FLAG FOOTBALL

Its why you hear refs say " the Jets are challenging the spot of the ball." or "the ruling on the field of a completed catch"


The refs normally say exactly what is being challenged...they don't normally say "the play is being challenged


Hack

 

In keeping with this post, did anyone see the Ravens/Eagles game? They called a fumble on Vick, which was overturned and called an incomplete pass. While I agree with the reversal, my next question would have been, Who was he throwing it to? IMO it was clearly grounding to not take a sack. So is it my understanding that after they ruled it an attempted pass, they could not determine it to be intentional grounding?

 

Can't call a penalty on a review.

 

It's always been my understanding that the coach needs to be specific on what exactly he's challenging, which is why the ref has a conversation with him and then announces specifically what is being reviewed. If this wasn't the case, the coach would just have to throw his flag and have the entire play reviewed.

 

Yes, the coach has to challenge a specific part of the play, but if the ref sees something else that is reviewable, that can be changed as well, even if it's not what the coach challenged.

 

Then why would they even look at the begining of the play if the part of the play being challenged is at the end?

 

Sorry, but Shanner is right on this one.

Profootballtalk.com confirms:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/16/officials-having-rough-day-in-pittsburgh/

PFT is a pretty reputable site.

 

So both commentators are wrong, that article is wrong, and I'm wrong. lol At least admit that maybe, just maybe you might be wrong on this one.

They don't show the entire play because it's unnecessary. Very rarely will there be two things in a replay that could be overturned, and even if there is, the guys in the replay truck may not know it. Remember, not everything is reviewable. I am telling you with 100% certainty, the refs should have and could have ruled that Redman's knee was down and that's where the play should have ended, even though that's not what Rex challenged. Why do you think he was so upset on the sidelines? Unfortunately it's not written in the rules, but I'm confident about this.

 

They where reviewing if the player fumbled before he was down by contact. His knee WAS down by contact, a few steps before the fumble and this should have been the ruling. But they looked at the 2nd time he was down by contact. All of that is completely within the review rules.

 

I don't see how anyone can be definitive when it comes to replay. Regardless of what the rules say, every week we watch a replay and clearly think we know what the outcome will be, then the outcome is different.

As far as the coach stipulating which part of the play, I can neither confirm nor deny. However, I do recall a time when one coach challenged, they reviewed what he challenged. Then the other coach threw a challenge as well, for another part of the play. At the time, I wondered why they didn't see that when they first reviewed it. So maybe they do only look at the specific part of the play. All I know is, I'm not going to lose sleep over it or get into a he said she said contest either.

 

Ask yourself this question: what if they had ruled it a fumble? Would (or better yet COULD) Tomlin then throw a challenge that Redmans knee was down earlier?

Can a play even be reviewed twice (I really don't know)? It seems absurd but to be fair it would have to be allowed. And how much time would a second review take? Following this reasoning it's only logical to assume that once a challenge is thrown that the WHOLE play is looked at. If not the officials are leaving themselves open to multiple challenges of a single play.

 

I also remember a multi challenge play.....and if the refs watched the entire play then that would not be necessary. ( I do not recall if the ref actually did allow or review the play a second time...but I firmly recall another red flag...and a different challenge.)

HACK

 

That statement is completely in contradiction to what you are claiming though, doesn't make sense. They would have to review everything in a play from start to finish if what you are saying is correct. Or do you think they say amongst themselves, "well if we don't look at everything in the play, we can just claim ignornace. We didn't see it, everythings a-ok". And yes, commentators and an article can all be wrong, after all, myself and several other people here are apparently wrong. I have no problem admitting I am wrong, I've done it several times, the best example I can give would be the biggest hot topic here, I used to be on the other side of the fence about BA, now I feel his approach was responsible for many of our shortcomings.[/quote:18ed8y70]
Holy $h!T I can't believe TE actually wrote that. Really proud of you Tomlin Era. Well done!

 

Well the players are smarter than we think. I bet they are testing the refs to see what they can get away with