Harbaugh is whining about the rules again.

[Joey007]

John Harbaugh: Challenge rule 'should be changed'

Just when I forget why I still hate Baltimore, Harbaugh always reminds me why. What a sore loser.

 

[bormio]

John Harbaugh: Challenge rule 'should be changed'

Just when I forget why I still hate Baltimore, Harbaugh always reminds me why. What a sore loser.

He would have just lost another challenge if he challenged the Brees QB sneak. So no harm. The Harbaughs are such whiners.

 

[Sicilian]

They don't want people challenging willy nilly. You have to measure whether you actually think it will be overturned, but also whether the risk is worth the reward (like in the case of Edelman's incompletion). We don't need more challenges.

 

[irishfanatic]

He is a Richard Cranium without any doubt.

 

[Froob]

Just wait til Patriots beat the Ravens on a third challenge.

 

[XLIX]

What they should change is plays subject to automatic review. If a guy reaches for the pylon and barely crosses the plane of the goal line, it's subject to automatic review if ruled a TD on the field, but not subject to automatic review if he's ruled down on the 1. Same thing if a guy makes a catch in the back end of the end zone and maybe gets both feet down, but maybe not.

That just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Typical crybaby loser Harbaugh.

That’s why Belichick didn’t challenge the Edelman ruling, even though he likely would have won. A nine yard gain on first down isn’t worth using a potential game changing challenge.

 

[turkeyneck]

You can't put the ball across the plane of the first-down marker -- it's got to be forward progress.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

What they should change is plays subject to automatic review. If a guy reaches for the pylon and barely crosses the plane of the goal line, it's subject to automatic review if ruled a TD on the field, but not subject to automatic review if he's ruled down on the 1. Same thing if a guy makes a catch in the back end of the end zone and maybe gets both feet down, but maybe not.

That just doesn't make sense to me.

Similar idea - if it’s ruled a turnover on the field it’s subject to automatic review but if it’s not ruled a turnover, it’s not. That needs to be fixed as well.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

They don't want people challenging willy nilly. You have to measure whether you actually think it will be overturned, but also whether the risk is worth the reward (like in the case of Edelman's incompletion). We don't need more challenges.

The major issue with the challenge rule is not the win two rule.

IMO, the challenge rule should be changed so that you can challenge anything, provided you specify what you're challenging: e.g., "I'm challenging whether #85 caught the ball" or "#74 committed holding."

 

[RobertWeathers]

He has bigger problems than this to be concerned about.

Like his job if they don't make the playoffs.

 

[Deus Irae]

He's right, though. The challenge rule does need to be changed, and the 2/3 challenge limit is a problem.

 

[Koma]

"You have to at least get close to the line of scrimmage," Harbaugh said about the play. "It's not like you put the ball across the plane of a goal line. You can't put the ball across the plane of the first-down marker -- it's got to be forward progress"

Turkeyneck beat me to it, but isn't Harbaugh wrong about this? I've seen ball carriers get wrapped up as they're approaching a first down and then extend the ball to try and get across the line. I've never seen them rule that the ball carrier has to also cross the first down line in addition to the football.

Something that had to bother Harbaugh after the game on Sunday is that he's spent a couple of years campaigning unsuccessfully for a rule change that would make a kickoff that goes through the uprights to be worth a point. After Tucker missed the game tying extra point, it had to eat at Harbaugh a bit that his team still would have had a chance to tie if the league had only approved his new rule.

 

[TinhWoodhead]

He also wants to change if the home team playing in Baltimore misses an xtra point, they get a rekick

 

[BradyFTW!]

On one hand, I agree with him: if you challenge and win, I don't see why being forced to throw a challenge flag to fix a ref's mistake should be held against you. IMO rules should be modified so that you're only allowed to lose 2 challenges.

I don't see why someone who challenges once and loses should have one challenge left, but someone who challenges twice and wins one should have none left. As with a lot of rules that the NFL has invented in the past 20ish years, there's no real internal logic to it; it just reeks of a couple stooges who get off on arbitrary technicalities going to town on the rulebook.

That said, Harbaugh is a whiny loser who shouldn't be taken seriously, and if he wasn't whining about this he'd be whining about something else instead.

 

[Ring 6]

What they should change is plays subject to automatic review. If a guy reaches for the pylon and barely crosses the plane of the goal line, it's subject to automatic review if ruled a TD on the field, but not subject to automatic review if he's ruled down on the 1. Same thing if a guy makes a catch in the back end of the end zone and maybe gets both feet down, but maybe not.

That just doesn't make sense to me.

Great point.
I believe be seen refs in doubt call TD or call turnover so that it will get reviewed.
So the incorrectly called TD gets reviewed, the incorrectly called NOT TD doesn’t.
The incorrectly called turnover gets reversed. The incorrectly called NOT turnover doesn’t.
It happened last night. Julio fumbled but it was called incomplete. The giants had to use a challenge.
Maybe they should do a quick review to see if a review is warranted on all close to scores or turnovers?

 

[XLIX]

Harbaugh phrased it poorly, but he has a point. There's a difference between the QB doing the move where he reaches out with the ball for the first down versus reaching out for the end zone. Once the ball crosses the plane of the end zone, that is a touchdown and the play is over. Anything that happens afterwards doesn't matter. But if you reach out for a first down and then pull the ball back, the play ain't over, and you don't get forward progress when you pull the ball backwards on your own.

 

[BradyFTW!]

What they should change is plays subject to automatic review. If a guy reaches for the pylon and barely crosses the plane of the goal line, it's subject to automatic review if ruled a TD on the field, but not subject to automatic review if he's ruled down on the 1. Same thing if a guy makes a catch in the back end of the end zone and maybe gets both feet down, but maybe not.

That just doesn't make sense to me.

I agree, especially because this clearly informs how refs call plays on the field. It's become routine to see refs call plays as turnovers or touchdowns on the field for the clear purpose of triggering automatic review, to ensure that they get the play right. But then you get into the whole "must be indisputable to overturn" business, which further screws things up until everyone involved decides to just ignore that standard and go with something more along the lines of "what appears most likely to have happened".

The end result is that this system doesn't really work for anyone except the hot-take outrage peddlers who get to spend every Monday shouting over each other about how dare they overturn a play without conclusive evidence. The whole system is broken, and it starts because the rulebook assumes refs are calling plays as they see them on the field, and not calling them in whichever way triggers a review. And once that assumption is violated, the rest of the procedure and standards stop making any real sense. If they expand what triggers an automatic review, that would fix a lot of this. OTOH, it would also lead to a lot more stoppages down near the goal line.

 

[XLIX]

Turkeyneck beat me to it, but isn't Harbaugh wrong about this? I've seen ball carriers get wrapped up as they're approaching a first down and then extend the ball to try and get across the line. I've never seen them rule that the ball carrier has to also cross the first down line in addition to the football.

The problem isn't the fact that Brees' body didn't cross the first down line. The problem is you don't get forward progress if you go backwards of your own volition (meaning no opponent has hit or tackled you). Brees jumps up and stretches forward with the ball for the first down, but then he brings the ball back into his body to protect it from an oncoming Raven.

IMHO there is nothing conclusive in the replay that warrants overturning. It is tough to tell where Brees actually contacts a defender, plus the camera angle isn't straight down the line. However, it's darn close.

 

[A Defiant Goose]

They don't want people challenging willy nilly. You have to measure whether you actually think it will be overturned, but also whether the risk is worth the reward (like in the case of Edelman's incompletion). We don't need more challenges.

Agree. But I agree with BB that the scope should be broadened to challenge anything (except non-penalties)