Anyone see the end of the Lions game? That just seems wrong!
JoeBanzai
Posts: 11,216 ✭✭✭✭✭
Lions with no time outs, and under 10 seconds left in game, appear to score the winning TD.
Call is overturned, Lions 4th down at the 1/2 yard line, but the rules say 10 seconds have to be run off the clock and game over!
As a Vikings fan, I want the Lions to lose, but this just seems wrong.
Lions should have had the option of declining the score and going for it on 4th down, or given the ball on the 1/2 yard line and 1 second on clock.
I am all for getting the call right (saw this one repeatedly and can't tell if he scored, did not think there was clear evidence to overturn) but to end the game trying to get the call right seems wrong!
With so many games ending at the end of regulation, I don't see where this is an improvement. How about saving those 10 seconds by reducing the commercials! HA HA!
If I were a Lions fan I would be MAD!
Comments
As a Detroiter this is business as usual. Heartbreak knows no bounds. Tough tough break for sure
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
If they'd gotten the call right to begin with, the clock wouldn't have stopped. The 10 second runoff is so the other team isn't disadvantaged by basically giving the Lions an extra free timeout. If the Lions had saved a timeout, they could have used that to avoid the 10 second runoff and get another play in.
Another brick in the NFL wall.....
It is embarrassing that they punish the Lions for their screwup on the initial play though. They need to adjust this rule somehow. I vaguely remember this happening in a patriots game a few years ago. I don't recall if it harmed or helped them though.
It's not really a punishment, if the clock continued rolling I don't think the Lions could have gotten another play off and time would have expired anyway. Maybe 10 seconds is a touch too long, but is probably average for most teams to get a call in, lined up, and snap the ball. Pats are probably the only team who could pull it off faster than that on a regular basis. Even if it was lowered to 8 seconds, that game would still be over.
It doesn't make sense though unless a team deliberately causes a situation designed to scam a timeout if they have used their 3 up already. What if it had been 1st or second down? they could have spiked the ball in 10 seconds. The whole situation is unnatural because the clock was not running. no one is scrambling around trying to get off a next play here , no one is acting like there is any time pressure at all.
Is it fair to the other team if Detroit gets a free timeout because the on field officials screwed up the initial call? They earned the third down stop. I'm not sure how you tweak the rule and be more fair to both sides, unless you possibly adjust the runoff time slightly. Opt for a 5 second runoff and loss of a down to simulate a spike? It wouldn't have helped in this situation, but could be a reasonable rules modification.
I don't understand the 10 second run off. But here is another thing I saw Sunday. It was the Bears Steelers game. A Bear safety got the ball on a blocked FG attempt and due to being STUPID and celebrating before he crossed the end zone was stripped of the ball and a Steeler knocked it out of the end zone to avoid a Bear recovering the ball and getting the TD. The clock ran out during this, but the Bears got another play because the half or a game cannot end on a defensive penalty. So the Bears get one play with no time on clock. They false start, which should be half over to me since I thought an offensive penalty ended the half or game. But the officials backed them up 5 yards and gave them another play, which they then decided to kick the FG and got 3 points. I'm not a Bear fan or a Steeler fan and I am glad the Steelers lost, but was this right!
The game can't end with a defensive penalty concluding a live play. This was a dead ball untimed play you refer to. It was correctly called. What a weird sequence though
Mari
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Amazing to me that anyone could possibly think that the Lions were shortchanged in this scenario. If you choose to run a play where the first read is short of the end zone -- with 12 seconds left and no timeouts -- any potential insanity that ensues falls on you. Way too much undue risk created for my taste. Give your upper-echelon QB two shots to win the game and stop fooling around outside of the house.
Dez Bryant feels Tate's pain..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I didn't see that game, but it sounds like the Lions shot themselves in the foot and have no on to blame but themselves. Why in the world would you run a route short of the end zone with that amount of time and no timeouts.
Jon, they were on the one yard line. They ran an inside slant and it sure looked good in real time.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Was it ruled a TD and then overturned on replay? I guess his slant didn't have enough degree's in angle.
That's a tuff way to lose a game.
Sorta like a couple of years ago in a Dallas/GB game......I will never get that bad taste out of my mouth. I still to this day have no respect for NFL officials!
Yup
look at what you started Tim lol
You don't think they could line up and run a play in 8 seconds? They easily could do that.
What should have happened, if the refs were insistent on deciding he was down (I don't think he was...) is they should have put time back on the clock to the point where he was ruled down. He was down at 11 or 12 seconds left, not 8. 10-second runoff puts you at :01 or :02. But, because it's the Lions, they decided to have it both ways - rule he didn't score but run the clock as if he did.
And guaranteed that play doesn't get overturned if it's Brady or Rodgers throwing the ball. Guaranteed.
Conclusive that his knee was down? That's the problem I have with it. All year they have sided with original call unless its 100% conclusive.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I still to this day have no respect for NFL officials!
Wait till the officials start kneeling
It's hard to kneel when you have your head where the sun don't shine.
They wouldn't kneel they only get minimum wage. Something tells me anyone that isn't a player who kneels gets fired instantly.
The Lions? No, I don't think they're that organized or well coached. There are few teams who could pull it off in that situation without having a 4th down playcall already in the huddle before that play.
Actually I think they are one of the few teams that could pull it off. Their two minute drill is one of the best in football. They seem to be in it every week so lots of practice
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I think they could possibly do a spike in that time, it's not enough time to set up a play at the line.
It would have been tight for sure. I'm not 100% positive they could either.
I just read this on the NFL Power rankings blog:
"There is really no doubt that had Golden Tate been ruled down at the one yard line, Detroit would have gotten another snap off."
My question is this- let's say they ruled him down at the 2 inch line to begin with. I'm pretty sure the booth would have buzzed down to the field and wanted to review the play. Would there been a run off after that? If so the Lions or whatever team in that situation would have been screwed either way
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I'm not sure of runoff on booth review. Regardless, the ball should have never been thrown short of the goal line. If Stafford throws it away, clock stops and they get another chance.
fourth down.
The once relatively simple game of football has become overly complex.
Remember when overtime took no explanation?
I don't agree with a "run off".
If the officials decide to stop the clock to review a call, the clock should be stopped, then restarted when decision is made.
This should NEVER cause the game to end.
And this would be an equitable solution how exactly? So let me get this straight, the Atlanta Falcons make a play to stop Detroit short of the goal line and their prize behind door #1 is.................2-3 consecutive timeouts so the Lions can have a cup of coffee and devise a game winner?
Are you trying to get me to say crime against humanity again?
Well they would still get a chance to try to make a play. In this case the refs stole a down from them for no reason , why does that make sense?
Well the refs first said it was a touchdown, game over, Atlanta loses. Then they reviewed it and said "oops, no score" HUGE favor for Atlanta! THEN the rules say we are going to help Atlanta AGAIN by ending the game even though it's fourth down and Detroit's ball on 1/2 yard line.
Atlanta also gets a time out to plan strategy, it's not an advantage for either team.
I don't see 2-3 timeouts here. If the refs decide to stop the game every time a team scores, that's a timeout. The team that scores (or in this case doesn't) in the last 10 seconds loses the game every time, if it's overturned?
Doesn't seem "right" to me, but not a crime against humanity. ;-)
Makes no sense at all.
The rule is pretty clear. Had it been ruled onfield as 4th down, they maybe get the play off. But tough. There were 9 seconds left when the TD was called. Now untangle the players, set ball, call play, snap...maybe, but I think unlikely.
Tough that it's the Lions again, but this is clock management gone awry. Save a TO. Throw into the end zone.
This rule is much easier to understand and interpret than some of the other rules...catching while going to ground for example. They got bit by that one too and it led to a minor rule change.
If really unhappy they can try to make another change. Maybe it's 5-8 seconds. Maybe in case of review they just get the freebie. Maybe line up offense at line of scrimmage on sideline, set ball, and start clock and make them hustle.
I don't know, but given rules today, it was called appropriately.
This.
And that's why Brady or Rodgers would never face this situation. They both know better than to throw the ball short of the end zone. A throwaway still gives them another chance, clock stopped, no runoff.
The rule is clear. Because the refs want to get it right they ended the game without the offense getting a chance to run a final play.
Just seems the wrong way to end a game.
Hey, I'm glad the Lions lost, I hope the Vikings keep this in mind if they find themselves in a similar situation.
bronco, you've said countless times that you think the vast majority of NFL head coaches are dimwits. I'm not going to go so far to say that it was a brainless play call (eta: actually I am, it was dumb as hell), but if you're going to assume the added risk associated with throwing the ball short of the goal line in a situation like that, you best take into consideration the potential ramifications for doing so.
A quick inside slant at midfield and one at the 1-yard line are like apples and papayas. There were 8 pairs of Falcon nuts hovering over the goal line when that ball was snapped. If that's the play you roll with and you're a HC who prides himself on thinking outside of the box, you have to realize that there are not one (we score), not two (we don't score), but THREE (it's going to be really close) potential scenarios. If you force a zebra to go under a hood without a TO in your hip pocket and the outcome doesn't go your way, can you please tell the class what your fate is going to be?
Probably true, it was originally called a TD, so very close. Oh well. Too bad for the Lions!
Fair enough , it just seems like the rule could be tweaked. I think it was designed to prevent shenanigans by a team out of time outs.
Overall its been a positive to have automatic reviews of all scoring plays so once in a while you are going to get a less than ideal outcome. Atlanta would have had plenty to complain about if the TD was allowed to stand and those situations are much rarer now with the reviews
Replays didn't look to me like they were enough to overturn the call.
Oh well.
Blandino disagrees. The Twitter battle between Blandino and the Lions has been pretty amusing though.