WAS @ MIN (1 Viewer)

[redman]

So is Chilly right about this?

Childress berated referee Bill Leavy, noting an NFL rule that requires officials to allow teams to match another team's substitution. According to Childress, officials should not have allowed the Redskins to snap the ball until the Vikings had a chance to complete their substitution.

"My understanding of that rule and all the memos that I've seen is that a guy should get time to match the personnel," Childress said. "It was clear what the intent was. It was a challenge-able call and they wanted to snap it quick. Most of the time when that happens there is no personnel change, but in this case there was."

Childress said the procedure was a "point of emphasis" during offseason discussions.

"It cost us a change of possession and it cost us momentum in a big football game for us," Childress said.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/12789897.html

No. The Redskins had the same 11 players on the field for both plays: Collins, the line; Cooley; Portis; Koslowski; Moss and Randle El. Someone at Extremeskins posted screenshots. The reason for not substituting there was simple - in a situation like that where they suspect there might be a meritorious replay challenge to their play, they rush up to the line (and don't bother substituting) to run a pre-set play. That's what they were trying to do when the fumble-with-12-men happened.

 

[uwillbsoon]

So is Chilly right about this?

Childress berated referee Bill Leavy, noting an NFL rule that requires officials to allow teams to match another team's substitution. According to Childress, officials should not have allowed the Redskins to snap the ball until the Vikings had a chance to complete their substitution.

"My understanding of that rule and all the memos that I've seen is that a guy should get time to match the personnel," Childress said. "It was clear what the intent was. It was a challenge-able call and they wanted to snap it quick. Most of the time when that happens there is no personnel change, but in this case there was."

Childress said the procedure was a "point of emphasis" during offseason discussions.

"It cost us a change of possession and it cost us momentum in a big football game for us," Childress said.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/12789897.html

No. The Redskins had the same 11 players on the field for both plays: Collins, the line; Cooley; Portis; Koslowski; Moss and Randle El. Someone at Extremeskins posted screenshots. The reason for not substituting there was simple - in a situation like that where they suspect there might be a meritorious replay challenge to their play, they rush up to the line (and don't bother substituting) to run a pre-set play. That's what they were trying to do when the fumble-with-12-men happened.

I figured as much since this is Chilly we're talking about. But he seemed pretty adamant about it, even showing the refs pictures.Any chance you have a link? I couldn't find it on ExtremeSkins.

 

[baldgriff]

So is Chilly right about this?

Childress berated referee Bill Leavy, noting an NFL rule that requires officials to allow teams to match another team's substitution. According to Childress, officials should not have allowed the Redskins to snap the ball until the Vikings had a chance to complete their substitution.

"My understanding of that rule and all the memos that I've seen is that a guy should get time to match the personnel," Childress said. "It was clear what the intent was. It was a challenge-able call and they wanted to snap it quick. Most of the time when that happens there is no personnel change, but in this case there was."

Childress said the procedure was a "point of emphasis" during offseason discussions.

"It cost us a change of possession and it cost us momentum in a big football game for us," Childress said.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/12789897.html

No. The Redskins had the same 11 players on the field for both plays: Collins, the line; Cooley; Portis; Koslowski; Moss and Randle El. Someone at Extremeskins posted screenshots. The reason for not substituting there was simple - in a situation like that where they suspect there might be a meritorious replay challenge to their play, they rush up to the line (and don't bother substituting) to run a pre-set play. That's what they were trying to do when the fumble-with-12-men happened.

I figured as much since this is Chilly we're talking about. But he seemed pretty adamant about it, even showing the refs pictures.Any chance you have a link? I couldn't find it on ExtremeSkins.

Here is the problem with his thinking though... Relying on this call as one of the fundamental turning points in the game discounts how many absolutely horrible play calls there were throughout that game by the Viking. The Vikes made what appeared to be a HUGE defensive stop on the 1/2 yard line and then on 1st down hand off to the FB??????????? What the F was that? The balance of the first half when Peterson is in, they lineup in a straight run formation which allows Washington to stack the line. They hever spread the field and run until the 4th quarter. Childress has seen the same defensive scheme for the last 3 weeks. They managed to win ugly against 49'ers and Bears. However, they never made any offensive scheme adjustments to combat these 8+ in the box defenses that they were seeing. There were times last week the Bears had 9 up. Washington was playing DB's tight to the line also.

Where are the plays that can loosen this up a bit? Inside Screens, Swing passes, Quick Slant or a reverse or counter play?

I dont normally say this about coaches, but he has looked completely overmatched the last 3 weeks and got lucky on two.

Why do you choose to not run to the side where your ALL-PRO offensive line is?

Talk about a frustrating effort. I dont see Dallas laying down to the Redskins, but when you have the opportunity to salt it away, man up and take care of your businees. The VIking just rolled over and died after the safety and never did anything to make Washington the least bit uncomfortable.

Sad performance!

 

[redman]

So is Chilly right about this?

Childress berated referee Bill Leavy, noting an NFL rule that requires officials to allow teams to match another team's substitution. According to Childress, officials should not have allowed the Redskins to snap the ball until the Vikings had a chance to complete their substitution.

"My understanding of that rule and all the memos that I've seen is that a guy should get time to match the personnel," Childress said. "It was clear what the intent was. It was a challenge-able call and they wanted to snap it quick. Most of the time when that happens there is no personnel change, but in this case there was."

Childress said the procedure was a "point of emphasis" during offseason discussions.

"It cost us a change of possession and it cost us momentum in a big football game for us," Childress said.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/12789897.html

No. The Redskins had the same 11 players on the field for both plays: Collins, the line; Cooley; Portis; Koslowski; Moss and Randle El. Someone at Extremeskins posted screenshots. The reason for not substituting there was simple - in a situation like that where they suspect there might be a meritorious replay challenge to their play, they rush up to the line (and don't bother substituting) to run a pre-set play. That's what they were trying to do when the fumble-with-12-men happened.

I figured as much since this is Chilly we're talking about. But he seemed pretty adamant about it, even showing the refs pictures.Any chance you have a link? I couldn't find it on ExtremeSkins.

Here it is. The key is that you can't see Portis in the pic for the second play, but that's because he was at the bottom of the pile having dove for the football.

 

[fatness]

I think the shoe is on the wrong foot here. Childress and some Viking fans are the ones saying that the Redskins substituted on that play.

Where's their proof?

Contrary to examples we see in modern day politics, repeating something over and over doesn't make it true. Time for Childress to put up some proof.

 

[mad sweeney]

I think the shoe is on the wrong foot here. Childress and some Viking fans are the ones saying that the Redskins substituted on that play.Where's their proof? Contrary to examples we see in modern day politics, repeating something over and over doesn't make it true. Time for Childress to put up some proof.

I don't see how they could've subbed without some very easy to pick out video of it. Changing formation is not the same as a sub. If they did sub, it should be as easy to prove as it was that there were 12 men on the field.That said, I think it is exceptionally stupid and ridiculous that you can challenge a non call. With PI being unreviewable (any penalty that huge should be) among all the other stuff that isn't reviewable, I think it's horrible that you can throw a red hanky and get a penalty called. I've never seen them go under the hood to review a play and come out calling a penalty they missed. I really do not like the idea of it at all. Not just in this situation, I could care less which team comes up to the NW to get beat, but in general I think it's bad form to do it, no matter how non-judgemental a call it is. Some PI calls in replay (not review) are completely non judgemental, obviously a bad flag or no flag, yet you can't review those and they could be a 50+ yard penalty. I;m not bagging on Gibbs or anyone for it being unethical or anything, especially not after the Vikes/Hutchinson loophole, but I just really, really don't like the idea of challenging a non call.

 

[mad sweeney]

I think the shoe is on the wrong foot here. Childress and some Viking fans are the ones saying that the Redskins substituted on that play.

Where's their proof?

Contrary to examples we see in modern day politics, repeating something over and over doesn't make it true. Time for Childress to put up some proof.

:whoosh: I always picture Rove and Cheney, arm in arm doing a jig chanting "If I say it then it's true, if I say it then it's true. We'll get a country star to sing it then it will be true"I call it the Neo-Con Hat Dance and the album contains such hits as: Heckuva Job, Slam Dunk, Yellow Cake (Ode to Valerie Plame), and the classic The Feds Don't Wanna Override State's Rights In a Hurricane (Unless You're On a Feeding Tube)

 

[fatness]

You mean the Redskins were making Substitutions of Mass Destruction?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Here it is. The key is that you can't see Portis in the pic for the second play, but that's because he was at the bottom of the pile having dove for the football.

I really have no opinion on this, and all I'm going off of are the screenshots here. But where is Koslowski on the second play?In the screenshots, I see a large FB looking guy, but you can only see the second number on his jersey and that looks like a 4. Koslowski's number is 41, so we should be seeing a 1 there.

It's really hard to make out because the picture is blurry, but the number looks like X4 to me. Does Washington have a second TE or someone that has a 4 as the second digit of their number?

 

[fatness]

The large guy lined up in the fullback position in the second photo is Chris Cooley. 47

 

[FreeBaGeL]

The large guy lined up in the fullback position in the second photo is Chris Cooley. 47

Sorry I meant to say play 2, not photo 2 (so I'm actually talking about photo 3, play 2).We see Koslowski in for play 1, I'm looking for him in play 2. Presumably he's that guy running the out at the bottom of the screen (same body type and elbow pads), but the number on that guy's jersey looks like X4, which wouldn't fit. It's too blurry to make out for sure though.

 

[fatness]

I'll post the direct image links here for others to see:

Huddle

First Play

Second Play

I enlarged the image of the second play as much as I could on my computer, and it looks to me like the first numeral on the sleeve is a 3 or and 8. The second numeral on the sleeve looks like a 6. On the shirt front the second image has kind of a white thing over it so it's hard to make out. If I had to guess I'd guess that that is #86, Reche Caldwell, but I honestly can't make out the number.

And here is the entire Redskin roster, with numbers: Link

The Redskins have no WR, RB, or TE whose number ends in 4.

 

[fatness]

Childress isn't so sure now

Childress had cooled down by Monday and admitted that although Washington had changed its personnel grouping from the previous play, he was no longer certain the Redskins had substituted.

"I'm still having trouble finding out who the [Redskins] receiver was on the bottom of the page, on the field closest to us," Childress said, "but it looked like they had the same fullback and a tight end in the game in a spread-out alignment, and we got a nickel call over the phone so we were trying to sub in a rush defensive lineman, and that's how we got caught with the 12."

Television replays indicated Washington did not sub and the receiver Childress is referring to was Antwaan Randle El on both occasions. Childress had viewed the coaches' film by Monday afternoon but said he wanted to see the television copy of the game before making his final decision; Pereira, meanwhile, had watched the TV copy but is awaiting the coaches' film. "Until I see all the shots I'm not going to say," Pereira said.

 

[TxBuckeye]

I think the shoe is on the wrong foot here. Childress and some Viking fans are the ones saying that the Redskins substituted on that play.Where's their proof? Contrary to examples we see in modern day politics, repeating something over and over doesn't make it true. Time for Childress to put up some proof.

I don't see how they could've subbed without some very easy to pick out video of it. Changing formation is not the same as a sub. If they did sub, it should be as easy to prove as it was that there were 12 men on the field.That said, I think it is exceptionally stupid and ridiculous that you can challenge a non call. With PI being unreviewable (any penalty that huge should be) among all the other stuff that isn't reviewable, I think it's horrible that you can throw a red hanky and get a penalty called. I've never seen them go under the hood to review a play and come out calling a penalty they missed. I really do not like the idea of it at all. Not just in this situation, I could care less which team comes up to the NW to get beat, but in general I think it's bad form to do it, no matter how non-judgemental a call it is.

Are you serious? This is the entire point of replay. To fix errors on non-judgement calls. It isn't horrible. This is exactly what instant replay is for, to correct errors made by the refs. And bad form? Bad form? That's just

 

[mad sweeney]

I think the shoe is on the wrong foot here. Childress and some Viking fans are the ones saying that the Redskins substituted on that play.Where's their proof? Contrary to examples we see in modern day politics, repeating something over and over doesn't make it true. Time for Childress to put up some proof.

I don't see how they could've subbed without some very easy to pick out video of it. Changing formation is not the same as a sub. If they did sub, it should be as easy to prove as it was that there were 12 men on the field.That said, I think it is exceptionally stupid and ridiculous that you can challenge a non call. With PI being unreviewable (any penalty that huge should be) among all the other stuff that isn't reviewable, I think it's horrible that you can throw a red hanky and get a penalty called. I've never seen them go under the hood to review a play and come out calling a penalty they missed. I really do not like the idea of it at all. Not just in this situation, I could care less which team comes up to the NW to get beat, but in general I think it's bad form to do it, no matter how non-judgemental a call it is.

Are you serious? This is the entire point of replay. To fix errors on non-judgement calls. It isn't horrible. This is exactly what instant replay is for, to correct errors made by the refs. And bad form? Bad form? That's just

Bad form by the league (or better wording, bad rule) for them to be able to do it, not for the coach to actually throw the hanky. If it's in the rules, you do what you have to to win. I just think it's stupid to be able to go back and review a non call.Lots of calls get missed every game that you can't go back and review, many of them very clear cut (ie: non-judgemental) why should this one be an exception? If the refs miss an easy (ie:non judgemental) holding call, or an easy (ie:non judgemental) PI, there's no going back. And before you go on about what's judgemental and what's not, I'm talking about blatant missed calls that even Pererria will admit were missed. There'll be a definitive, non judgemental view of offsides, false starts, motion or procedure penalties, missed facemasks etc.... but you can't throw a flag and get that looked at. I think the rule is

 

[TxBuckeye]

I think the shoe is on the wrong foot here. Childress and some Viking fans are the ones saying that the Redskins substituted on that play.Where's their proof? Contrary to examples we see in modern day politics, repeating something over and over doesn't make it true. Time for Childress to put up some proof.

I don't see how they could've subbed without some very easy to pick out video of it. Changing formation is not the same as a sub. If they did sub, it should be as easy to prove as it was that there were 12 men on the field.That said, I think it is exceptionally stupid and ridiculous that you can challenge a non call. With PI being unreviewable (any penalty that huge should be) among all the other stuff that isn't reviewable, I think it's horrible that you can throw a red hanky and get a penalty called. I've never seen them go under the hood to review a play and come out calling a penalty they missed. I really do not like the idea of it at all. Not just in this situation, I could care less which team comes up to the NW to get beat, but in general I think it's bad form to do it, no matter how non-judgemental a call it is.

Are you serious? This is the entire point of replay. To fix errors on non-judgement calls. It isn't horrible. This is exactly what instant replay is for, to correct errors made by the refs. And bad form? Bad form? That's just

Bad form by the league (or better wording, bad rule) for them to be able to do it, not for the coach to actually throw the hanky. If it's in the rules, you do what you have to to win. I just think it's stupid to be able to go back and review a non call.

Ah, ok, missed your point there. Thought you meant Gibbs for throwing the flag.

Lots of calls get missed every game that you can't go back and review, many of them very clear cut (ie: non-judgemental) why should this one be an exception? If the refs miss an easy (ie:non judgemental) holding call, or an easy (ie:non judgemental) PI, there's no going back. And before you go on about what's judgemental and what's not, I'm talking about blatant missed calls that even Pererria will admit were missed. There'll be a definitive, non judgemental view of offsides, false starts, motion or procedure penalties, missed facemasks etc.... but you can't throw a flag and get that looked at. I think the rule is

Holding and PI are always considered judgement calls, be they easy or not. 12 men on the filed isn't. There are either 12 men, or there aren't. There are calls I think should be reviewable, like the Cleveland kick that caused such a ruckus. But I guess a flawed replay system is better than none at all.