If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Jim Schwartz: I knew the rule, I threw the challenge flag anyways   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 141
    More: Dumbass, Jim Schwartz, Detroit Lions, Texans, Kyle Vanden Bosch, Jason Hanson, Jake Delhomme, Justin Forsett, Arian Foster  
•       •       •

2770 clicks; posted to Sports » on 23 Nov 2012 at 11:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



141 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-23 10:32:31 AM
I thought he manned up pretty well. Just said he was fired up, didn't even wait for the play to be over before he pulled the challenge flag out.

A lot of people in the Fark football thread were complaining (and a lot of them got the interpretation of the rule completely wrong) but essentially the rule is to keep coaches from being jackasses. It's like saying, "Listen, this is going to be automatically reviewed, so shut your yap and let the process begin. Stop trying to be an attention whore."

If you can't follow that simple rule, you'll lose your right to due process.
 
2012-11-23 11:35:33 AM

jaylectricity: I thought he manned up pretty well. Just said he was fired up, didn't even wait for the play to be over before he pulled the challenge flag out.

A lot of people in the Fark football thread were complaining (and a lot of them got the interpretation of the rule completely wrong) but essentially the rule is to keep coaches from being jackasses. It's like saying, "Listen, this is going to be automatically reviewed, so shut your yap and let the process begin. Stop trying to be an attention whore."

If you can't follow that simple rule, you'll lose your right to due process.


I understand why the rule was put into place, but I do believe the no review part is pretty harsh. I'd like to see that part changed. Keep the penalty yards, though. That should be enough of a deterrent.
 
2012-11-23 11:48:57 AM

SnarfVader: I understand why the rule was put into place, but I do believe the no review part is pretty harsh. I'd like to see that part changed. Keep the penalty yards, though. That should be enough of a deterrent.


I can agree with that.
 
2012-11-23 11:53:07 AM
And right now Jim Harbaugh is laughing his ass off
 
2012-11-23 11:54:10 AM
I'd like it to change so that any part of any play except for penalties can be booth reviewed, and any part of any play except for penalties can be challenged by coaches (max 2 if they miss one, with a bonus one if they're right both times.)  Basically, how most college conferences do it now. Also basically, the best of the challenge system with the best of the old system.
 
2012-11-23 11:57:40 AM
Take out the part where the play can't be challenged, but add in the coach loses that challenge (if that isn't already in the rules)
 
2012-11-23 11:59:06 AM

VvonderJesus: Take out the part where the play can't be challenged, but add in the coach loses that challenge (if that isn't already in the rules)


Let's try that again. The play can still be reviewed after an inappropriate challenge flag, but the coach loses a challenge for the game even if the play is overturned. The 15 yard penalty remains.
 
2012-11-23 11:59:41 AM

SnarfVader: I understand why the rule was put into place, but I do believe the no review part is pretty harsh. I'd like to see that part changed. Keep the penalty yards, though. That should be enough of a deterrent.


Not in the case of yesterday's play. Kickoffs are already all likely to result in touchbacks anyway, so a 15-yard penalty on the kickoff isn't much of a deterrent.

VvonderJesus: Take out the part where the play can't be challenged, but add in the coach loses that challenge (if that isn't already in the rules)


That's a much better deterrent.
 
2012-11-23 12:00:25 PM
He's so rebellious he doesn't play by anyone's rules, not even his own.
 
2012-11-23 12:02:27 PM

jaylectricity: SnarfVader: I understand why the rule was put into place, but I do believe the no review part is pretty harsh. I'd like to see that part changed. Keep the penalty yards, though. That should be enough of a deterrent.

I can agree with that.


Seconded.
 
2012-11-23 12:03:18 PM
www.themaddencurse.com
www.lionsgab.com
img.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-23 12:04:00 PM
Here's the unintended stupid side of that rule: if, instead of Detroit, it had been Houston that threw the challenge flag -- for no reason, admittedly -- the review would have been negated, and hey, free touchdown.

At some point, this will happen.

The NFL should just scrap the rule; it's pointless the way it is written now.
 
2012-11-23 12:05:28 PM

Ed_Severson: Here's the unintended stupid side of that rule: if, instead of Detroit, it had been Houston that threw the challenge flag -- for no reason, admittedly -- the review would have been negated, and hey, free touchdown.


Wrong. The Texans could not benefit from a review. They already had a touchdown ruled in their favor. Therefore, them throwing the flag would not have invoked this rule.
 
2012-11-23 12:06:56 PM

Ed_Severson: Here's the unintended stupid side of that rule: if, instead of Detroit, it had been Houston that threw the challenge flag -- for no reason, admittedly -- the review would have been negated, and hey, free touchdown.

At some point, this will happen.

The NFL should just scrap the rule; it's pointless the way it is written now.


No, it won't happen, because the rule says the challenging team cannot BENEFIT from a review. As the team that would be HURT by the review, throwing the challenge flag wouldn't prevent a review.
 
2012-11-23 12:07:51 PM

Ed_Severson: Here's the unintended stupid side of that rule: if, instead of Detroit, it had been Houston that threw the challenge flag -- for no reason, admittedly -- the review would have been negated, and hey, free touchdown.

At some point, this will happen.


Nothing you just said is true.
 
2012-11-23 12:07:54 PM

jaylectricity: Wrong. The Texans could not benefit from a review.


"There was a late hit on the return that should've been flagged for 15 yards on the kickoff. Oh, we can't challenge that? My bad."
 
2012-11-23 12:08:00 PM
Also, I'm the biggest Texans fan on Fark (by volume) and even I think that play should have been overturned. I felt bad about it the rest of the game :(
 
2012-11-23 12:08:57 PM

Harv72b: jaylectricity: Wrong. The Texans could not benefit from a review.

"There was a late hit on the return that should've been flagged for 15 yards on the kickoff. Oh, we can't challenge that? My bad."


Again...the Texans could not benefit from the review, even in your scenario.
 
2012-11-23 12:11:10 PM

jaylectricity: Again...the Texans could not benefit from the review, even in your scenario.


"That touchdown was so badass we should get 9 points for it."
 
2012-11-23 12:14:24 PM

VvonderJesus: VvonderJesus: Take out the part where the play can't be challenged, but add in the coach loses that challenge (if that isn't already in the rules)

Let's try that again. The play can still be reviewed after an inappropriate challenge flag, but the coach loses a challenge for the game even if the play is overturned. The 15 yard penalty remains.


And the ref gets to kick the coach in the nuts.
 
2012-11-23 12:19:00 PM

INeedAName: VvonderJesus: VvonderJesus: Take out the part where the play can't be challenged, but add in the coach loses that challenge (if that isn't already in the rules)

Let's try that again. The play can still be reviewed after an inappropriate challenge flag, but the coach loses a challenge for the game even if the play is overturned. The 15 yard penalty remains.

And the ref gets to kick the coach in the nuts.


You give me half your points, let me kick you in the nuts and we'll call it a day!
 
2012-11-23 12:24:58 PM

jaylectricity:
A lot of people in the Fark football thread were complaining (and a lot of them got the interpretation of the rule completely wrong) but essentially the rule is to keep coaches from being jackasses. It's like saying, "Listen, this is going to be automatically reviewed, so shut your yap and let the process begin. Stop trying to be an attention whore."


It also prevents the opposing coach from being an asshat and running a play immediately before it gets reviewed.

I'm okay with this, but I can see a play not getting challenged and finding out it's not an automatic review.
 
2012-11-23 12:24:58 PM

Yanks_RSJ: Ed_Severson: Here's the unintended stupid side of that rule: if, instead of Detroit, it had been Houston that threw the challenge flag -- for no reason, admittedly -- the review would have been negated, and hey, free touchdown.

At some point, this will happen.

Nothing you just said is true.


What yanks said
 
2012-11-23 12:27:28 PM

Wadded Beef: jaylectricity: SnarfVader: I understand why the rule was put into place, but I do believe the no review part is pretty harsh. I'd like to see that part changed. Keep the penalty yards, though. That should be enough of a deterrent.

I can agree with that.

Seconded.


Thirded.
 
2012-11-23 12:28:03 PM
If he had been down at the one... So not scoring..

Would the challenge still be disallowed?

If there is no flag, if there anything TO challenge? Can you challenge the run in general for not being called down?

/Honest question, as I thought he threw the challenge flag before the score actually happened, but after the HOU player got up from the failed (sorta) tackle.
 
2012-11-23 12:28:52 PM
Also, if you're the ball carrier, why wouldn't you just run it into the end zone every play? Just keep going, even if tackled, get up and run into the end zone. Apparently there are refs out there stupid enough to reward you.
 
2012-11-23 12:29:40 PM
I agree this is kind of a silly rule. At the very least it has to be amended to say something along the lines that if you do what Schwartz did, the play still gets reviewed but you lose your challenge regardless of the outcome. So essentially you wasted your challenge. Maybe even throw in a small fine.
 
2012-11-23 12:30:02 PM

chuggernaught: Also, if you're the ball carrier, why wouldn't you just run it into the end zone every play? Just keep going, even if tackled, get up and run into the end zone. Apparently there are refs out there stupid enough to reward you.


I think the issue is that there was no whistle to say he was down. If there WAS a whistle, and he got up and ran into the end zone, that would be "bad".
 
2012-11-23 12:30:16 PM
I'd be okay if, when a coach throws the challenge flag on an auto-review play (score, turnover, inside 2:00 or OT), then they lose all remaining challenges and a timeout, plus a 15-yd penalty on the next scrimmage* play (i.e. not a kick, unless the opponent agrees to that). As has been said many times so far, they should always strive to get the call right, which the rules (and/or their interpretation) prevented yesterday.

/* yeah, I know it's probably not the right term technically, but I want the opponent to be able to elect not to have the 15-yds on a kick-off, b/c what good are those yards if its a touchback anyway?
 
2012-11-23 12:30:46 PM
I like the rule as is. If you don't want a blown review and a 15-yard penalty, keep your junk in your pants.

Like red like cameras, if you don't run red lights you have nothing to worry about.
 
2012-11-23 12:31:57 PM

Shadow Blasko: If he had been down at the one... So not scoring..

Would the challenge still be disallowed?

If there is no flag, if there anything TO challenge? Can you challenge the run in general for not being called down?

/Honest question, as I thought he threw the challenge flag before the score actually happened, but after the HOU player got up from the failed (sorta) tackle.


If he had been tackled at the one (or even given himself up, like at the end of the Redskins game) it would not be automatic review, Schwartz's flag would have been legitimate and yes they could see that the runner was down and call the ball back to the spot he was down.
 
2012-11-23 12:32:16 PM

thecpt: INeedAName: VvonderJesus: VvonderJesus: Take out the part where the play can't be challenged, but add in the coach loses that challenge (if that isn't already in the rules)

Let's try that again. The play can still be reviewed after an inappropriate challenge flag, but the coach loses a challenge for the game even if the play is overturned. The 15 yard penalty remains.

And the ref gets to kick the coach in the nuts.

You give me half your points, let me kick you in the nuts and we'll call it a day!


You can only challenge a play, if you let the opposing teams punter kick you in the nuts.
 
2012-11-23 12:33:50 PM

Shadow Blasko: If he had been down at the one... So not scoring..

Would the challenge still be disallowed?

If there is no flag, if there anything TO challenge? Can you challenge the run in general for not being called down?

/Honest question, as I thought he threw the challenge flag before the score actually happened, but after the HOU player got up from the failed (sorta) tackle.


If he goes down at the 1 it would have been business as usual and we would not be here right now. Schwartz would have thrown his flag and it would have been reviewed and backed up to where he was downed.
 
2012-11-23 12:34:09 PM

jaylectricity: Shadow Blasko: If he had been down at the one... So not scoring..

Would the challenge still be disallowed?

If there is no flag, if there anything TO challenge? Can you challenge the run in general for not being called down?

/Honest question, as I thought he threw the challenge flag before the score actually happened, but after the HOU player got up from the failed (sorta) tackle.

If he had been tackled at the one (or even given himself up, like at the end of the Redskins game) it would not be automatic review, Schwartz's flag would have been legitimate and yes they could see that the runner was down and call the ball back to the spot he was down.


So if the challenge flag was thrown before the score (thus automatically reviewed) was it not a legal challenge call?
 
2012-11-23 12:34:20 PM
FTA: "I know that we can't challenge a turnover or a scoring play and I overreacted," the Detroit coach said.

i1182.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-23 12:35:06 PM
I guess all this is moot.

I was apparently wrong in my assumption that he threw the challenge flag BEFORE the player crossed the goal line. Seemed to me that he did, but I was also in food coma at that moment.
 
2012-11-23 12:38:16 PM

Shadow Blasko: I guess all this is moot.

I was apparently wrong in my assumption that he threw the challenge flag BEFORE the player crossed the goal line. Seemed to me that he did, but I was also in food coma at that moment.


Doesn't matter when you throw it. Everything is the same instance till the play officially ends....he reaches the end zone or someone blows the whistle.
 
2012-11-23 12:38:26 PM

Shadow Blasko: If he had been down at the one... So not scoring..

Would the challenge still be disallowed?

If there is no flag, if there anything TO challenge? Can you challenge the run in general for not being called down?

/Honest question, as I thought he threw the challenge flag before the score actually happened, but after the HOU player got up from the failed (sorta) tackle.



My understanding, in that case, is that the challenge would no longer have been "illegal" (i.e. thrown in a situation of auto-review), since it wasn't a score, a turnover, or inside 2:00 or OT. Importantly, I believe you cannot challenge a down-by-contact ruling, which is why the refs let it go in the first place. Had he in fact not been down, but the refs blew the play dead, then the Texans wouldn't've been able to challenge, since a positive DbC ruling isn't reviewable (See Hochuli and the fumble-cum-incompletion game w/ the Broncos). But I'm pretty sure you can challenge a missed DbC call, just like a trapped ball that was incorrectly called a completion.
 
2012-11-23 12:41:18 PM
Jim Schwartz is a hotheaded butthead and his players' actions on and off the field reflect that.

Look at his record since the team got off to a 5-0 start last year. It's as shiatty as he is.
 
2012-11-23 12:41:57 PM

Loomy: My understanding, in that case, is that the challenge would no longer have been "illegal" (i.e. thrown in a situation of auto-review), since it wasn't a score, a turnover, or inside 2:00 or OT.


I don't believe you can challenge a play until it is completed. As no whistle blew, the play was ongoing until the touchdown was scored.
 
2012-11-23 12:44:26 PM

JohnnyCanuck: Shadow Blasko: I guess all this is moot.

I was apparently wrong in my assumption that he threw the challenge flag BEFORE the player crossed the goal line. Seemed to me that he did, but I was also in food coma at that moment.

Doesn't matter when you throw it. Everything is the same instance till the play officially ends....he reaches the end zone or someone blows the whistle.


Wow. Thats just... Weird.

It wasn't wrong when he did it, but it was wrong before the play ended, thus wrong.

This is why I don't bet on sports. That just makes no sense to me.

I suppose when taken in the context of "A play is a play, from snap to whistle" then it makes sense, but since the challenge seemed to me to be "Hey! There should have been a whistle here, WAY back here!" then the technicalities of the ruling prevent the challenge from being an effective tool.
 
2012-11-23 12:45:54 PM
his decision to settle for a 47 yard FG on 3rd down was far more egregious. it was calculated, not spur of the moment emotion.
 
2012-11-23 12:48:54 PM

Shadow Blasko: JohnnyCanuck: Shadow Blasko: I guess all this is moot.

I was apparently wrong in my assumption that he threw the challenge flag BEFORE the player crossed the goal line. Seemed to me that he did, but I was also in food coma at that moment.

Doesn't matter when you throw it. Everything is the same instance till the play officially ends....he reaches the end zone or someone blows the whistle.

Wow. Thats just... Weird.

It wasn't wrong when he did it, but it was wrong before the play ended, thus wrong.

This is why I don't bet on sports. That just makes no sense to me.

I suppose when taken in the context of "A play is a play, from snap to whistle" then it makes sense, but since the challenge seemed to me to be "Hey! There should have been a whistle here, WAY back here!" then the technicalities of the ruling prevent the challenge from being an effective tool.


I agree that the rule is counterproductive to what instant replay was brought in to do...get the call right. I mean, sure, give the guy a slap on the wrist. But essentially saying, "We know we are making the wrong call here with the game at stake, but it is the only way you will learn!" is kinda crazy.
 
2012-11-23 12:50:27 PM
media.carbonated.tv

www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net
 
2012-11-23 12:52:06 PM

Shadow Blasko: Wow. Thats just... Weird.

It wasn't wrong when he did it, but it was wrong before the play ended, thus wrong.

This is why I don't bet on sports. That just makes no sense to me.

I suppose when taken in the context of "A play is a play, from snap to whistle" then it makes sense, but since the challenge seemed to me to be "Hey! There should have been a whistle here, WAY back here!" then the technicalities of the ruling prevent the challenge from being an effective tool.


Maybe you should try grasping the sport of football before you try tackling the intricacies of the challenge rules.
 
2012-11-23 12:52:34 PM

Leader O'Cola: his decision to settle for a 47 yard FG on 3rd down was far more egregious. it was calculated, not spur of the moment emotion.


He did thaton 3rd down?!? Wow! I couldn't follow the OT as I was otw home from work (Canuck TG was last month). I did not know he did that on 3rd down....at 47 yeards....he should probably be fired for making TWO crazy mistakes if that is in fact the case.
 
2012-11-23 12:54:21 PM
Can reviews all together. Its just a farking game. Let the refs call it like they see it and accept it and move on.
 
2012-11-23 01:02:18 PM
Mike McCarthy was dumb enough to make the same mistake as Schwartz, but smart enough to do it in the pre-season.
 
2012-11-23 01:05:38 PM
Stupidest rule ever.

This is asking your wife "Hey did you cheat on me?" and having her say "You aren't allowed to ask that right now, so I get to cheat on you now no matter what".

Pants-on-head retarded.
 
2012-11-23 01:08:48 PM

JohnnyCanuck: He did thaton 3rd down?!? Wow! I couldn't follow the OT as I was otw home from work (Canuck TG was last month). I did not know he did that on 3rd down....at 47 yeards....he should probably be fired for making TWO crazy mistakes if that is in fact the case.


Kicking the field goal on third downin overtime isn't uncommon, but it's usually more of a gimme than a 47 yarder. If the Texans had attempted their first field goal in overtime on third down they very well may have won at that point. Instead, they moved the ball from the center of the field to the left hashmark, and lost four yards in the process. For that matter, the Texans kicked the game winning field goal on first down. I thought at the time that if they were satisfied with their field position at that time they should have kneeled three times to run time off the clock, just in case they missed it.
 
Displayed 50 of 141 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report