Skip to content
 
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.

(Pro Football Talk)   THIS IS AN OFFICIATING NFL OUTRAGE No not that one   (profootballtalk.nbcsports.com) divider line
    More: Fail, American football, replay assistant, field referee, AFC Championship Game, field goal, Playoff football, Instant replay, halftime of Sunday  
•       •       •

1347 clicks; posted to Sports » on 26 Jan 2021 at 4:10 AM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



13 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-01-26 5:01:42 AM  
Does have a point.  When even your own refs can't keep track of how the what the who the fark when where why rulewise - you may have farked it up a touch
 
2021-01-26 7:16:08 AM  
I'm on favor of one of two ways: make everything reviewable or make nothing reviewable (for coach's challenges).

I find it silly that certain things aren't reviewable while others are....meh.
 
2021-01-26 8:12:52 AM  
Al Riveron is why I stopped caring about football and refuse to watch any more games.  THe previous season was a joke when you had appeals of Pass interference calls that he never bothered to overturn

he has way too much authority, and no accountability
 
2021-01-26 8:16:04 AM  
The refs in the other game had a plan: Don't be callin' shiat and they won't be reviewin' shiat.
 
2021-01-26 8:49:39 AM  
Huh?  It specifically says in the article that you can't review what happens AFTER you step out of bounds.  What they reviewed happened BEFORE he stepped out of bounds.

So... they were perfectly fine to review it.

What morons are writing for PFT?
 
2021-01-26 9:05:54 AM  
I'm glad it was allowed to go through.  Replay is there to fix obvious officiating mistakes.  Upon replay, it was obvious he threw the ball before stepping out.  I get that in many cases, overturning a call like going out of bounds or being down by contact is troublesome because people stop playing at the whistle.

That's why you can challenge to say someone WAS down or out of bounds, but not the other way around.  Also why things overturned into a recovery require a "clear recovery" and don't get any return.  The refs stopped the play.

However, in this case, the ball was just being thrown away, there is no vague what-ifs about how people would have reacted if the original call was that he wasn't out.  Good luck trying to write that into what's reviewable and not, it will end up as convoluted as what a catch is.

In my mind, it's similar to challenges whether someone got in the end zone on the sidelines.  You're technically challenging the spot, but most of the time you're really challenging that someone was not out of bounds or down before they got across.  If they were ruled out of bounds at the 1, are we really going to rule that we don't know what would have happened in the split second after he was ruled out, diving towards the end zone?  That's obviously not what happens there, so why not in this case?
 
2021-01-26 9:08:29 AM  

jake3988: Huh?  It specifically says in the article that you can't review what happens AFTER you step out of bounds.  What they reviewed happened BEFORE he stepped out of bounds.

So... they were perfectly fine to review it.

What morons are writing for PFT?


To elaborate:
Basically the rule is just that you can't change something that happens after a play is whistled dead, which is generally why refs like to err on not whistling the play dead if it's close.  Once it's whistled, everything that happens AFTER that point is moot.  Whether that's a whistle for being down, a whistle for forward progress, or stepping out of bounds.  Anything BEFORE that point is reviewable.  Anything that happens after that point isn't.  Because it didn't technically happen.

Let's say they thought he stepped out of bounds but didn't.  He then fired the ball down-field and hit a 30 yard completion.  They review it, find he didn't step out of bounds.  They're not going to reward a 30 yard completion because it happened after the whistle blew him dead.

In this case, he made the mistake before actually stepping out of bounds.  Therefore it occured BEFORE the whistle blew the play dead and therefore, it was reviewable.
 
2021-01-26 9:41:34 AM  

smd31: I'm on favor of one of two ways: make everything reviewable or make nothing reviewable (for coach's challenges).

I find it silly that certain things aren't reviewable while others are....meh.


This. Getting that yardage back was a big deal since it affected field position. The rules need to be consistent. Two changes, everything is reviewable and crossing the plane counts as out-of-bounds just like crossing the plane counts as a TD, would help clear things up.
 
2021-01-26 11:50:36 AM  

jake3988: Huh?  It specifically says in the article that you can't review what happens AFTER you step out of bounds.  What they reviewed happened BEFORE he stepped out of bounds.

So... they were perfectly fine to review it.

What morons are writing for PFT?


Actually it says you can't review what happens after you are RULED out of bounds. That's what happened here. Personally I'm glad they got the call right, even if by rule they should have let the bad call stand. I'm never in favor of bad calls, even if they help my team.
 
2021-01-26 1:06:03 PM  
Also BS call because plenty of defenders have been flagged for hitting a runner who has left the air space of the playing field but not yet touched out of bounds.

Presumably since this was ruled an incomplete pass, it could have been caught for a completed pass. If the qb can throw a pass in that position, it should be legal to hit a qb in that position.
 
2021-01-26 5:06:38 PM  

jake3988: Huh?  It specifically says in the article that you can't review what happens AFTER you step out of bounds.  What they reviewed happened BEFORE he stepped out of bounds.

So... they were perfectly fine to review it.

What morons are writing for PFT?


Derp!
 
2021-01-26 5:36:48 PM  

edmo: The refs in the other game had a plan: Don't be callin' shiat and they won't be reviewin' shiat.


Except when they did.
 
2021-01-26 7:59:38 PM  

jake3988: Huh?  It specifically says in the article that you can't review what happens AFTER you step out of bounds.  What they reviewed happened BEFORE he stepped out of bounds.

So... they were perfectly fine to review it.

What morons are writing for PFT?


It didn't specifically say what you think it specifically says.  The key words are "is ruled"

"When a player in possession of the ball is ruled out of bounds, that's the end of the play. Nothing that happens after that can be reviewed, even if there's clear and obvious video evidence that the player didn't actually step out of bounds."
 
Displayed 13 of 13 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  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.