Welker overturned catch sequence of events

[xmarkd400x]

Here's what happened on the field near the end of the second quarter, within the 2:00 for a booth review:

1. Brady throws a long(ish) pass to Welker who obviously did not catch the ball. It was ruled a catch.

2. Pats rush to the line and spike the ball.

3. Refs come in and say "The pass to Welker is under review".
-It sure as heck looked to me like no ref blew the whistle until AFTER the Pats ran the spike play

4. The play is overturned.

5. The refs spot the ball incorrectly, and it takes some time to get everything in order.
==========================

So, I think that yes, the booth should have gotten the call in quicker. But, I have a few questions:

1. Who watches the watchers? If the refs can simply choose to review a play regardless of whether or not another play has been run, why bother with that rule? Does it only apply to head coach challenges?

2. On the review, it certainly looked to me like Welker's arm was interfered with. The defensive back was behind Welker, and they were both making a play for the ball, but Welker's arm was impeded by the Jet defender. IMO, the catch should have been overturned, but a PI should have been applied. However, I know that you cannot apply a procedural penalty upon review (I'm sure if they saw something ejection worthy, they'd toss somebody, but that's another story).

2a. Should you be able to apply penalties on review? I mean, I think Wes would have caught that ball if the defender wasn't crawling up his you-know-what.

All in all, that sequence really annoyed me. I just needed to vent.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Here's what happened on the field near the end of the second quarter, within the 2:00 for a booth review:

1. Brady throws a long(ish) pass to Welker who obviously did not catch the ball. It was ruled a catch.

2. Pats rush to the line and spike the ball.

3. Refs come in and say "The pass to Welker is under review".
-It sure as heck looked to me like no ref blew the whistle until AFTER the Pats ran the spike play

4. The play is overturned.

5. The refs spot the ball incorrectly, and it takes some time to get everything in order.
==========================

So, I think that yes, the booth should have gotten the call in quicker. But, I have a few questions:

1. Who watches the watchers? If the refs can simply choose to review a play regardless of whether or not another play has been run, why bother with that rule? Does it only apply to head coach challenges?

While it is arguable if the ref blew the whistle, or got buzzed by the booth, before the spike was run, it was very very close. In that case I'm not going to quibble. If it happened a whole second later, then I'd have a problem with it.

And in the end the ref got the play right.

This is one of those "pick your battles" things I'm not going to fight with the ruling about. I'll save the vent for worse reffing (like last week).

Regards,
Chris

 

[Pujo]

Yes, it was a cluster****.

1. Who watches the watchers? If the refs can simply choose to review a play regardless of whether or not another play has been run, why bother with that rule? Does it only apply to head coach challenges?

According to what Phil Simms said during the broadcast, if the replay assistant in the booth (remember, it's not the on-field officials that decide to review) buzzes the ref before the ball is snapped, the review happens, even if the ref on the field did not react to it in time to stop the snap. I believe (but am not sure) that the same would apply to a coach's challenge, if the red flag is on the field before the snap, the play never happened. It's the same with a timeout, if someone requests a timeout before the snap, even if the official doesn't have enough time to stop the play, the timeout is granted.

2. On the review, it certainly looked to me like Welker's arm was interfered with. The defensive back was behind Welker, and they were both making a play for the ball, but Welker's arm was impeded by the Jet defender. IMO, the catch should have been overturned, but a PI should have been applied. However, I know that you cannot apply a procedural penalty upon review (I'm sure if they saw something ejection worthy, they'd toss somebody, but that's another story).

Not sure what the question here is, but you're correct. With the exception of a few penalties (illegal forward pass, too many men, and maybe a few others) they will not throw a flag as a result of a review.

2a. Should you be able to apply penalties on review? I mean, I think Wes would have caught that ball if the defender wasn't crawling up his you-know-what.

Personally I think it should work both ways, which is to say penalties should be reviewable just like anything else.

The spotting thing was a little weird, but I'm glad they got it right in the end. Better to re-asses and get it right than to quickly rule the wrong way.

 

[Wax Frog]

I've not seen remotely as many games as some here, so I'd like to know - has there ever been a sequence of officiating ineptness as comically drawn out as this?

 

[mayoclinic]

It was inept, but they got it right in the end. It wasn't a catch, and they figured out the correct spot of the ball. The refs looked like idiots, but there's been far worse done, since in the end everything was actually correct.

Obviously, it's legal to spike the ball and end the play, and is a smart move. Nevertheless, it's hard to argue that the ref's slowness is deciding to review the play should have allowed us a catch that wasn't. I'll complain about calls that I think were clearly wrong, but this one was right.

 

[Wax Frog]

One thing that did bother me, would love to see a rule change - as the incomplete pass likely would have resulted in the Pats not taking time out, there ought to be a provision for it to be returned. If we're going to "go back in time" as the result of a mistaken call, then that reset should be as complete as possible.

 

[Pujo]

One thing that did bother me, would love to see a rule change - as the incomplete pass likely would have resulted in the Pats not taking time out, there ought to be a provision for it to be returned. If we're going to "go back in time" as the result of a mistaken call, then that reset should be as complete as possible.

Pats did not take a time out, they rushed up to the line to spike the ball, which was negated by the review.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

How can the refs be so inept as to place the ball 5 yards away and not realize it for over a minute? We were shouting from the front row sidelines to the obstinate refs and to BB who obviously took the same sleep inducing cold medicine Brady took resulting in his two at home delay of game penalties.

 

[xmarkd400x]

I agree that the refs eventually got the right call but --

I think Welker was interfered with.

and

It was very frustrating to watch.

 

[Wax Frog]

Pats did not take a time out, they rushed up to the line to spike the ball, which was negated by the review.

Ack, brain fart! I do clearly remember being irritated about something to do with that last timeout, though. Will have to go back and look, unless someone bails me out first.

 

[Urgent]

Given the amount of time spent on ref fuddling, it was easy to also confuse the sequence of time-outs. However, the Patriots did not spike the ball and then call time-out.

With limited time, they threw a pass down the middle, called a time-out, threw another pass to Welker that hit the ground but was called a catch with about 20 seconds remaining, rushed to the line to stop the clock, spiked the ball, and then re-grouped. At that time the refs blew the whistle and reviewed the play.

They had to do two things:
1) replace the ball at the original spot (30 1/2 yard line)
2) rewind the clock to the original spot (Patriots took maybe eight seconds to get up to the line and spike the ball)

They did rewind the clock correctly, but for some reason marched the ball back five yards.

 

[Nikolai]

Kind of a typical Tripplette game if you ask me. They always seem to have confusion on the field, but usually get the calls right in the end. Tripplette used to be the king of bad calls, and I think the long discussions are his way of trying to mitigate the bad calls. Better than other games this year...

Though that five yard brain-fart on the spot was bewildering...

 

[BradyFTW!]

It was inept, but they got it right in the end. It wasn't a catch, and they figured out the correct spot of the ball. The refs looked like idiots, but there's been far worse done, since in the end everything was actually correct.

Obviously, it's legal to spike the ball and end the play, and is a smart move. Nevertheless, it's hard to argue that the ref's slowness is deciding to review the play should have allowed us a catch that wasn't. I'll complain about calls that I think were clearly wrong, but this one was right.

Agreed- I'd rather they bungle their way to the correct outcome than have a clean, efficient, professional-looking screw-up.