Reiss on the McCourty personal foul

Synovia said:

Again, a "Replay Review" was not conducted.

Click to expand...

Again, you ignore reality. That specifically states how ANY reveiw of the play is supposed to be handled. Looking at the Jumbotron and then throwing your flag cause you saw something is NOT ALLOWED. Why can't you get that through your head?

DaBruinz said:

Again, you ignore reality. That specifically states how ANY reveiw of the play is supposed to be handled. Looking at the Jumbotron and then throwing your flag cause you saw something is NOT ALLOWED. Why can't you get that through your head?

Click to expand...

No, it does not. It states how a "Replay Review" is supposed to be handled. A replay review is what happens when a red flag is thrown, or the booth calls with less than 2 minutes. Its a very specific defined action.

upstater1 said:

Then what kind of calls would be reviewable? Surely not all. Even holding?

Click to expand...

Anything the ref wants, ref has complete control!

With an understanding that refs ought not use the technology willy nilly and that the game needs to move along. E.g. don't review an offensive holding call where the result of the play was a 3 yard gain. But if you are unsure if holding occurred by the offense on a TD or by the defense on an int...then sure by all means review it if you don't think you had a good angle.

Refs should understand that if they need this more than a few times per game they aren't really doing their job well.

PatsFaninAZ said:

That's like saying a ref can call a facemask penalty even if the definition of facemask in the rulebook isn't met.

Coach: But ref, there was no grab or twist.

Ref: Right, but I'm not calling that kind of facemask.

Coach: Huh? What penalty are you calling?

Ref: I'm calling the Hochuli facemask.

Coach: But there's nothing in the rules defining the 'Hochuli facemask' as a penalty.

Ref: Yes, but there's nothing in the rules that says we can't make up our own penalties.

Coach: But there's an official list of penalties. It says, 'these are penalties' and then it lists them. And 'Hochuli facemask' is not on there.

Ref: Show me the place it says, "an no others may be called or made up during the game."

Coach: Huh?

Ref: See.

Click to expand...

Actually, ref's can do that. They just need to say its a "palpably unfair act"

Palm Beach Pats Fan said:

Taking off my Patriots hat for a moment, I think they made the right call though they clearly didn't follow the right procedures. So in the pantheon of bad officiating, it's not as bad as if they had made the wrong call and also not followed proper procedures. But the officiating crew (and our people in charge of showing stuff on the Jumbotron!) should face some discipline.

Click to expand...

I think a big part of all this too is the fact that the Patriots won the game. I don't mean to imply that this call was a game breaker, but the team did win despite the call and since the call went against us, less people will be upset.

Just picture if we had lost the game because of that call, or any other call with similar context.

Palm Beach Pats Fan said:

Taking off my Patriots hat for a moment, I think they made the right call though they clearly didn't follow the right procedures. So in the pantheon of bad officiating, it's not as bad as if they had made the wrong call and also not followed proper procedures. But the officiating crew (and our people in charge of showing stuff on the Jumbotron!) should face some discipline.

Click to expand...

Howe could they have made the right call?

Was the receiver "defenseless"?
Did the defender leave his feet?
Did the defender lead with the crown of his helmet?

Those are the items that have to be considered according to the helmet to helmet rule as the league stated in their point of emphasis memo.

If you can't answer Yes to any of them, then you're not supposed to call helmet to helmet.

McCourty led with his arm and shoulder. He didn't leave his feet. And Quarless wasn't defenseless. So how is it a legitimate call?

Synovia said:

Actually, ref's can do that. They just need to say its a "palpably unfair act"

Click to expand...

Doesn't get you out of your box.

Coach: Ref, are you saying it's a "palpably unfair act" under the rules.

Ref: No.

Coach: Then what authority do you have?

Ref: The authority that there's nothing in the rulebook that forbids it.

Synovia said:

Again, a "Replay Review" was not conducted.

Click to expand...

So you're a fan of loopholes. One wonders why certain calls are not reviewable by challenge. But they are reviewable by the loophole of a hometeam controlling what the refs will see on a jumbotron.

Absolute lunacy.

Synovia said:

No, it does not. It states how a "Replay Review" is supposed to be handled. A replay review is what happens when a red flag is thrown, or the booth calls with less than 2 minutes. Its a very specific defined action.

Click to expand...

OMFG..There are specific rules that state that Refs are only supposed to use the league provided monitors.. NOT the Jumbotron. You seriously need to just stop, Syn, because you are wrong. Period.

TheGodInAGreyHoodie said:

Anything the ref wants, ref has complete control!

With an understanding that refs ought not use the technology willy nilly and that the game needs to move along. E.g. don't review an offensive holding call where the result of the play was a 3 yard gain. But if you are unsure if holding occurred by the offense on a TD or by the defense on an int...then sure by all means review it if you don't think you had a good angle.

Refs should understand that if they need this more than a few times per game they aren't really doing their job well.

Click to expand...

So if the Banta-Cain penalty hadn't been called, and the Patriots intercepted the ball, for all intents and purposes ending the game, you would have been OK with a flag coming out after they reviewed the penalty?

Even worse, imagine that the Packers had scored a TD on that play, and the jumbotron had singled out a replay where a Packers OL had hands to the face of a Patriot OLineman, while they deliberately excluded a replay of Banta-Cain's hands to the face, and it ended with the Packers losing 15 yards, you'd be OK with that?

You don't see it as lunacy?

upstater1 said:

So you're a fan of loopholes. One wonders why certain calls are not reviewable by challenge. But they are reviewable by the loophole of a hometeam controlling what the refs will see on a jumbotron.

Absolute lunacy.

Click to expand...

It's the most crazy lunacy imaginable. The position is basically this:

"I acknowledge that the video replay rules explicitly prohibit video replay from being used for 'penalty administration.' However, the rules allow informal in-stadium jumbotron review of penalty administration because there's nothing in the rules that says otherwise."

Idiotic. It's not even close to a "loophole." By this logic, the ref could bring his own television and tivo to the game, run over the sideline and review it for penalty administration. When asked why he thought this was ok: There's nothing in the rules that prohibits it, and while penalty administration is not reviewable I wasn't doing that kind of review. Some people just can't admit when they are wrong.

Synovia said:

Again, a "Replay Review" was not conducted.

Click to expand...

You're making the point for the other side. Officals make calls based upon what they saw on the field. There are exceptions to changing those calls. This play didn't fall under those exceptions (review).

DaBruinz said:

OMFG..There are specific rules that state that Refs are only supposed to use the league provided monitors.. NOT the Jumbotron. You seriously need to just stop, Syn, because you are wrong. Period.

Click to expand...

No, you don't get it. They only have to use league provided monitors for a "Replay." If they are doing a "replay review" (note the small "r"), they can use whatever they want. :0)

DaBruinz said:

Howe could they have made the right call?

Did the defender leave his feet?
NO
Did the defender lead with the crown of his helmet?
NO
Was the receiver "defenseless"?
Perhaps yes

Click to expand...

There was clear helmet-to-helmet contact, and to me it occured before the receiver had secured the ball to become a "not defenseless" runner.

It's a judgement call and we could argue about that all day, but it doesn't seem crazy to me to simply say that Devin needs to strike lower. That is unfair for sure, since it provided the opportunity for a receiver to "draw" illegal contact by ducking, but it is what it is.

So given what happened last night, if I'm BB, I start practicing the following:

1. Have Brady and all pass catchers learn to quickly turn and/or duck their head so as to create glancing blows with helmet to helmet contact. Really, how hard would it be for Brady to check his first three options, and if no one is open, seek out a rushing defender to create a glancing blow? Or for a receiver to stand still, wait for a defender to commit to an angle on a tackle, and then twist and turn to create a glancing blow?

The interesting thing about how this rule is being interpreted is that it is impossible for an offensive player to be culpable. Same, apparently, as face masking.

2. Install a communication system with the Jumbotron operator to tell him when and when not to show a replay. And when he's going to show one that is good for the Pats, show it over and over and over again. This will be very useful with the home field advantage in the playoffs.

And if the refs won't stop and watch the jumbotron replays, throw the red flag and insist that they do. They will tell him that to do so isn't allowed under the rules, at which point he has last night's call played on the jumbotron and insists that they watch with him. Over and over and over again.

upstater1 said:

So if the Banta-Cain penalty hadn't been called, and the Patriots intercepted the ball, for all intents and purposes ending the game, you would have been OK with a flag coming out after they reviewed the penalty?

Even worse, imagine that the Packers had scored a TD on that play, and the jumbotron had singled out a replay where a Packers OL had hands to the face of a Patriot OLineman, while they deliberately excluded a replay of Banta-Cain's hands to the face, and it ended with the Packers losing 15 yards, you'd be OK with that?

You don't see it as lunacy?

Click to expand...

Image a play about to be called and then the offical blows whistle and waves arms, "Wait, I just saw something on the Jumbotron! I'm calling a penalty!"

upstater1 said:

and the jumbotron had singled out a replay where a Packers OL had hands to the face of a Patriot OLineman, while they deliberately excluded a replay of Banta-Cain's hands to the face, and it ended with the Packers losing 15 yards, you'd be OK with that?

You don't see it as lunacy?

Click to expand...

I am not suggesting they relying on the jumbotron, but going under the hood and reviewing it there if they are unsure. The reason why the ref used the jumbotron is cause he didn't get a good look, didn't have an option of going under the hood, and the jumbotron answered his question. This takes away the temptation to use the jumbotron cause anytime he wants clarification he can get it without the jumbotron.

TheGodInAGreyHoodie said:

I am not suggesting they relying on the jumbotron, but going under the hood and reviewing it there if they are unsure. The reason why the ref used the jumbotron is cause he didn't get a good look, didn't have an option of going under the hood, and the jumbotron answered his question. This takes away the temptation to use the jumbotron cause anytime he wants clarification he can get it without the jumbotron.

Click to expand...

A jumbotron controlled by the employee of one team during a game when there is chaos on the field and players mauling each other everywhere.

I'll go further than this and say that the reason why the Tuck Rule exists at all is because the rules committee is hellbent on preventing arbitrary calls from referees. The Tuck Rule is there to take all judgment away from some QB fumbles. It's why the rule persists to this day.

Given that, there is absolutely no chance the league would allow the refs to arbitrarily decide what rises to the standards of Jumbotron replay penalties when the Jumbotron replay system itself is a totally arbitrary review of the game.

Synovia said:

Again, in the context of the NFL rulebook, the word REVIEW has a very specific meaning. The fact that you say they "reviewed" the play doesn't mean there was a "REVIEW".

Click to expand...

so based on your logic, lets look at the following scenario and give me your opinion . . .

lets say the refs make a "wrong call" and do it on a "non reviewable" call, the coach for the team that was hurt by the call has the following conversation with the ref regarding challenging the play"

Coach: "Hey ref I want to challenge the play, you made a wrong call."

Ref: "Sorry coach we can't review that call is non-reviewable and it has to stay as called on the field . . . "

coach: "darn, i thought we could get it right . . . :-("

Ref "Sorry coach those are the rules . . ."

Coach: "hey wait a minute i just got an idea . . . "

Ref: "yah coach . . ."

Coach: "take a look at the jumbotron, see where you made a mistake . . .?"

Ref: "hey your right coach, we did make a mistake, I am going to reverese the call on the field . . "

The ref then goes to the middle of the field and announces that he is going to reverse the call on the field

What is your opinion on the matter?

Does not that action usurp and render meaningless the replay policy?

Why do coaches need challenges if all they have to do is ask the ref to look at the jumbotron to get the call correct?

Mike Francesca is talking about how the play is "never over" and that "its not even football anymore" because of how they will hold a conference and throw a flag 30 seconds later on a hit.