I'm talking about the play where the Pats punted. Then there was a TV timeout and Pats coach confers with the refs, then throws a challange flag to challange a NON-CALL.
1.I wasn't aware you could challange non-calls on the field.
2. Does this mean we can look forward to reviews for holding, tripping, hits in the back, hands to the face, etc. etc. so a team MAY get a flag on the REPLAY, and maintain possession of the ball, even if no flag was thrown on the play?
Face it. There are NON CALLS on practically every play. Can we look forward to 5 and 6 hours games because now the stage has been set for every coach to try and maintain possession by challanging no flag plays?
Honestly, I was shocked that was a reviewable play. I'd never seen that before and it could set a precedent.
They have such strict rules in the NFL and college about the use of replay and I just couldn't see that being under the umbrella. I mean, it is a "non-judgment" call unlike pass interference, but Aikman and Buck didn't address it, so perhaps it falls under the replay rules.
[QUOTE=RonMexico]Honestly, I was shocked that was a reviewable play. I'd never seen that before and it could set a precedent.
They have such strict rules in the NFL and college about the use of replay and I just couldn't see that being under the umbrella. I mean, it is a "non-judgment" call unlike pass interference, but Aikman and Buck didn't address it, so perhaps it falls under the replay rules.[/QUOTE]
I think one of the reasons they didn't is because neither of them even had a clue themselves. I have never seen it happen before. And I don't remember seeing a coach have a conference with the refs before throwing the flag.
I thought "challanging" a play, was kind of like gambling with your timeouts.
Apparently, after conferencing with the refs for 2 or 3 minutes, thanks to TV, he knew he wasn't gambling any more, but had a sure thing.
Teams have been permitted to challenge 12-men on the field for several years now. It is, I think, the only possible penalty that can be reviewed by replay. The same play had been reviewed at some point earlier this season by the Redskins in a game at Minnesota in Week 16 -- the Redskins had fumbled, but challenged that the Vikings had 12 men on the field; they won the challenge, went on to score a TD on the possession and won the game to essentially eliminate the Vikings and secure a playoff birth.
I don't see this as a particularly controversial use of replay.
I also don't think it's all that unusual for coaches to confer with officials before launching a challenge, if time permits. That we don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
I think so too - I thought there was a little collusion there with his "conference." And then they passed it off as a "smart move" by BB to ask if jumping meant he was on the field. After that call, I thought it would deflate the Giants and go the Pats way, but it didn't. In other news, Fox's broadcast was terrible - I've been much more impressed with CBS and ABC in the past. And he definitely had a major benefit of the TV timeout, while a lot of coaches have 15 seconds or so to make a decision on the flag.
Oh well, he ran off the field with 1 second left like a huge pussy.
Honestly, if it had been Tom Coughlin or Tony Dungy or any number of other coaches who had been shown questioning a rule during a time out before he challenged a call, I don't think there would be the same uproar.
Your probably right... and if the Warriors beat the Jazz instead of Dallas, this board wouldn't have exploded last May.
12 men on the field is a reviewable play. Find something else to get your panties in a wad about.
I think you can challenge delay of game as well i.e. did they get the play off. In other words, if no interpretation is needed when making the call, it can be reviewed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
