Official Lions studs and duds

[Daryl Muellenberg]

The problem is the rule itself; it's too 'ticky tack', for lack of a better term. Even the slightest unintentional contact to any part of the head is by rule a penalty. This was, by definition, a penalty- period.
They need to define it better, put some slack and leeway into it. I didn't care for the call, but it was a penalty.

Actually, I think the rule is defined pretty well. Here is the definition from the NLF rule book:

GRASPING FACEMASK
Article 5
No player shall twist, turn, or pull the facemask of an opponent in any direction.
Penalty: For twisting, turning, or pulling the mask: Loss of 15 yards. A personal foul. The player may
be disqualified if the action is judged by the official (s) to be of a flagrant nature.
A.R. 12.12
Third-and-10 on A30. Runner A1 runs to the A33, where he is tackled by B1, who incidentally grasps A1’s
facemask on the tackle, but it is not a twist, turn, or pull.
Ruling:
A’s ball, fourth-and-seven, on A33. No Foul

In real time, I think the refs made the right call as it definitely looked like a facemask. But reviewing it in slow motion I don't think it was, according to the rule as stated above (and confirmed by the example given which says as long as there is no twist, turn or pull then it is not a penalty).

While I'm glad the penalty was called, this is the exact type of play that supports my belief that any play should be able to be reviewed.

 

[Raptorman]

If a QB is getting sacked a lot he is probably get hit a lot. Not a perfect correlation but one that does help to disprove the notion brady and rodgers get so many calls. Seriously if it is 2 to 4 a year it isn't a lot no matter what.

Here is one of the sites I used. http://www.nflpenalties.com

I won't debate this anymore bc I don't think there is a single stat I could show you that would change your mind

Not looking to change anyone's mind. Looking for things to look at to see if what people think is reality or just perception. My belief is it's perception. Of course I always think my QB isn't getting the calls I think he should be. Who doesn't?

 

[thisisnate]

While I'm glad the penalty was called, this is the exact type of play that supports my belief that any play should be able to be reviewed.

I don't think you fully understand what it is that you "support" lol
You would enthusiastically retract that statement 5 minutes into any game where all plays were able to be reviewed.

 

[Raptorman]

Actually, I think the rule is defined pretty well. Here is the definition from the NLF rule book:

GRASPING FACEMASK
Article 5
No player shall twist, turn, or pull the facemask of an opponent in any direction.
Penalty: For twisting, turning, or pulling the mask: Loss of 15 yards. A personal foul. The player may
be disqualified if the action is judged by the official (s) to be of a flagrant nature.
A.R. 12.12
Third-and-10 on A30. Runner A1 runs to the A33, where he is tackled by B1, who incidentally grasps A1’s
facemask on the tackle, but it is not a twist, turn, or pull.
Ruling:
A’s ball, fourth-and-seven, on A33. No Foul

In real time, I think the refs made the right call as it definitely looked like a facemask. But reviewing it in slow motion I don't think it was, according to the rule as stated above (and confirmed by the example given which says as long as there is no twist, turn or pull then it is not a penalty).

While I'm glad the penalty was called, this is the exact type of play that supports my belief that any play should be able to be reviewed.

I have to wonder if some more penalties won't reviewed in the future. Currently I believe only 5(or 4) are reviewable.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

I don't think you fully understand what it is that you "support" lol
You would enthusiastically retract that statement 5 minutes into any game where all plays were able to be reviewed.

Yes I do understand what I support. I think you don't understand what that means. Evidently you are under the false impression, like many others, that just because more types of plays are reviewable then that would slow the game down since more plays would be reviewed. Expanding the types of plays that can be reviewed does not expand the number of challenges a coach has available. They are still limited to 2 challenges (3 if their first 2 are upheld). They just would be able to challenge more types of plays, not increase the number of challenged plays.

 

[TJV]

After all, if I am not a Packer fan, I must be an idiot.

FINALLY! Good for you, Raptorman. The first step is admitting it!

 

[Raptorman]

FINALLY! Good for you, Raptorman. The first step is admitting it!

Had the Vikings moved, I would have switched.. Wasn't going to follow them out of MN.

 

[thisisnate]

Yes I do understand what I support. I think you don't understand what that means. Evidently you are under the false impression, like many others, that just because more types of plays are reviewable then that would slow the game down since more plays would be reviewed. Expanding the types of plays that can be reviewed does not expand the number of challenges a coach has available. They are still limited to 2 challenges (3 if their first 2 are upheld). They just would be able to challenge more types of plays, not increase the number of challenged plays.

If you're going to allow coaches to challenge when a flag is thrown, you have to allow them to challenge when a flag is not thrown. You may want coaches fishing for flags with replays. I do not.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

If you're going to allow coaches to challenge when a flag is thrown, you have to allow them to challenge when a flag is not thrown. You may want coaches fishing for flags with replays. I do not.

If a play is obviously called incorrectly by the refs, why not? Isn't the point of replay to get the call right?

 

[thisisnate]

If a play is obviously called incorrectly by the refs, why not? Isn't the point of replay to get the call right?

There's a reason people say you can find PI or holding on every single play... because you can.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

There's a reason people say you can find PI or holding on every single play... because you can.

That's not the point. A coach is still limited to 2 challenges, so they are not going to waste a challenge and time out on a questionable call. I'm sure it would have to be an obvious call/no call before a coach would challenge it. Again, it doesn't increase the number of plays that can be challenged - only the type.

 

[thisisnate]

That's not the point. A coach is still limited to 2 challenges, so they are not going to waste a challenge and time out on a questionable call. I'm sure it would have to be an obvious call/no call before a coach would challenge it. Again, it doesn't increase the number of plays that can be challenged - only the type.

If it's a pivotal play, yes they would. Why wouldn't they? Ugh football is getting to be so ridiculous we're talking about reviewing flags.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

If it's a pivotal play, yes they would. Why wouldn't they? Ugh football is getting to be so ridiculous we're talking about reviewing flags.

Of course they would if it's pivotal. But again, they only get 2 challenges. Once those challenges are used up they can't challenge anymore so they are going to be fairly certain that the play was called wrong. I'll go back to my original statement, isn't replay about getting the call right?

Also, Bill Belichick of NE is in favor of expanding replay, and he is a pretty smart guy and knows a thing or two about football.

 

[thisisnate]

Of course they would if it's pivotal. But again, they only get 2 challenges. Once those challenges are used up they can't challenge anymore so they are going to be fairly certain that the play was called wrong. I'll go back to my original statement, isn't replay about getting the call right?

Team completes 50 yard pass play.
Opposing coach throws flag... "Hey ref, one of my towel boys said he saw someone on their team totally away from the play hold for a sec. Go check that out, will ya...think you should flag that."
Play overturned.
Yay football.

Is that "right?" Yes. Do I want that? I would stop watching football if it came to that.

Also, Bill Belichick of NE is in favor of expanding replay, and he is a pretty smart guy and knows a thing or two about football.

I applaud your blatant logical fallacy. Kudos.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

Team completes 50 yard pass play.
Opposing coach throws flag... "Hey ref, one of my towel boys said he saw someone on their team totally away from the play hold for a sec. Go check that out, will ya...think you should flag that."
Play overturned.
Yay football.

You make it sound like every play is going to be challenged and I've explained how that is not going to happen. But in that case if it's against the rules why should they get away with it? Obviously you are not in favor of expanded replay and nothing I can say is going to change your mind - and nothing you can say is going to change my mind so that's all I'm going to say on this (at least in response to you).

 

[thisisnate]

You make it sound like every play is going to be challenged and I've explained how that is not going to happen. But in that case if it's against the rules why should they get away with it? Obviously you are not in favor of expanded replay and nothing I can say is going to change your mind - and nothing you can say is going to change my mind so that's all I'm going to say on this (at least in response to you).

Well that's a healthy mindset

You're wrong about me however. A better argument can always change my mind.

 

[Raptorman]

Here's the thing. Inside of two minutes a coach would not have been able to challenge it anyway. And, even if the refs wanted to, they couldn't look at it. Maybe they should be allowed to look at penalties inside of two minutes at the end of the game to see if they got them correct. While it does not happen often, those plays that end the game because of, or on a penalty always seem to be broiled in controversy.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/20151...ameinfo|contentId:0ap3000000585577&tab=videos

Hopefully the link works correctly. Check the video at around the 38 second mark. This is a good example of the facemask rule being called correctly. Just because a defender's hand contacts the ball carrier's facemask it isn't a penalty if he doesn't turn, twist or pull it.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

Here's the thing. Inside of two minutes a coach would not have been able to challenge it anyway. And, even if the refs wanted to, they couldn't look at it. Maybe they should be allowed to look at penalties inside of two minutes at the end of the game to see if they got them correct. While it does not happen often, those plays that end the game because of, or on a penalty always seem to be broiled in controversy.

The refs can't call for a review under 2 minutes anyway, it comes from the replay booth. I'm not saying every play should be reviewed, but if there is a play that has a big impact on the game and there is some question about it, then it should be able to be reviewed, including penalties IMO.

 

[Raptorman]

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2015112205/2015/REG11/packers@vikings#menu=gameinfo|contentId:0ap3000000585577&tab=videos

Hopefully the link works correctly. Check the video at around the 38 second mark. This is a good example of the facemask rule being called correctly. Just because a defender's hand contacts the ball carrier's facemask it isn't a penalty if he doesn't turn, twist or pull it.

And that should have been called a blow to the QB's head.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

And that should have been called a blow to the QB's head.

Yes, there is an argument for that, but you can also argue that he had pulled the ball down and started running so at that point he was a runner. I realize it's a fine line when it comes to that and it ends up being a judgement call by the refs. I wish there was a way to take judgements like that out of the equation, but there's always going to be judgement calls.

 

[Mondio]

I don't think replay helps the game in the end. We have as much or more controversy than before, it's still a judgement call, just slowed down to tenths or hundredths of real time speed. The calls still haven't added clarity to the game and expanding it won't either. I'd be ok with scrapping it all, or leaving it, but please no more expansion of it's use.

I look at it this way, refs are going to call what they call anyway. From game to game and play to play, there is so much that seems so obvious that does or doesn't get called and i'm ok with those calls evening out, as they do, over the course of a game or season for the most part. I think replay is degrading the overall officiating in the game, because they don't have to be as sharp. Over time, they become to rely on replay. They aren't there yet, but I'd rather the field have guys with sharp quick eyes and the guts to make the calls, than a bunch of guys making calls with the thought of replay to help them get it correct in the end. The good and bad will sort themselves out and the game will be better for it. And just think of all the commercials we could cut from the game. Which of course is a reason I think we will see it expanded. the league can sell more ads or fill our heads with more needless analysis with the extra time. I'm not looking forward to it.

 

[Raptorman]

Yes, there is an argument for that, but you can also argue that he had pulled the ball down and started running so at that point he was a runner. I realize it's a fine line when it comes to that and it ends up being a judgement call by the refs. I wish there was a way to take judgements like that out of the equation, but there's always going to be judgement calls.

He's not a runner until he crosses the LOS. Otherwise it would not have counted as a sack. QB'a are supposed to be afforded a bit more protection. And the only reason he pulled the ball down was because he was being wrapped up by Peppers. I have seen lesser hit's to a QB's head get called. In this case, I don't think the refs saw it.

 

[Raptorman]

I don't think replay helps the game in the end. We have as much or more controversy than before, it's still a judgement call, just slowed down to tenths or hundredths of real time speed. The calls still haven't added clarity to the game and expanding it won't either. I'd be ok with scrapping it all, or leaving it, but please no more expansion of it's use.

I look at it this way, refs are going to call what they call anyway. From game to game and play to play, there is so much that seems so obvious that does or doesn't get called and i'm ok with those calls evening out, as they do, over the course of a game or season for the most part. I think replay is degrading the overall officiating in the game, because they don't have to be as sharp. Over time, they become to rely on replay. They aren't there yet, but I'd rather the field have guys with sharp quick eyes and the guts to make the calls, than a bunch of guys making calls with the thought of replay to help them get it correct in the end. The good and bad will sort themselves out and the game will be better for it. And just think of all the commercials we could cut from the game. Which of course is a reason I think we will see it expanded. the league can sell more ads or fill our heads with more needless analysis with the extra time. I'm not looking forward to it.

The real questions are, how much do you want to slow the game down and how much of the human element do you want to take out of the game? I was having this discussion with some old timers and they said we never had this in the 70's. I brought up the fact that in the 70's they didn't have HD TV and 15 cameras at every game. Nor did they have 150 foot screens in the stadiums showing every play over again. That I think makes a difference in what we as fans see as to what we saw in the past.

 

[Mondio]

There's always human elements involved, they're are afterall watching the replay, slowing it down, interpreting the rules, and rendering the decision. The game is plenty slow for me already and I do watch less because of it. GB is about my only must see game. Between over officiating and replay and plus the half an hour it seems to take after any punt or score with all the commercial brakes, watching a game takes commitment these days. I'm not playing, I'm just watching, I don't want to have to feel like I'm committed to watching every play, I just want to watch them and be entertained.