Question to ponder Review/Red Flag turnover/touchdown.

[FireJimCaldwell]

Using the Houston/Detroit game as the example.

​2-10-HST 19 (6:50) 28-J.Forsett up the middle for 81 yards, TOUCHDOWN. Penalty on Detoit head coach.

PENALTY on DET, Unsportsmanlike Conduct, 15 yards, enforced between downs.

1st Down Rushing: HST Rushing Yards, TD: HST 28 (J.Forsett), 81 yards Penalty: DET, 15 yards

17-S.Graham extra point is GOOD, Center-46-J.Weeks, Holder-5-D.Jones.

Extra Point - Good: HST 17 (S.Graham)

HST 21 DET 24, 2 plays, 81 yards, 0:28 drive, 8:25 elapsed

17-S.Graham kicks 50 yards from HST 50 to end zone, Touchback.

Kickoff With Touchback: HST 17 (S.Graham), 50 yards Kickoff - Touchback: DET

Imagine a similar play occuring, or a turnover for that matter or questionable catch ruled on the field as a touchdown late in the game.

Now imagine it with one difference. The offending team throws the challenge flag.

If Kubiak throws the flag, it's a Touchdown, it won't be reviewed, his team kicks off 15 yards deeper as opposed to 15 yards closer and he's manipulated the system in his favor.

How many coaches are smart enough to do just that.

Just an example of why removing the review concept from the process is absurd. Throw the flag and walk off the 15 yards, but they need to carry out the review process.

A smart coach could make a mockery of this situation and really create an advantage for his team.

[TMPHBITEU]

I haven't read the rule, so I'm not sure about the following.

But I seem to rememeber someone say the reason it couldn't be reviewed, was the fact that the team that throws the flag cannot benefit from the unsportsmanlike conduct off a wrongly thrown flag.

Meaning that in the example you mentioned, the play would be reviewed regardless of the other team throwing the flag.

[FireJimCaldwell]

I haven't read the rule, so I'm not sure about the following.

But I seem to rememeber someone say the reason it couldn't be reviewed, was the fact that the team that throws the flag cannot benefit from the unsportsmanlike conduct off a wrongly thrown flag.

Meaning that in the example you mentioned, the play would be reviewed regardless of the other team throwing the flag.

I'll dig up the rule in a bit.... That might be 100% right.

[FireJimCaldwell]

I haven't read the rule, so I'm not sure about the following.

But I seem to rememeber someone say the reason it couldn't be reviewed, was the fact that the team that throws the flag cannot benefit from the unsportsmanlike conduct off a wrongly thrown flag.

Meaning that in the example you mentioned, the play would be reviewed regardless of the other team throwing the flag.

I heard the broadcasters mention it and I think they said something similar in the Atlanta game last week, and didn't Pagano do the same thing early in the year?

The rulebook doesn't seem to say anything about any team benefiting.

So who knows.

[TMPHBITEU]

I heard the broadcasters mention it and I think they said something similar in the Atlanta game last week, and didn't Pagano do the same thing early in the year?

The rulebook doesn't seem to say anything about any team benefiting.

So who knows.

".. and cannot initiate a review of any ruling against a team that commits a foul that delays the next snap." @ line 22.

[FireJimCaldwell]

".. and cannot initiate a review of any ruling against a team that commits a foul that delays the next snap." @ line 22.

I'm not sure that is the same exact scenario.

Truth be told the rule book doesn't seem to adequately address that the review process is eliminated no matter who throws the red flag...

This is the pdf published by the NFL and not the pocket-sized book you can buy at Barnes & Noble.

[FireJimCaldwell]

http://nflcommunications.com/2012/11/22/rule-explanation-from-houston-detroit-game/

The Replay Official cannot initiate a review of any ruling against a team that commits a foul that delays the next snap, such as illegally throwing the challenge flag. For your reference, the same situation happened on a turnover last week in the Arizona-Atlanta game.

The NFL Rule Book (page 89) states:

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, any Replay Review will be initiated by a Replay Official from a Replay Booth comparable to the location of the coaches’ booth or Press Box. There is no limit to the number of Referee Reviews that may be initiated by the Replay Official. 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. His ability to initiate a review will be unrelated to the number of timeouts that either team has remaining, and no timeout will be charged for any review initiated by the Replay Official.

To me it still doesn't clarify that Houston throwing the red flag wouldn't have had the same result.

[TMPHBITEU]

I'm not sure that is the same exact scenario.

Truth be told the rule book doesn't seem to adequately address that the review process is eliminated no matter who throws the red flag...

This is the pdf published by the NFL and not the pocket-sized book you can buy at Barnes & Noble.

It is the same scenario by an interpretation of the purpose of the rule.

The logic is this:

The booth will review any play as mentioned under reviewable plays. The line @ 22 is a restriction to this rule meant to prevent teams from getting a reward from making a penalty.

If we look at the wording of the following: "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."

That means if Houston had opted to throw the red flag, it would still be reveiwable seeing as the play went against Detroit.

[FireJimCaldwell]

It is the same scenario by an interpretation of the purpose of the rule.

The logic is this:

The booth will review any play as mentioned under reviewable plays. The line @ 22 is a restriction to this rule meant to prevent teams from getting a reward from making a penalty.

If we look at the wording of the following: "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."

That means if Houston had opted to throw the red flag, it would still be reveiwable seeing as the play went against Detroit.

To me either team throwing the flag is delaying the next snap since it's set to be reviewed anyway. I sent Mike Periera a tweet about it. I guess we will see if he responds.

Here is an article he wrote up on it, but doesn't address the Kubiak "what if".

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Detroit-Lions-controversial-call-Houston-Texans-Jim-Schwartz-Justin-Forsett-bizarre-ruling-112212

Detroit coach Jim Schwartz tossed his challenge flag and was penalized 15 yards for unsportsmanlike conduct for trying to challenge the ruling. As was the case with Smith, both coaches threw the challenge flag before the replay official initiated a review.

By rule, since the challenge flag came first, both plays could not be reviewed. Had the replay official buzzed the referee to initiate the review before the challenge flag was thrown, the 15-yard penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct would have remained, however, the play would have been reviewed. And in the case of the Forsett touchdown, it would have been reversed

Coaches/GM's need to seek clarification so there is no question in their mind or of what their interpretation of the rule book says.

[TMPHBITEU]

To me either team throwing the flag is delaying the next snap since it's set to be reviewed anyway.

Either team throwing the flag would be a delay of game, yes.

However, the key is the fact that the play went against Detroit. Thus Houston throwing the flag would not be met by this restriction as the play did not go against Houston (as referenced in bold in my previous post).

[FireJimCaldwell]

Maybe he will respond.

[TMPHBITEU]

Maybe he will respond.

Mike Pereira ‏@MikePereira

Even though Detroit was not allowed to have the play reviewed, it still could have been reviewed if a ruling would have benefitted Houston

[PrincetonTiger]

The rule should be changed or modified

[FireJimCaldwell]

The rule should be changed or modified

Yes it should.

It will be changed, the only question is whether or not it will be changed this week or in the off season.

[PrincetonTiger]

Yes it should.

It will be changed, the only question is whether or not it will be changed this week or in the off season.

probably during the off season

[oldunclemark]

I thought the rule that says that all scoring plays are reviewed superecedes all other rules...

I think it may come out that the TD should have been reviewed AND a penalty should have been handed out...

Not either/ort

How does a team that's asking for a ruling benefit from asking for a ruling in a scenario where all plays are reviewed...

I think the rule was applied incorrectly...

[FireJimCaldwell]

probably during the off season

Normally I would agree with that.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8664826/nfl-competition-committee-reconsider-challenge-rule

Ray Anderson, the league's vice president of football operations, said the NFL's Competition Committee will discuss in the next few days whether to change the challenge rule thatLions coach Jim Schwartz and Falcons coach Mike Smith violated the past two weeks.

While the league normally prefers rules changes to occur in the offseason for competitive reasons, Anderson said Friday that this specific rule could be rescinded or revised during the season or for the upcoming playoffs.

I believe we will see it altered/eliminated on Tuesday. I think they will finish this weeks games out with all teams playing under the same rules, and then make a change, or make a change specifically for the playoffs, so that each week in the regular seasons is governed by the same rules.

I would be shocked if they left it as status quo for the playoffs.

[oldunclemark]

...and how come the focus isnt on the ref who blew an obvious call (one of 3 or 4 blown) in the Det-H game..

The larger issue is: The refs are bad.. They are old and out of shape...

....some thing needs to be done...refs need to be full time like the NFL was asking...

what we have is sub par

[PrincetonTiger]

Normally I would agree with that.

http://espn.go.com/n...-challenge-rule

I believe we will see it altered/eliminated on Tuesday. I think they will finish this weeks games out with all teams playing under the same rules, and then make a change, or make a change specifically for the playoffs, so that each week in the regular seasons is governed by the same rules.

I would be shocked if they left it as status quo for the playoffs.

Modify it for the remainder of the season and playoffs then change during the offseason

[PrincetonTiger]

...and how come the focus isnt on the ref who blew an obvious call (one of 3 or 4 blown) in the Det-H game..

The larger issue is: The refs are bad.. They are old and out of shape...

....some thing needs to be done...refs need to be full time like the NFL was asking...

what we have is sub par

I felt sorry for Walt Coleman

[FireJimCaldwell]

Modify it for the remainder of the season and playoffs then change during the offseason

Exactly

[Jason_]

I heard the broadcasters mention it and I think they said something similar in the Atlanta game last week, and didn't Pagano do the same thing early in the year?

Arians did it i believe in his first game as interim hc. I dont recall pagano doing it.

[PrincetonTiger]

Arians did it i believe in his first game as interim hc. I dont recall pagano doing it.

I believe it was BA not Pagano

[FireJimCaldwell]

Arians did it i believe in his first game as interim hc. I dont recall pagano doing it.

I believe it was BA not Pagano

I believe you are right... I guess I was getting the timeout/clocking the ball confused. I knew it was early in the season.

Green Bay 2nd quarter.

[ColtsBlueFL]

I think the commitee wanted to be double punitive for that infraction, but it appears it goes beyond what they wanted. In this case a full TD that shouldn't have been allowed was awarded, and a team in the playoffs afforded an extra 7 point advantage in it's ability to attain home field advantage over other playoff teams that didn't even compete in that game.

Since automatic review delays that snap anyway, I think the 15 yard unsportsmanlike is a fair penalty, but removing the automatic review capability is not. I hope they look into this sooner rather than later.

[PrincetonTiger]

I think the commitee wanted to be double punitive for that infraction, but it appears it goes beyond what they wanted. In this case a full TD that shouldn't have been allowed was awarded, and a team in the playoffs afforded an extra 7 point advantage in it's ability to attain home field advantage over other playoff teams that didn't even compete in that game.

Since automatic review delays that snap anyway, I think the 15 yard unsportsmanlike is a fair penalty, but removing the automatic review capability is not. I hope they look into this sooner rather than later.

nicely put

but what if a TD had not been scored?

[oldunclemark]

I think the commitee wanted to be double punitive for that infraction, but it appears it goes beyond what they wanted. In this case a full TD that shouldn't have been allowed was awarded, and a team in the playoffs afforded an extra 7 point advantage in it's ability to attain home field advantage over other playoff teams that didn't even compete in that game.

Since automatic review delays that snap anyway, I think the 15 yard unsportsmanlike is a fair penalty, but removing the automatic review capability is not. I hope they look into this sooner rather than later.

But the real question is: Why is throwing a flag and asking for a review in a play that's automatically reviewed an infraction.

How does it waste time? The clock stops on a scoring play and change of posession ANYWAY....

Its a pointless rule and it was enforced incorrectly.././All scoring plays must be reviewed under all circumstances or the entire review process is bogus.

[BOTT]

it's like getting a $1000 fine for jaywalking