Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

2774 clicks; posted to Sports » on 23 Nov 2012 at 11:46 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
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.
 
2012-11-23 01:09:18 PM  

kukukupo: 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".


Isn't that what women do? "You already think I'm cheating on you so I might as well just do it."
 
2012-11-23 01:12:04 PM  

kukukupo: 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".


It seems to me it's more like throwing a tantrum and getting arrested for domestic abuse 30 seconds before the private detective shows up with iron-clad evidence of her infidelity to use in the divorce proceedings.
 
2012-11-23 01:16:26 PM  
On the other hand, the refs from the Seahawks-Packers game are relieved of the title of "most loathed call of the year." (Or they should be: the call from that came was despised because the Packers are national darlings, whereas the Lions are just the Lions.) This one was more obviously wrong, and affected the outcome of the game just as much.
 
2012-11-23 01:18:50 PM  
"I know now that I was down, but I didn't think I was during the play. I didn't think my knee hit, and there was no whistle, so I kept going," Forsett said. "I wasn't giving the touchdown back."

But there's no way he didn't know his elbow was down. Not that I'm knocking him -- until you hear a whistle, get up and keep running, that's the smart thing to do.
 
2012-11-23 01:18:58 PM  
No, we are not going to excuse a pants on head retarded rule. The rule makes no logical sense at all. I'd agree with tacking on 15 yards to the end of the run because that makes more sense. This rule

ALL SCORING PLAYS AND TURNOVERS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW. How many times has the NFL tried to get that message out, You hear that EVER SINGLE GAME.
 
2012-11-23 01:22:34 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.


Eventually, someone will decide that is "unsportsmanlike conduct" and "delay of game", and penalize that.
 
2012-11-23 01:23:08 PM  

jaylectricity: 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.


See this?

This is why people don't ask questions. Even legitimate ones.
 
2012-11-23 01:38:21 PM  

Shadow Blasko: See this?

This is why people don't ask questions. Even legitimate ones.


C'mon man...relax. I'm just saying you should be asking the simpler questions like, "When is a play over?" "What's that funny looking ball called?" "Why some players have red shirts on and others have blue?"

OK, I'm sorry, I'm done now.
 
2012-11-23 01:38:22 PM  

OtherLittleGuy: Eventually, someone will decide that is "unsportsmanlike conduct" and "delay of game", and penalize that.


Actually, the reason not to do it is because

a) even if you run to the end zone, if the whistle has blown, then you're down and you're just wasting your time/energy (even if you weren't down, it's coming back to that spot
b) the 40-second play clock starts when the previous play is over, so you're just screwing your team over for the next play.
c) the current rule isn't specific to coaches throwing the flag - it's due to a rule that states that a play won't be reviewed if the team that would benefit from the review commits an infraction which delays the next play's snap. Basically, I'd assume it'd be more of a case where a team could hypothetically just go offsides, unabated to the QB over and over until they review a long gain...so they decided to make sure that wouldn't happen. Throwing a challenge flag on an unreviewable play is an illegal procedure that delays the next snap, ergo, no review.
d) didn't really cost them the game - at a minimum, the Texans have the ball again in decent field position (not to mention that after the Texans rallied to tie, the Lions again took a lead. Oh, and both teams were pussies the first time they got in "makeable but still not a sure thing" FG range, especially Schwartz with his "hey, f*ck it, I'm gonna kick on 3rd and 11 for a 47-yarder." JUST RUN ANOTHER PLAY.
 
2012-11-23 01:39:27 PM  
So the important thing is not to get the call right like they always say, but to enforce some etiquette about when flags can be thrown.
 
2012-11-23 01:39:55 PM  

Warlordtrooper: The rule makes no logical sense at all.


The rule makes perfect sense. It probably shouldn't apply to that specific penalty, however.

But then again, I'm never going to feel sorry for Schwartz or any team with Suh on it.
 
2012-11-23 01:49:36 PM  
He screwed up by throwing the challenge flag, and knew he'd screwed up almost immediately.

But the refs should've blown the play dead in the first place; it shouldn't have been that hard to see Forsett was down.
 
2012-11-23 01:50:53 PM  

lemurs: He screwed up by throwing the challenge flag, and knew he'd screwed up almost immediately.

But the refs should've blown the play dead in the first place; it shouldn't have been that hard to see Forsett was down.


But if they don't see him down for sure, they're instructed not to blow the whistle because once they do the play is over. You actually can review and overturn what happens afterwards, unless a jackass coach forgets the rules and throws a challenge flag on a score.
 
MBK [TotalFark]
2012-11-23 01:55:57 PM  
Schwartz' coaching performance was probably the worst one I have ever seen. This isn't about game planning. This is about in game decisions.

If this rule was obscure, then I can forgive Schwartz for throwing the flag. But Mike Smith (coach of the Falcons) JUST did this on Sunday (it was a turnover play). He tried to challenge it, but since it was going to be automatically reviewed, they lost that review. So it happened 4 DAYS before Thursday, and you know every coach was talking about it.

The Texans are pretty potent team on offense. Keep them OFF the field. After the TD debacle, the Lions ran for 14 yards, then had 3 straight incomplete passes. Stafford threw 61 times! And they weren't losing by 2-3 touchdowns that required that kind of passing commitment.

EVEN if you are getting 2 yards a carry, 2nd and 8 (or 2nd and 7) is MUCH better than 2nd and 10. But when you are always in 2nd and 10, or 3rd and 10, you have to start throwing it.

I've seen some AWFUL coaching decisions from watching the Bears, but Schwartz makes Lovie Smith look like a genius.
 
2012-11-23 02:05:08 PM  

Yanks_RSJ: But if they don't see him down for sure, they're instructed not to blow the whistle because once they do the play is over. You actually can review and overturn what happens afterwards, unless a jackass coach forgets the rules and throws a challenge flag on a score.


Exactly.

MBK: The Texans are pretty potent team on offense. Keep them OFF the field. After the TD debacle, the Lions ran for 14 yards, then had 3 straight incomplete passes. Stafford threw 61 times! And they weren't losing by 2-3 touchdowns that required that kind of passing commitment.


According to some people on Twitter, he called 21 consecutive passing plays despite the fact that they were getting 5.7 YPC on the ground. And not only were they not losing, they never so much as trailed.
 
2012-11-23 02:11:25 PM  

Yanks_RSJ: lemurs: He screwed up by throwing the challenge flag, and knew he'd screwed up almost immediately.

But the refs should've blown the play dead in the first place; it shouldn't have been that hard to see Forsett was down.

But if they don't see him down for sure, they're instructed not to blow the whistle because once they do the play is over. You actually can review and overturn what happens afterwards, unless a jackass coach forgets the rules and throws a challenge flag on a score.


I understand that this is the case, but the complaint here is that this wasn't one of those borderline calls. Anyone watching could see in real time that the runner was down. They shouldn't let the result of the game come down to the coach's jackassery. And they can get players hurt in these situations.
 
2012-11-23 02:17:46 PM  
Wow, I guess I can see why he wanted to kick the FG on 3rd down -

TWICE his dumbf*ck team took a sack on 3rd down from the HOU 36 in the fourth quarter, both while they were up 7, both times costing them the chance to go up two possessions.
 
2012-11-23 02:19:55 PM  

Super Chronic: Anyone watching could see in real time that the runner was down.


You either have superhuman vision or are completely full of shiat, because it happened way to quickly to see that for sure in real time. No chance.
 
2012-11-23 02:21:14 PM  

Super Chronic: Anyone watching could see in real time that the runner was down.


Based on what the former NFL refs on Twitter were saying, plays like this are a result of putting the ref in the offensive backfield instead of his former position in the defensive backfield - it made it so the only person with a decent view was looking at the back - if you look just at the knees, Forsett's knee just grazes the top of the turf - there aren't even muscle ripples in the zoom shots - so I can see not thinking he was down there. In any case, if Schwartz wasn't such a hothead, then it wouldn't have been a problem.

/what sucks is knowing that Pete Carroll has a tendency to get just as crazy with his challenges
 
2012-11-23 02:21:56 PM  

CreamFilling: 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.


I have no problem with kicking a field goal on a down other than 4th....but it has to be a lot closer than 47 yards.
 
2012-11-23 02:23:03 PM  

CreamFilling: And right now Jim Harbaugh is laughing his ass off


THIS! All I could think about yesterday was how Schwartz spent his time during the "handshake-gate" game complaining and yelling that Harbaugh didn't know the rules, wasn't ready for the NFL, etc.. Made my Thanksgiving....
 
2012-11-23 02:28:38 PM  
Here's how you fix it:

If a coach throws an otherwise legal challenge flag on a play subject to official review, the review proceeds as requested, but the coach's team is charged as though they had lost the challenge even if the ruling on the field is overturned. The bad call is corrected, fans point and laugh at the stupid coach for wasting a challenge and a timeout, everyone wins.
 
2012-11-23 02:29:16 PM  

Nobodyn0se: the rule says the challenging team cannot BENEFIT from a review.


If the rule actually says that verbatim, there's no point in the challenge system -- there would be no reason to challenge any play unless you could potentially benefit from it.

Reading through the rulebook, I see nothing that prohibits Houston from throwing the challenge flag in that scenario. If anyone could actually cite the rule rather than just assuming there's no way that could happen, please do so.
 
2012-11-23 02:34:17 PM  

Ed_Severson: Nobodyn0se: the rule says the challenging team cannot BENEFIT from a review.

If the rule actually says that verbatim, there's no point in the challenge system -- there would be no reason to challenge any play unless you could potentially benefit from it.

Reading through the rulebook, I see nothing that prohibits Houston from throwing the challenge flag in that scenario. If anyone could actually cite the rule rather than just assuming there's no way that could happen, please do so.


Let's say it this way: the team committing the infraction cannot benefit from the review. Again, this is more based on other illegal procedures with the intent to delay the next snap.
 
2012-11-23 02:38:49 PM  

Ed_Severson: Reading through the rulebook, I see nothing that prohibits Houston from throwing the challenge flag in that scenario. If anyone could actually cite the rule rather than just assuming there's no way that could happen, please do so.


They could totally do it. But it would cost them 15 yards and win them nothing. Rule 15, Section 9, talking about 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.

Emphasis mine. If Houston throws a flag, it delays the next snap and therefore prevents the Replay Official from reviewing calls that went against Houston on that play. Calls that went against Detroit on the other hand, like, say, "Touchdown Texans," are still fair game.
 
2012-11-23 02:40:26 PM  
"That's all my fault. I overreacted in that situation and I cost us a touchdown."

"There should be no blame on Schwartz or the coaches," Detroit defensive lineman Kyle Vanden Bosch said. "I mean, there's enough plays left out there, enough plays that we could have made. There were 70-plus minutes."

i205.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-23 02:42:58 PM  

Ed_Severson: If anyone could actually cite the rule rather than just assuming there's no way that could happen, please do so.


NFL's explanation:

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.


I'm going to focus on the word "against". The ruling on the field went against the Lions, not the Texans, as the result of the play was a touchdown for Houston.
 
2012-11-23 02:44:30 PM  

IAmRight: Let's say it this way: the team committing the infraction cannot benefit from the review.


What infraction? If you're talking about the illegal challenge, then nobody is benefitting from a review because the review never happened. And how would Houston have "benefitted" from the illegal challenge? They already had a touchdown, the end result of the challenge would have been the nullification of the review, resulting in a touchdown -- no change in outcome, no benefit.

Either there is a rule that prohibits it or there isn't. I don't see it.
 
2012-11-23 02:47:54 PM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: They could totally do it. But it would cost them 15 yards and win them nothing


But that's the point -- it "wins" them nothing but preserves a touchdown at the expense of a subsequent 15-yard penalty. If they thought the play would be overturned, they absolutely should throw the flag out there, unless there is a rule that prohibits exactly this scenario from playing out.
 
2012-11-23 02:48:47 PM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: Ed_Severson: Reading through the rulebook, I see nothing that prohibits Houston from throwing the challenge flag in that scenario. If anyone could actually cite the rule rather than just assuming there's no way that could happen, please do so.

They could totally do it. But it would cost them 15 yards and win them nothing. Rule 15, Section 9, talking about 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.

Emphasis mine. If Houston throws a flag, it delays the next snap and therefore prevents the Replay Official from reviewing calls that went against Houston on that play. Calls that went against Detroit on the other hand, like, say, "Touchdown Texans," are still fair game.

 
2012-11-23 02:50:42 PM  

Ed_Severson: Olympic Trolling Judge: They could totally do it. But it would cost them 15 yards and win them nothing

But that's the point -- it "wins" them nothing but preserves a touchdown at the expense of a subsequent 15-yard penalty. If they thought the play would be overturned, they absolutely should throw the flag out there, unless there is a rule that prohibits exactly this scenario from playing out.


It doesn't preserve shiat. The call of "Touchdown Texans" goes against Detroit. So unless Detroit commits a foul to delay the next snap, it can be reviewed.

Read. The. Farking. Rule.
 
2012-11-23 02:52:05 PM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: 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.

Emphasis mine. If Houston throws a flag, it delays the next snap and therefore prevents the Replay Official from reviewing calls that went against Houston on that play. Calls that went against Detroit on the other hand, like, say, "Touchdown Texans," are still fair game.


A few things ...

1. fark you, iPad. Quoting shiat and responding to it shouldn't be this difficult.

2. Definitely misread that the first time through. Sorted now --- Houston challenging the play does not nullify the review process. Glad to see they covered that possibility. Mea culpa.

3. It's still kind of a stupid rule.
 
2012-11-23 02:52:38 PM  

Ed_Severson: But that's the point -- it "wins" them nothing but preserves a touchdown at the expense of a subsequent 15-yard penalty. If they thought the play would be overturned, they absolutely should throw the flag out there, unless there is a rule that prohibits exactly this scenario from playing out.


There doesn't need to be one. The replay review would not be going AGAINST the Texans, so the penalty for throwing the flag would not prevent said review.
 
2012-11-23 02:54:50 PM  
Knuckleheaded coach makes knucklehead decision, costing knucklehead team the game. He loses his job. Knucklehead GM hires Rex Ryan, who sets knucklehead record. Averages 100yds of penalties a game.
 
2012-11-23 02:55:43 PM  

Ed_Severson: 2. Definitely misread that the first time through. Sorted now --- Houston challenging the play does not nullify the review process. Glad to see they covered that possibility. Mea culpa.


Ah. Apology accepted, and sorry for going off on you.

Ed_Severson: 3. It's still kind of a stupid rule.


Well... yeah. It makes sense in principle, but it's stupid that it can kill the right of review faster than the play clock. Maybe that could be another fix: the Replay Official has until the next legal snap or 40 seconds from the end of the play, whichever comes first.
 
2012-11-23 03:00:49 PM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: Ah. Apology accepted, and sorry for going off on you.


No worries. It's the internet; it's no fun if you can't indirectly call someone a tard. :)
 
2012-11-23 03:11:35 PM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: Maybe that could be another fix: the Replay Official has until the next legal snap or 40 seconds from the end of the play, whichever comes first.


The only plays that are automatically reviewed are turnovers and scoring plays, really, all of which basically require the team on the field to exit the field and for another entire group to enter. There's plenty of time, and it's not like the Texans were anywhere close to running a quick snap on the XP, given that most of the players were 80 yards from the end zone. Again, in college all plays are reviewed, and the play NEVER beats the automatic review. If there's any question, they see 'em lining up quickly and say "f*ck it, we're going to spend more time reviewing it" and stop the game. It's really not a problem worth worrying about.

/meanwhile, they still need to switch the AFL version of replay, where the ref is mic'd and you can see exactly what they're watching and hear them explain what they're considering on each call
 
2012-11-23 03:12:08 PM  
Its a stupid rule that cost the team the game. The refs blew the call, and this rule prevented them from correcting their mistake. Assess the penalty yards maybe, but to say the play can't be challenged is asinine.
 
2012-11-23 03:16:21 PM  

Ed_Severson: Olympic Trolling Judge: Ah. Apology accepted, and sorry for going off on you.

No worries. It's the internet; it's no fun if you can't indirectly call someone a tard. :)


Yeah, but you have to admit that you were the one questioning this rule, then you got mad that nobody was citing the exact rule. You have the same internet we do. Go and look at the rule. I told you that the Texans would not benefit from the rule way back early in the thread.
 
2012-11-23 03:18:22 PM  
Sheesh... "benefit from the challenge"

tard accepted
 
2012-11-23 03:19:04 PM  

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.


Football is a trillion dollar business, there were 60,000 people in the stands, untold amounts of money had been bet on this game, and they completely destroy the integrity of the game because a guy threw a tiny yellow flag on the field. That is ridiculous.
 
2012-11-23 03:25:10 PM  

Yanks_RSJ: Super Chronic: Anyone watching could see in real time that the runner was down.

You either have superhuman vision or are completely full of shiat, because it happened way to quickly to see that for sure in real time. No chance.


Well then the entire crowd of 15 people in the room with me all had superhuman vision, or you're an asshole, or both.
 
2012-11-23 03:26:59 PM  

Super Chronic: Yanks_RSJ: Super Chronic: Anyone watching could see in real time that the runner was down.

You either have superhuman vision or are completely full of shiat, because it happened way to quickly to see that for sure in real time. No chance.

Well then the entire crowd of 15 people in the room with me all had superhuman vision, or you're an asshole, or both.


I mean, sorry for the language, but that's just plain stupid if you really think you need superhuman vision. It was obvious.
 
2012-11-23 03:27:11 PM  

marfar: Football is a trillion dollar business, there were 60,000 people in the stands, untold amounts of money had been bet on this game, and they completely destroy the integrity of the game because a guy threw a tiny yellow flag on the field. That is ridiculous.


Sure, but we're in a transition period. It's also the fact that a review delays the game. Delays are not good for football and by extension, for the revenue stream. So to delay the delay by throwing an unnecessary challenge flag is not good for business.
 
2012-11-23 03:32:00 PM  

Super Chronic: I mean, sorry for the language, but that's just plain stupid if you really think you need superhuman vision. It was obvious.


There's a difference between suspecting he was down and knowing with 100 PERCENT CERTAINTY that he was. It wasn't obvious to me or any of the 12 people in the room with me until we saw the first replay. Granted we're all vision-impaired, but my contacts were in and I was only on my 2nd beer.
 
2012-11-23 03:33:50 PM  

SnarfVader: 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.


I thought they lost a timeout too. Not to mention the number of challenges is limited, so they can only be attention whores a limited number of times, and if they are, they risk not having a challenge available when they need it. Why is a coach throwing aflag on a play.that's going to be challenged anyway considered disruptive?

Agree with you on the penalty, maybe, but in every situation on video review, the priority should be for truth to come out and for calls to be made based on it. Same with the Fail Mary play. I understand the review fight overturn three cal on the field because the reviewers were limited in terms of what they were allowed to call. How about they just look at the damn tape and make the call out calls that schools have been made on the field?
 
2012-11-23 03:34:23 PM  

Super Chronic: Well then the entire crowd of 15 people in the room with me all had superhuman vision, or you're an asshole, or both.


And you've never seen a play on TV where you think "no WAY is that the right call," then you see the zoomed slo-mo and you think, "well, I'll be damned..."?

Again, because of the move of the umpire from the defensive backfield to the offensive backfield, no one had a great view of the play. So they err on the side of making it an automatically reviewable play, because it would f*cking suck if he actually had stayed up but they'd blown him down, because it would be unreviewable and there would be no way they could give the Texans that play back. Meanwhile, doing it that way enabled them to review it at no cost to the Lions (don't have to challenge it). But Schwartz is a dumbass, so he cost his team the call.

And his team blew the game by TWICE giving up sacks on consecutive drives that knocked them out of FG range while up 7 in the fourth quarter. Also, passing 80% of the time when they were getting huge runs all second half long (shortest run: 5 yards on 1st/10). Also, kicking on 3rd and 11 for a 47-yarder (though this makes more sense given the fact that the last two times they were in that area of the field, they'd given up 8- and 7-yard sacks).
 
2012-11-23 03:35:48 PM  

rga184: Why is a coach throwing aflag on a play.that's going to be challenged anyway considered disruptive?


Because you're delaying the next snap.
 
2012-11-23 03:58:02 PM  

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.


Yeah... but a 5 yard delay of game penalty, maybe even a 15 yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty would be appropriate.

Awarding a touchdown to a player that neither earned it nor deserved it because you failed to do your job in the first place, plus a 15 yard penalty seems... excessive.

I mean the runner was looking around waiting for someone to say "Stop running, jackass! You were down. It was obvious to everyone... including you!"
 
2012-11-23 04:16:26 PM  

zamboni: 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.

Yeah... but a 5 yard delay of game penalty, maybe even a 15 yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty would be appropriate.

Awarding a touchdown to a player that neither earned it nor deserved it because you failed to do your job in the first place, plus a 15 yard penalty seems... excessive.

I mean the runner was looking around waiting for someone to say "Stop running, jackass! You were down. It was obvious to everyone... including you!"


Go back to what I was saying about the delaying the delay. If you waste time throwing a challenge flag, forcing the refs to come over and explain to you that they were already planning on reviewing the play, you're just wasting everybody's time. And now that you've used up the time that the refs were going to use to check out the video, the decision is to skip the review.

Maybe in that situation the refs could just ignore the flag, ignore the coach and just do what they were already going to do.

Also, sometimes these coaches are throwing the flag just for a chance to yell at the refs. AGAIN...a waste of time.
 
2012-11-23 04:50:21 PM  

SilentStrider: Its a stupid rule that cost the team the game. The refs blew the call, and this rule prevented them from correcting their mistake. Assess the penalty yards maybe, but to say the play can't be challenged is asinine.


It did not cost them the game. This was in the third quarter, and the Lions never trailed the Texans until that final FG was kicked in OT. Hell, this didn't even tie the game.

The Lions had plenty of chances to put them away, and they blew them all.
 
2012-11-23 04:59:38 PM  
The problem with the rule as written, is while this play was obvious that the runner was down to everyone except the officials, there may be some play out there were only the head coach sees the runner was down. Does the head coach really want to put all his trust into some booth official to examine the entire play, snap to TD, before the extra point is snapped? This is the head coach's way of saying that he wants to force the head official to review this thing.

Consider that the Lions could have had a player fall down feigning an injury, and that is not considered delay of game no matter how much the defender is faking it (short of the defender standing up and declaring to all that he is in the process of faking an injury.)
 
2012-11-23 05:07:37 PM  

poughdrew: Does the head coach really want to put all his trust into some booth official to examine the entire play, snap to TD, before the extra point is snapped?


They don't have to conduct the entire review prior to play being stopped for the review, and no one's reviewing the 70+ yards of no contact by anyone. If there are two places of contention, then it's MORE likely to be reviewed, not less likely. Again, in college, every play is reviewed and I don't think I've ever seen someone get a snap off before they buzz down to the field for the review. Hell, I'm pretty sure a couple times, when they do beat the whistle, the whistles blow anyway and they say that the previous play is under review.

poughdrew: Consider that the Lions could have had a player fall down feigning an injury, and that is not considered delay of game no matter how much the defender is faking it (short of the defender standing up and declaring to all that he is in the process of faking an injury.)


Could've. But irrelevant situations are irrelevant.
 
2012-11-23 05:09:45 PM  

poughdrew: Does the head coach really want to put all his trust into some booth official to examine the entire play, snap to TD, before the extra point is snapped? This is the head coach's way of saying that he wants to force the head official to review this thing.


The head coach doesn't get to force the head official to review anything, because THE ENTIRE SCORING PLAY IS REVIEWED. They will not allow an extra point attempt to take place without confirming that the replay official has looked at the entire play and deemed it legitimate. If there is ANY doubt, the on-field official will go under the hood and review it.

It's the procedure. The coach has no role whatsoever.
 
2012-11-23 05:29:45 PM  
Whar anigif??? Whar???
 
2012-11-23 05:44:12 PM  

libranoelrose: Whar anigif??? Whar???


heh
 
2012-11-23 05:51:38 PM  

jaylectricity: libranoelrose: Whar anigif??? Whar???

heh


I missed most of the first half. When did it happen?
 
2012-11-23 05:53:27 PM  

jaylectricity: zamboni: 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.

Yeah... but a 5 yard delay of game penalty, maybe even a 15 yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty would be appropriate.

Awarding a touchdown to a player that neither earned it nor deserved it because you failed to do your job in the first place, plus a 15 yard penalty seems... excessive.

I mean the runner was looking around waiting for someone to say "Stop running, jackass! You were down. It was obvious to everyone... including you!"

Go back to what I was saying about the delaying the delay. If you waste time throwing a challenge flag, forcing the refs to come over and explain to you that they were already planning on reviewing the play, you're just wasting everybody's time. And now that you've used up the time that the refs were going to use to check out the video, the decision is to skip the review.

Maybe in that situation the refs could just ignore the flag, ignore the coach and just do what they were already going to do.

Also, sometimes these coaches are throwing the flag just for a chance to yell at the refs. AGAIN...a waste of time.


I approve of a new signal.

Referee points at red flag, points in the general direction of head coaches ass with an upward motion of the clenched right hand... thumb extended, beginning at the right knee... then assesses a 15 yard penalty.

As in, take that red flag, shove it up your ass... 15 yards.
 
2012-11-23 05:55:45 PM  

libranoelrose: jaylectricity: libranoelrose: Whar anigif??? Whar???

heh

I missed most of the first half. When did it happen?


Oops, I thought I was in the Suh thread, lol
 
2012-11-23 06:04:31 PM  
Although I think this rule is asinine, and there is no way the right call should not be allowed to be made, people need to stop saying the refs blew this call. The RULE blew the call. The refs got it right in regards to the rule book, its just an unfortunate rule. Review the play, charge the coach with a time out and some yardage and call it a farking day.
 
2012-11-23 06:08:55 PM  

Yanks_RSJ: 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.


Except if you're kicking off from the 50 instead of the 35, why not try an onside kick? Worst case, you give up 20 yards or so.
 
2012-11-23 06:14:48 PM  
It's annoying that the most severe in-game penalty in football -- in this case, the penalty was awarding a touchdown to the opposition plus a 15 yard penalty -- should be reserved for a technical infraction that doesn't affect safety of the players or the sanctity of game.
 
2012-11-23 06:18:41 PM  

meanmutton: It's annoying that the most severe in-game penalty in football -- in this case, the penalty was awarding a touchdown to the opposition plus a 15 yard penalty -- should be reserved for a technical infraction that doesn't affect safety of the players or the sanctity of game.


Call it karma for Suh's unpenalized kick to Schaub's dick.
 
2012-11-23 06:46:46 PM  

Shadow Blasko: 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".


Actually, I think it's be a "delay-of-game" penalty.
 
2012-11-23 06:47:42 PM  

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.


It's an idiotic rule, but Schwartz knew it, knew it was his fault that he lost his cool and broke the rule, and is taking responsibility for it. Hopefully the rule will be changed in the off-season to something that isn't utterly moronic.

Case in point:

Olympic Trolling Judge: Here's how you fix it:

If a coach throws an otherwise legal challenge flag on a play subject to official review, the review proceeds as requested, but the coach's team is charged as though they had lost the challenge even if the ruling on the field is overturned. The bad call is corrected, fans point and laugh at the stupid coach for wasting a challenge and a timeout, everyone wins.


I would have gone with something less harsh, like just picking the flag back up, but that would require a bit more complexity as you have to deal with the issue of stopping the clock. Simply calling it a failed challenge simplifies things greatly.
 
2012-11-23 06:53:21 PM  
I thought the regular refs were going to fix all the blown calls from the replacement refs!
 
2012-11-23 06:53:54 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.


It is a bad call in retrospect. But when you have one of the best kickers in the history of the NFL, you're in his range, and one kick will win the game, it's not a bad call to make at the time, particularly when the game is really getting out of hand - two turnovers in OT and the Lions have had troubles this year with turnovers. I don't find fault with him for this call even though I think he should have done one more running play, tried to get a few extra yards, then gone for it on 4th down. If they had run and lost yards, maybe people would be wondering why he didn't use Hansen when he got into Hansen's range? Or if they had fumbled? It's not hard to turn that situation right around to make it look like going for it on 3rd down was the better way to go about it.
 
2012-11-23 07:01:49 PM  

jaylectricity: marfar: Football is a trillion dollar business, there were 60,000 people in the stands, untold amounts of money had been bet on this game, and they completely destroy the integrity of the game because a guy threw a tiny yellow flag on the field. That is ridiculous.

Sure, but we're in a transition period. It's also the fact that a review delays the game. Delays are not good for football and by extension, for the revenue stream. So to delay the delay by throwing an unnecessary challenge flag is not good for business.


The delay is happening anyway because of the review. It doesn't take them any longer because they have to tell the coach he didn't need to throw his flag.
 
2012-11-23 07:17:27 PM  

On the Side: Although I think this rule is asinine, and there is no way the right call should not be allowed to be made, people need to stop saying the refs blew this call. The RULE blew the call. The refs got it right in regards to the rule book, its just an unfortunate rule. Review the play, charge the coach with a time out and some yardage and call it a farking day.


Oh, I believe that the referees interpreted the rule correctly.... that's not a problem. They did completely blow the call by not noticing what everyone else in the stadium and in the free world did... that the player was obviously down.
 
2012-11-23 07:33:02 PM  
Lifelong Lion fan here. Schwartz is a pompous ass and I am sure that his humiliation is the cause of much satisfaction throughout the NFL. However, truth be told, this is not even the biggest boner committed by a Lions coach in the last ten years. That honor still belongs to the half-wit Marty Morningweg, who elected to kick off to the Bears in sudden death overtime so he could "take the wind." You can guess the rest.
 
2012-11-23 07:37:16 PM  
If I am going to call him a half-wit I should at least spell his name correctly: Mornhinweg.
 
2012-11-23 07:52:07 PM  

zamboni: On the Side: Although I think this rule is asinine, and there is no way the right call should not be allowed to be made, people need to stop saying the refs blew this call. The RULE blew the call. The refs got it right in regards to the rule book, its just an unfortunate rule. Review the play, charge the coach with a time out and some yardage and call it a farking day.

Oh, I believe that the referees interpreted the rule correctly.... that's not a problem. They did completely blow the call by not noticing what everyone else in the stadium and in the free world did... that the player was obviously down.


Well, sure, if you're going to consider two elbows and a knee or two making contact with the ground when contact with a defender is made as "down".

But the refs are busy looking at so much during each play, I don't blame them for missing something like this.
 
2012-11-23 07:52:15 PM  

legion_of_doo: I thought the regular refs were going to fix all the blown calls from the replacement refs!


Aw, isn't that cute.

You think the refs messed up.
 
2012-11-23 08:17:51 PM  

marfar: The delay is happening anyway because of the review. It doesn't take them any longer because they have to tell the coach he didn't need to throw his flag.


OK, so you have no ability to understand the concept of time.
 
2012-11-23 08:24:27 PM  

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.


What I don't get is the same thing happened in the next game and the ref still reviewed the score, I agree its should keep the coaches quiet but the non review and fark you penalty is just too much.
 
2012-11-23 09:11:34 PM  
The word is discipline.

You can't be a championship team without it. The Lions players don't have it. They won't ever get it because the coach doesn't have it. They won't ever get a coach that has it because Ford can not abide coaches who teach it. The Lions will never be championship contenders while a Ford owns the team. The end.

You know who I feel bad for? I feel bad for N'donkeyKong Suh. Tremendously talented kid who had the potential to become the best defensive player in history. But instead of putting him under a proven championship caliber coach to maximize his potential, they send him to Detroit. He has now developed all the worst habits imagineable, habits that will take years of intense coaching by someone who actually knows what they are doing to break. And that just isn't going to happen. Like the Lions do with so many other really talented football players, he has been effectively ruined. He will never be in a Superbowl. He will never hold an NFL record. He won't even be a footnote. It is a shame.
 
2012-11-23 09:39:04 PM  

zamboni: Oh, I believe that the referees interpreted the rule correctly.... that's not a problem. They did completely blow the call by not noticing what everyone else in the stadium and in the free world did... that the player was obviously down.


This.

Somehow, people neglect to see this fact. The guy was stuffed, completely stopped, down, knee on the ground.

In bizarroworld, that means he gets a 75-yard touchdown because Suh is an asshole, and Schwartz is a dipshiat. Correct call was made, or something.
 
2012-11-23 10:12:12 PM  

legion_of_doo: zamboni: Oh, I believe that the referees interpreted the rule correctly.... that's not a problem. They did completely blow the call by not noticing what everyone else in the stadium and in the free world did... that the player was obviously down.

This.

Somehow, people neglect to see this fact. The guy was stuffed, completely stopped, down, knee on the ground.

In bizarroworld, that means he gets a 75-yard touchdown because Suh is an asshole, and Schwartz is a dipshiat. Correct call was made, or something.


Again...it's not like Schwartz needed to do ANYTHING for justice to be served. All he had to do was do NOTHING. If he had done nothing, he would have saved his energy, the refs energy, and our energy.

Instead he chose mode: raving lunatic.
 
2012-11-23 10:48:54 PM  

jaylectricity: Again...it's not like Schwartz needed to do ANYTHING for justice to be served. All he had to do was do NOTHING. If he had done nothing, he would have saved his energy, the refs energy, and our energy.

Instead he chose mode: raving lunatic.


Instinctively challenging an obvious horrible call, in the heat of the moment, in a close game, against one of the leagues best teams, in front of an nationally televised audience of millions, makes one a "raving lunatic"?

I don't blame Schwartz for not having an obscure rule in mind at the time. I blame every official on the field for missing the obvious.
 
2012-11-23 11:01:47 PM  

R5D4: Instinctively challenging an obvious horrible call, in the heat of the moment, in a close game, against one of the leagues best teams, in front of an nationally televised audience of millions, makes one a "raving lunatic"?


OK, I think I might be spoiled. The coach of my favorite team would understand all those scenarios that you brought up. The coach of my team doesn't even tell anybody which of his players are too injured to play the game.

Maybe you can tell me how the coach of YOUR favorite team would have handled that play.
 
2012-11-23 11:33:20 PM  

R5D4: jaylectricity: Again...it's not like Schwartz needed to do ANYTHING for justice to be served. All he had to do was do NOTHING. If he had done nothing, he would have saved his energy, the refs energy, and our energy.

Instead he chose mode: raving lunatic.

Instinctively challenging an obvious horrible call, in the heat of the moment, in a close game, against one of the leagues best teams, in front of an nationally televised audience of millions, makes one a "raving lunatic"?

I don't blame Schwartz for not having an obscure rule in mind at the time. I blame every official on the field for missing the obvious.


You do realize that only one ref missed that call, right? They all have areas of responsibility and they focus there, maybe two guys should have caught that play but let's not act like all refs missed the call.

Also your Detroit butt hurt is in over drive today....
 
2012-11-23 11:38:31 PM  

steamingpile: Also your Detroit butt hurt is in over drive today....


Big time. I admitted that in my very Boobies today.

I almost don't even want to watch football anymore.

/long suffering lions fan.
 
2012-11-23 11:42:42 PM  

jaylectricity: Maybe you can tell me how the coach of YOUR favorite team would have handled that play.


I think we all saw.

However, I'm not prepared to equate being less-than-perfect on an obscure rule in the immediate moment with being "a raving lunatic".
 
2012-11-23 11:57:00 PM  

R5D4: steamingpile: Also your Detroit butt hurt is in over drive today....

Big time. I admitted that in my very Boobies today.

I almost don't even want to watch football anymore.

/long suffering lions fan.


I think we are all in our very Boobies today.
 
2012-11-24 12:05:34 AM  

steamingpile: R5D4: jaylectricity: Again...it's not like Schwartz needed to do ANYTHING for justice to be served. All he had to do was do NOTHING. If he had done nothing, he would have saved his energy, the refs energy, and our energy.

Instead he chose mode: raving lunatic.

Instinctively challenging an obvious horrible call, in the heat of the moment, in a close game, against one of the leagues best teams, in front of an nationally televised audience of millions, makes one a "raving lunatic"?

I don't blame Schwartz for not having an obscure rule in mind at the time. I blame every official on the field for missing the obvious.

You do realize that only one ref missed that call, right? They all have areas of responsibility and they focus there, maybe two guys should have caught that play but let's not act like all refs missed the call.

Also your Detroit butt hurt is in over drive today....


Well, since the play was over, and the ball and the person holding it was down, their focus should've been there. Unlikely that anyone needed to be monitoring other things... since the play was over. I guess they could've been checking for pass interference downfield, or offsides, or an illegal formation... but they probably wouldn't since... the play was over.

But hey... I'll remember that the next time five flags get thrown for the same infraction. It will comfort me.
 
2012-11-24 01:54:59 AM  

R5D4: steamingpile: Also your Detroit butt hurt is in over drive today....

Big time. I admitted that in my very Boobies today.

I almost don't even want to watch football anymore.

/long suffering lions fan.


I don't blame you, if I had a dirty player like Suh I wouldn't watch either.
 
2012-11-24 05:01:52 AM  

Shadow Blasko: 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?


I think if you throw a flag while the play is live you also get a penalty I'll find out.
 
2012-11-24 06:30:13 AM  

Ed_Severson: IAmRight: Let's say it this way: the team committing the infraction cannot benefit from the review.

What infraction? If you're talking about the illegal challenge, then nobody is benefitting from a review because the review never happened. And how would Houston have "benefitted" from the illegal challenge? They already had a touchdown, the end result of the challenge would have been the nullification of the review, resulting in a touchdown -- no change in outcome, no benefit.

Either there is a rule that prohibits it or there isn't. I don't see it.


Ok Houston would have benefited by throwing a flag to negate the possibly of a booth review.
 
2012-11-24 11:24:31 AM  

R5D4: I don't blame Schwartz for not having an obscure rule in mind at the time. I blame every official on the field for missing the obvious.


Schwartz is paid millions to know every obscure rule in the book. That's his farking job. It's also not obscure when Mike Smith had the same thing happen to him this month. It may be a stupid rule, but he's stupider for not following it.
 
2012-11-24 05:10:07 PM  

dentalhilljack: It's also not obscure when Mike Smith had the same thing happen to him this month.


Four days earlier, in fact. And it happened to Mike McCarthy (within his own division) in preseason.

legion_of_doo: The guy was stuffed, completely stopped, down, knee on the ground.


Um, his knee maybe grazed the top of the turf, but it didn't even pause while moving forward. His elbows were down, yeah, but there's no way you could've said his knee was down without the zoom angle. His body didn't even react to any contact with the ground (typically the knee would stop and pop up if it hit the ground, or at least there would be a ripple up the leg...none of that happened.

Also, there's nothing saying the Lions stop the Texans if he's ruled down there. The refs didn't force the Lions to fail to score a single point on two consecutive drives that started at midfield in the fourth quarter while up 7 points. The refs didn't force the Lions to kick a 47-yarder on 3rd down.
 
2012-11-25 01:39:43 AM  

IAmRight: dentalhilljack: It's also not obscure when Mike Smith had the same thing happen to him this month.

Four days earlier, in fact. And it happened to Mike McCarthy (within his own division) in preseason.

legion_of_doo: The guy was stuffed, completely stopped, down, knee on the ground.

Um, his knee maybe grazed the top of the turf, but it didn't even pause while moving forward. His elbows were down, yeah, but there's no way you could've said his knee was down without the zoom angle. His body didn't even react to any contact with the ground (typically the knee would stop and pop up if it hit the ground, or at least there would be a ripple up the leg...none of that happened.

Also, there's nothing saying the Lions stop the Texans if he's ruled down there. The refs didn't force the Lions to fail to score a single point on two consecutive drives that started at midfield in the fourth quarter while up 7 points. The refs didn't force the Lions to kick a 47-yarder on 3rd down.


Well an elbow down is as good as a knee
 
Displayed 141 of 141 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report