Semi-OT: Why Rex's challenge was non-reviewable

On the play where Ninko ran Taylor out of bounds as he threw, and the refs said he stepped OOB first, setting up 4th-and-16, Rex tried to challenge saying (correctly, as it turned out) that the ball was out of the hand before Taylor stepped on the line and therefore it should be 4th-and-9. Both the on-field ref and CBS's ref analyst (Mike Carey) said it was an unreviewable play but didn't give much clarity as to why.

The reason why it is unreviewable is because since the pass was incomplete the play (for review purposes) is treated as a running play. For all running plays the dead ball spot is unreviewable unless the first-down line ("line of gain") is involved. Since it wasn't in this case, the play is not reviewable.

If Taylor's pass had been complete then it would have been reviewable in order to determine whether or not the play had ended before the pass was thrown.

Yet another reason why Belichick's way is the way to go -- make all plays reviewable (keeping a limit on the number of allowed coaches challenges), rather than have arbitrary, ad hoc lists of reviewable and unreviewable plays.

(Of course, there's still the open question of why the hell Rex wanted to challenge that play given that even if it were allowed and he won, it'd be 4th-and-9.)

I agree. Personally I'd even like to see penalties/no flags reviewable, just with the same 2 flags + 1 bonus if you get them both right rules. How I would have loved to have seen a flag thrown against Carolina in the endzone, for instance...

QuantumMechanic said:

(Of course, there's still the open question of why the hell Rex wanted to challenge that play given that even if it were allowed and he won, it'd be 4th-and-9.)

Click to expand...

I could be wrong and I'm too lazy to google but I think Rex has a pretty good challenge record and looked at that as a 7 yard field position difference with little to no risk after seeing the replay. Challenging an easy play early is a gambit but if it pays off if you get the 2nd challenge as well it's like af ree replay.

It's not reviewable because Kraft wired some money to the referees and told them not to review it. We couldn't let the Bills move from a 4th & 16 to 4th & 8.

This can lead to brutally unfair results. Say it's 2nd-and-20 and the offense runs around end and the runner picks up 19 yards tip-toeing the sideline but actually stepped OOB two yards from the line of scrimmage. The defense is stuck with a bogus 3rd-and-1 when it should really be 3rd-and-18 and there's nothing they can do about it.

But if the runner had gained one more yard then the line-of-gain would be involved and the defense could challenge and get the entire run wiped out.

Real sensible, that.

If it was reviewable it was stupid to waste a challenge on it. Yes you're sacrificing a few yards and you would still have two challenges in your pocket if you got the next one right but if you didn't and there was a game altering play after that and you had no challenges left you're screwed. I don't think the benefit is there that early in the game. Same call in the 4th quarter yes you throw the challenge flag. I don't believe Bill would waste a challenge in that spot.

QuantumMechanic said:

This can lead to brutally unfair results. Say it's 2nd-and-20 and the offense runs around end and the runner picks up 19 yards tip-toeing the sideline but actually stepped OOB two yards from the line of scrimmage. The defense is stuck with a bogus 3rd-and-1 when it should really be 3rd-and-18 and there's nothing they can do about it.

But if the runner had gained one more yard then the line-of-gain would be involved and the defense could challenge and get the entire run wiped out.

Real sensible, that.

Click to expand...

Could they not challenge that the runner made a first down, thereby requiring the referee to review the play and see the step oob?

I'm not sure, but I didn't think the scope of review was limited to what was challenged, and although never done (so far as I know), can a team make a challenge that on its face appears adverse to their interest?

Jlaff said:

Could they not challenge that the runner made a first down, thereby requiring the referee to review the play and see the step oob?

Click to expand...

If the runner was brought down clearly before the first down marker the coach can't claim he's challenging whether a first down was made or not. Well, he can say that, but since there's no possible outcome of the review that would result the ball being respotted for a first down, the play remains non-reviewable.

It's not what the coach claims that matters, it's what the outcome could be. Only (for the offense) if the ball could be respotted for a first down or (for the defense) could be respotted to deny a first down is the spot reviewable.

Obviously there's some line there -- if the player is tackled 3 yards short of the marker there's no respot that would give a first down, but if the player is tackled 3 millimeters short there would be. Where does it change? Beats the hell out of me. Which is another reason, IMHO, that everything should be reviewable.

Would it make any difference if it were a scoring play/turnover?

A Defiant Goose said:

Would it make any difference if it were a scoring play/turnover?

Click to expand...

Yes, because all scoring plays and turnovers are always reviewed.

QuantumMechanic said:

Yes, because all scoring plays and turnovers are always reviewed.

Click to expand...

But the whole "threw it before/after he went out of bounds" part is still non-reviewable, is it not?

I ask this because I'm wondering if, in a dramatic SB-winning drive, this were to happen to the Pats, if we would be totally screwed or if we'd be saved by the auto scoring play review

As an OT to the OT, during the Packer Seahacks game. The Packers threw the red flag challenging the number of players on the field? I thought you could only challenge a play. Not look for possible penalties the other team commits?

A Defiant Goose said:

But the whole "threw it before/after he went out of bounds" part is still non-reviewable, is it not?

Click to expand...

If there's a score or a turnover the entire scoring play or turnover play is reviewable. Let's say there's a fumble and the defense recovers, but it's a really close thing as to whether the runner's knee was down before the fumble.

The booth review is supposed to look at the entire play. Let's say they notice that (a) the ball was indeed out before the knee hit, and (b) the runner stepped OOB long before he was hit and fumbled. In that case the fumble should be negated and the offense given the ball where the runner stepped out.

In the "was the passer OOB or not before the ball left his hand" scenario, if the pass results in a score or turnover it is reviewable because as a score or turnover it is by rule explicitly reviewable.

But even if there wasn't a score it would be reviewable if a receiver caught the ball. That's because complete/incomplete is always reviewable, regardless of where on the field you are.

Patstopia said:

As an OT to the OT, during the Packer Seahacks game. The Packers threw the red flag challenging the number of players on the field? I thought you could only challenge a play. Not look for possible penalties the other team commits?

Click to expand...

There are certain "objective" penalties you can challenge to get called (or challenge to eliminate if called against you). Number of players on the field is one of them. Another one is an illegal forward pass due to the passer being over the LOS when he throws.

There are some more that I think (but am not completely sure) are reviewable:

• Whether or not an onsides kick went 10 yards.
• Whether or not the first offensive player to touch a pass had previously gone OOB.
• Whether or not the first offensive player to touch a pass was an ineligible receiver (this is really a superset of the previous one).
• Whether or not a lateral that took place past the line of scrimmage was an illegal forward pass or not.
• Whether or not a forward pass is legal or not (for example, behind the line of scrimmage, A apparently laterals to B and B throws a forward pass. Defense challenges that the lateral from A to B was forward which would make B's pass an illegal forward pass).

Also, I believe that if a play is being reviewed for some other reason, the ref is supposed to be looking for all this stuff and is supposed to call the appropriate penalty if he sees it.

It was not reviewable because there is an unwritten rule where the refs can save a coach from his own ridiculous stupidity. Probably the dumbest challenge I have seen in a while.

My only guess is that Rex screwed up and thought it was third down rather than 4th down and felt he could get better position to try to convert the 3rd down.

Doesn't it make sense that once a running play is whistled dead it's not reviewable since the defenders are supposed to stop defending at the whistle?

So in other words, a runner is ruled down at the 5 even though his knee never touched but the play is whistled over. The defenders ease up (or risk penalty) but the runner keeps going into the EZ (because he doesn't think he was down so why not?). You shouldn't be able to review that and overturn it to a TD.

I thought it was not reviewable because they actually ran another play (the punt). At that point, it is too late to actually to late to do anything.

Isn't throwing a flag on a non-reviewable play an unsportsmanlike penalty? If so, why wasn't Rex penalized?

I think Rex didn't get penalized because he threw the flag too late.

But as I think about it, didn't they change the "coach threw flag on unchallengable play" rule after the Jim Schwartz screwup?

nabwong said:

Isn't throwing a flag on a non-reviewable play an unsportsmanlike penalty? If so, why wasn't Rex penalized?

Click to expand...

QuantumMechanic said:

I think Rex didn't get penalized because he threw the flag too late.

But as I think about it, didn't they change the "coach threw flag on unchallengable play" rule after the Jim Schwartz screwup?

Click to expand...

I've been thinking this since the actually play and I do remember Schwartz getting the "unsportsman" call. Against Houston I think on Thanksgiving?

So, why wasn't Rex called for it?