Patriots Local News:

SOURCE:Boston.com


SOURCE:NESN


SOURCE:NESN


SOURCE:Boston.com


SOURCE:Yahoo! Sports


SOURCE:WEEI


SOURCE:WEEI


SOURCE:NESN


SOURCE:USA TODAY


SOURCE:TheAthletic


SOURCE:Yahoo! Sports


SOURCE:CBS Boston


SOURCE:NBC Sports Boston


SOURCE:NBC Sports Boston


SOURCE:Yahoo! Sports


SOURCE:Yahoo! Sports


SOURCE:Yahoo! Sports


SOURCE:Yahoo! Sports


SOURCE:Yahoo! Sports


SOURCE:ProFootballTalk.com


SOURCE:Yahoo! Sports


SOURCE:Yahoo! Sports


SOURCE:WEEI


SOURCE:WEEI


SOURCE:NBC Sports Boston

Patsfans.com

Upcoming Opponent:
Next Up: Eagles
Sun
Nov 17th
Right Now At PatsFans.com:
Tough Result
The Ravens made a couple of key plays and handed the Patriots their first loss of the 2019 season.

Current Patriots Twitter Feed:

Rule change needed?

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Chevy, Sep 10, 2019.

  1. Chevy

    Chevy PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,267
    Likes Received:
    335
    Ratings:
    +1,102
    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).
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  2. Wheelman

    Wheelman Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,411
    Likes Received:
    2,292
    Ratings:
    +11,851
    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
  3. Hammer of Thor

    Hammer of Thor PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2012
    Messages:
    3,726
    Likes Received:
    1,807
    Ratings:
    +10,083
    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.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  4. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    46,878
    Likes Received:
    4,996
    Ratings:
    +30,056
    10 seconds is an estimate.
     
  5. Angelpats

    Angelpats 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    May 12, 2015
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    475
    Ratings:
    +2,370
    There’s enough rules. There should be a timeout saved for these late game situations anyways.
     
  6. PatsDeb

    PatsDeb PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    8,988
    Likes Received:
    2,610
    Ratings:
    +9,488
    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  7. Palm Beach Pats Fan

    Palm Beach Pats Fan Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal Weekly Picks Winner

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    3,472
    Ratings:
    +16,534
    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  8. XLIX

    XLIX Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    May 18, 2015
    Messages:
    8,445
    Likes Received:
    1,729
    Ratings:
    +13,096
    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.
     
    • Useful Useful x 2
    • Angry Angry x 1
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019
  9. Wheelman

    Wheelman Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,411
    Likes Received:
    2,292
    Ratings:
    +11,851
    They had one. They didn't want to use it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  10. PatsDeb

    PatsDeb PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    8,988
    Likes Received:
    2,610
    Ratings:
    +9,488
    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1

Share This Page

Search For Links: - CLOSE
For searches with multiple players
add commas (Ex: "Brady, Gronkowski")