What do you think of the Cleveland game?

Damn, RM95, you're as stubborn in being wrong about this as you were in being wrong about Dr. Laura!

As I understand the rules, the "king" on this is the replay official in the booth: if he says he signaled the play to be reviewed before the next play... guess what? No play. No matter if the ball is snapped. Hell, they would have snapped the ball if they had heard the ref blow his whisltle... much less heard a pager vibrate!

The official on the field is concentrating on his task at hand which is watching the field of play. If it takes him a fraction of a second or a couple of seconds to process the conflicting instructions, it doesn't make him wrong.

And again not all of the information is on the video tape-- much less the most important information.... when was the call for review signaled by the replay official. Only he knows-- the tape be damned!

Give it up; you gotta be a HUGE Browns fan...

 

Obviously the official was to late in blowing the whistle to replay it but it was the right call. The funny thing is if they had allowed it and the Browns won people would be ripping the officials for calling a fair catch when the guy clearly dropped the ball. And then they would be ripped even more for not calling intentional grounding when Couch double-pumped the ball.

 

<b>RM95</b>: "I'm stubborn? Yes. But coming from you, there are now tears on my keyboard...that's hilarious."
<b>RR</b>: Whoever is right can't be called stubborn!


<b>RM</b>: "The videotape is the only conclusive evidence we have to go by in this situation, and it shows the ref getting the message AFTER the next play.
<b>RR</b>: But the evidence that WE have is not the determinant. We fans don't have all the information. The Replay Official in the booth is a game official, too. Does he not count? His version of events has him signaling for the replay before the ball was snapped. The officials on the field are only support players in that scenario. His call is his call, period. Every game we see balls snapped on what are "dead plays."

<b>RM95</b>: "I'm sorry if I don't believe the words of a guy or his representatives whose potential mistake may have sparked the idiocy of the Browns' fans and a near black eye on the sport. He has everything to gain by saying he tried to get the message in."
<b>RR</b>: He got the word in PRIOR to the execution of the ill-gotten first down and it was responded to DURING the execution of the ill-gotten first down by the on-the-field officials. That's the best that can be expected out of the current system. What he said later is not as important as what he said at the time: the play doesn't count. Inability to accept the ruling is what caused the riot. TIme for them to be grownups.

<b>RM</b>: The official was not too late. The whistle on the field is not the determinant. The signal from the Replay Official is the determinant. That signal is not visible nor audible to the fans and not visible and probably not audible (it's a vibrating pager) to either the other officals, the coaches, or the players on the field. Only the Umpire (?) would sense the vibrating pager.

Granted this is a problem in a hurry up situation, but isn't it more important that the right decision be made? People crow about wanting to let the players determine the outcome of the game. If that were <b>possible</b>, Quincy Morgan would have popped up and said, "Sorry guys. I didn't catch that ball." First down, Jags.

But we know that that won't happen so the officials are necessary. They got the play right by all official reports.

 

I wonder when the Bush administration will finally pass the Cleveland Browns Stadium Security Bill. Back in the Oiler days I remember this cameraman getting knocked unconscious in the end zone and the Browns fans were throwing snowballs and dog bones at him while his limp body slid around in the snow. Sam Wyche had it right all along.

 

Once the next play happens the call on the previous call is the best call even if it is erroneous. I've always understood it to be this way. The Referees always controlled the play on the field not replay guy in a booth. I haven't watched much football or kept up with the rules lately (2 seasons), but if the refs on the field don't make the call on stopping a play, its BS.

Don Beebe stepped out of bounds and came back in to illegally catchg and score a TD in the infamous Oilers Bills game. If you want to make all calls right, lets start here. All players drafted since then will have to be redrafted. All superbowl winners lose their rings. The Oilers must move back to Houston and best of all, Barry has to come out of retirement.

I've always understood replay has to happen before the start of the next play. This is the standard the NFL choose to be most correct. By letting it go retroactive, you allow a team to know the other team's play.

I don't know who gets to stop the play ref or booth guy, but it should be the ref. If you think the best decision is to correct the wrong regardless of protocol, let's replay the oilers play. The Browns game will have to be replayed. I'm ridiculous here, but the line has always been the start of the next play. If you erase the line, correcting retroactive plays is boundless.


PS. Hate the Browns. Only saw highlights of upset fans, dropped balls, and spike. I don't know down, field position anything.

 

In this instance, apparently, the authority of the Replay Official supercedes the authority of the Referee. He only blows his whistle (or transmits a page) once in a while, but when he does.... WOW!

People keep overlooking that... or are they ignoring it because you don't like it?

I'd rather have the honest and integrity of the officiating crew (on the field and in the pressbox) closely monitoring the execution of the game then the patently dishonest players getting away with as much dishonesty as they can.

 

So you don't get a victory you don't deserve because procedure may not have been followed to the T, I think it is much to do about nothing. Well not the fans reactions, because they come off as a bunch of reckless idiots, but the whole context of the events because the fundamental play in question wasn't remotely close to being a catch. The Browns fans can be disappointed that procedures may not have been followed, but to me because they got beat on the field it doesn't go as far as them being robbed or worthy of them being too upset about it (e.g., in contrast to say that USA basketball team's gold medal game versus Soviets in the late 60's or early 70's).

 

RR,

I am arguing on theory. I assume bad calls happen and in a perfect imperfect world, they balance out. When a ref/replay guy possibly ignores the rules, I have a problem.

I think the ref on the field is in charge and haven't seen anything concrete to justify he isn't. The replay guy buzzes him. The Ref stops the game, not the replay official. If the ref doesn't get the buzz till after the next play, its too late.

I have not read concrete proof that the buzz was even before the next play, but it shouldn't matter.

If the refs on the field aren't always the official word on stopping the game, its fubar.

Hypothetical situation. The ref doesn't get the buzz and the replay guy has to run down and stop the game. Cleveland with the aid of 2 turnovers scored 14 points while the game is technically stopped.

To me, it shows the refs going beyond their power or what should be beyond their power to insure the Browns defeat. If there was one call that went the other way, the refs are showing favoritism even by correcting one call, but not all the other mistakes.

What about the pass interference non call in the 2nd. It would have given the Browns a first instead of having to punt. The refs aren't allowed by procedure to reverse it, but its the right call so the game should start back from this point.

Fans throwing s$%# sux. I have been embarrassed to call my self a Longhorn fan a couple of times. I believe a group moon ala Braveheart is a much better protest by fans.

PS. I didn't see the game, but I assume at some point in the 2nd a browns receiver didn't get the call that would result in the first.

 

I don't think the ref on the field has the choice to ignore the replay official calling for a looksee, though... so who REALLY is in charge?

 

From what I've heard from NFL "experts" on the radio, the rule states you cannot "ask" for a challenge after the next play has started. It doesn't say you can't view a replay after the next play has started.

Carry on...

 

My contigent is that if the ref didn't get the buzz before or doesn't hear, feel it, it is like it never happened. The ref can't ignore the buzz, but it should still be him stopping play.

I have a deep personel distaste for retroactive policy. If the rules are the way y'all say, Its fubar and the rules need to change.

 

So no matter which way is right, the Browns were screwed once for sure this year on the instant replay policy.

If, as the NFL contends, the refs were right this past Sunday, then I wonder how those refs from the Bears game were dealt with for getting the call wrong. Were they even told their call was wrong? If not, wouldn't that mean that the policy has been changed in the interim. If the facts of the story are correct, they can't both be right.

 

I thought I was the only one who remembered this. Dammit all they had to do was call that and maybe 35-3 was just a game that ended up really close. Also I remember there being a play where a Buffalo receiver caught a long pass and fell down and even though no one touched him he got up and set the ball down like the play was over. An Oiler picked it up but the officials said the play was over. I don't remember the actual play but I remember being mad about it so can anyone else back that claim up.

 

How many times in almost every NFL game do you see a QB-center snap exchange that is disallowed because the play was doomed from the start? It's not an unusual circumstance to see.

If this had been anything but an intentional grounding play (poorly executed at that!), the Ref would have run in there blowing the whistle to stop the play because he had received the notice for replay review from the replay official.

The spirit of the law is clear here. Why is everyone so hung up on the letter of the law? I thought we were over-run with liberal types on this board.

The replay guy is at the mercy of the TV producers (what they show him and when--- all before the next hurried snap, too). Should that be a significant part of determining the outcome of the game?

 

This was not a judgement issue; it was an issue of the limitations of the system... waiting for instant replay, sending the page, responding to the page, and (supposedly) stopping play.

All that had to occur before the snap of the ball on a clock-killing intentional downing of the ball. That's a lot to ask. The integrity of the game was held high by the officials in this case.

According to all reports, the decision to review the play was made before the snap of the ball but there were problems in relaying that information. The decision was made. The decision was made. The decision was made.

But they had trouble getting the whistle blown before the hurried snap. Big deal. Every game has false snaps for one reason or another.

Conjuring up the spirit of the law is meant to supplement not replace the letter of the law--- where it is needed not where it is wanted.

Do all you liberals have such tunnel vision?!? Makes me gald to call myself a conservative!