Rule change needed?

[Chevy]

Saints-Texans, under 2 minutes. Officials decide to review a Thomas catch. Call on the field is upheld, but the rules state there must be a 10 second run-off.

Why?

The offense didn't initiate a review, or have an "injury". Why the run-off? To me , it makes no sense.

(To top it off, the officials even got that wrong as they did the run-off from the time on the clock - 26 seconds - rather than the time at the end of the play - 41 seconds).

 

[Wheelman]

No it's fine. You saw it took about 10 seconds to get the next snap off. That's what the 10 second runoff is for. Can't disadvantage the defense when having a review.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

Saints-Texans, under 2 minutes. Officials decide to review a Thomas catch. Call on the field is upheld, but the rules state there must be a 10 second run-off.

Why?

The offense didn't initiate a review, or have an "injury". Why the run-off? To me , it makes no sense.

(To top it off, the officials even got that wrong as they did the run-off from the time on the clock - 26 seconds - rather than the time at the end of the play - 41 seconds).

Well that's the thing. The 10 seconds could be justified in this situation as the amount of time it would take for the offense to line up after the play. If they never reviewed the play, the snap would have been at 26 seconds but since they did (and if they called it correctly), the snap would have been at 31 seconds. The Saints would actually have made out by 5 seconds due to the review and it would have been the Texans who would have gotten hosed for something out of their control.

Maybe the rule could be adjusted to either a 10 second run-off from the end of the prior play, or the actual time when the officials called for the review, whichever produces the lower amount of time left in the quarter.

 

[Ring 6]

Well that's the thing. The 10 seconds could be justified in this situation as the amount of time it would take for the offense to line up after the play. If they never reviewed the play, the snap would have been at 26 seconds but since they did (and if they called it correctly), the snap would have been at 31 seconds. The Saints would actually have made out by 5 seconds due to the review and it would have been the Texans who would have gotten hosed for something out of their control.

Maybe the rule could be adjusted to either a 10 second run-off from the end of the prior play, or the actual time when the officials called for the review, whichever produces the lower amount of time left in the quarter.

10 seconds is an estimate.

 

[Angelpats]

There’s enough rules. There should be a timeout saved for these late game situations anyways.

 

[PatsDeb]

Saints-Texans, under 2 minutes. Officials decide to review a Thomas catch. Call on the field is upheld, but the rules state there must be a 10 second run-off.

Why?

The offense didn't initiate a review, or have an "injury". Why the run-off? To me , it makes no sense.

(To top it off, the officials even got that wrong as they did the run-off from the time on the clock - 26 seconds - rather than the time at the end of the play - 41 seconds).

Yeah, we were wondering about that too. It was an official time out, and the ruling was confirmed. Why did a team that didn't ask for a review and essentially "won" the challenge get penalized, on top of them not adding back the time it took from the end of the play to the official's challenge? It was a 20 second run-off for a team that did nothing wrong. Head-scratcher for sure.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Yeah, we were wondering about that too. It was an official time out, and the ruling was confirmed. Why did a team that didn't ask for a review and essentially "won" the challenge get penalized, on top of them not adding back the time it took from the end of the play to the official's challenge? It was a 20 second run-off for a team that did nothing wrong. Head-scratcher for sure.

Because the refs screwed up and should have taken 10 seconds off from the 41-second mark, which actually would have helped the Saints. 31 seconds was right, if refs acted by the rules. Not 26, and for sure not 16.

You definitely need a run-off if a live clock is stopped for review, and 10 seconds seems reasonable. But the mess-up was not using 41 seconds as the end of the play, rather than 26 seconds.

 

[XLIX]

This rule needs to be changed but not because of last night (where the refs made an error). The team that got screwed was Detroit last year (2 years ago?) when they had the ball on the 8 with something like 10 seconds to go. Quick slant for a TD with 8 seconds left. Uh oh, replay overturned the call saying WR was down inside the 1. The 10 second runoff ended the game even though 8 seconds is plenty of time to spike the ball on a 7 yard gain.

 

[Wheelman]

There’s enough rules. There should be a timeout saved for these late game situations anyways.

They had one. They didn't want to use it.

 

[PatsDeb]

Because the refs screwed up and should have taken 10 seconds off from the 41-second mark, which actually would have helped the Saints. 31 seconds was right, if refs acted by the rules. Not 26, and for sure not 16.

You definitely need a run-off if a live clock is stopped for review, and 10 seconds seems reasonable. But the mess-up was not using 41 seconds as the end of the play, rather than 26 seconds.

My opinion is if the refs stop the clock for a review, there should be no run-off, period. They are the ones questioning a call on the field, not the team trying to score or get into FG range at the end of a half. There are plenty of teams that could spike the ball and save precious seconds in less than 10 seconds when the game is on the line. Stupid rule, particularly where the original ruling is confirmed.