent’s end zone, muffed scrimmage kicks recovered by the kicking team, after the two-minute warning of each half, and throughout any overtime period...He must initiate a review before the next legal snap or kick and cannot initiate a review of any ruling against a team that commits a foul that delays the next snap.
Predestination?It doesn't happen often, but we'll occasionally see the refs pick up the hanky and waive off a "penalty." I know it's a bit of apples and oranges: the yellow flag is for one thing and the red another. But, if the guys calling the game can give themselves a second chance to get the call right the first time, it's too bad the bureaucrats that make these layers of rules and then sit on their brains in the replay booth won't do the same. Defending "procedure" over enforcing a simple call is bad for sports and should be reserved for the idiots in Florida who love to recount votes, not sports fans.
For booth initiated challenge:
I guess the big question then would be, did the foul delay the next snap? I believe the ref isn't supposed to allow the PAT until he's heard one way or another from the booth. So unless he heard that the play was good and no review was needed, I don't see how this would have delayed the next snap.
Thanks for finding it. 100000% agree that it should have been reviewed. Blatantly obvious that it did NOT delay the next snap.
Forsett's "touchdown" came with a quarter and a half left.If he was correctly ruled down, they may have scored on the next play. Or the play after that. And even if they didn't get those seven on that drive, Houston may have played the game differently later on. More urgency... more up-tempo... take more chances, etc. Terrible call, but there were many more plays in that game.
You are correct, but his job is to respond in any way to deflect.
All TD's are reviewed, right? So the review is already initiated prior to the delay foul. This should only apply to delays where there is a judgement call on whether to review. Or at least that is how I would read the letter of the rule.
Hmm, I've gone from thinking it correctly applied, to seeing the exact wording and thinking it incorrectly applied, to not sure again in the course of about 10 minutes.The refs very well might have been directed to apply the rule as "any dead ball foul should be considered as delaying the next snap". There really is some grey area that isn't very clearly defined as to what "delays a snap". It wouldn't be at all unusual for that to be clarified for the refs how to handle it. We can make a good argument that having to wait to hear from the booth means they didn't delay the snap, but I can also make a good argument the NFL should have provided guidance and going with a flat standard of any dead ball foul counts, isn't a bad idea either.
You're not really very good with English today.
Just clarify how an NFL Official would look at this.
I wasn't paying as much attention as I should I guess. Is this because he was the ref on the play? Or is the ONLY member of the rules committee and the ONLY person wrote the rule book? Or because he gets paid a salary BY THE OWNERS to do what his bosses tell him? Or, just because you don't like him in general and had nothing do to with the correct rules interpretation of a stupid rule that he had no part in crafting?
He gets paid quite well to know his job and the rules.
It's because he's an A_HOLE!!!!
Oh, ok. It didn't REALLY add anything to the discussion then?
You are implying that the Lions would have stopped them on the drive. How do you know the next play wouldn't have been a touchdown to Andre Johnson, or Foster?
