Game 6: Lions @ Packers - Monday, October 14th 7:15PM

[HiAndTight]

Nearly everything should be reviewable, but eliminate automatic challenges and limit coaches to a max of 2 challenges per game. Replay should be used to reverse egregious calls (or non-calls) only.

 

And this would have changed zero calls from last night. Neither hands to the face was egregious, in fact the first one was correct. The roughing call with Allison wasn't remotely egregious -- remember what Matthews got flagged for early last season?

The PI non call was so "egregious" that it wasn't even deemed worthy of a challenge by Petricia.

 

None of those 4 plays would have been overturned on review. I don't say that to pick on you at all, I'm just pointing out that for all the uproar over last night, there isn't a single play that anyone can watch, point to, and say, "Wow, see? That was bad. That would be reversed."

 

It all started with Booger using his platform to get the entire nation riled up and like people are these days, most are happy to just buy right in without any real deeper analysis than that.

 

The only reason the PI doesn't get overturned is because they're not overturning any of them. But that was pretty bad. It looked like a good play in real time, but Redmond clearly gets there early on replay. So maybe it wasn't deemed worthy because nobody knows what the hell the refs are gonna overturn anymore. They gave us a gift in Week 2 with that OPI on Cook actually overturning a call, then vs the Eagles, they ate their flags and didn't overturn a blatant DPI.

 

And I think the helmet to helmet on Allison gets overturned in this scenario in which you're using a college like system. Again, the DB was trying to catch the ball, he wasn't even making a play on Allison. He's got every right to do that. That Matthews got hit with some bad calls(in a very different circumstance) last year doesn't really change that.

 

 

This is not just a issue because of last nights game. The Cowboys-Jets game had flags on 8 straight games late in the 4th on Sunday I believe? The Packers game is just being talked about because of A-Booger and B-MNF.

[KeithStone53151]

I was at the game, in the corner where the Lions "scored" their TD on 4th and goal from the one. You could not see the ball cross the line. That's not the worst part though. Two officials said no TD. Then the other line ref decided very late to slowly raise his hands to make the TD signal, looked very unsure the whole time.

 

So if it's THAT unclear, how do you award a TD? Easy, you figure replay will clean it up. That's yet another huge problem with replay. If you call a TD on the fled, you better be SURE you saw the ball cross the line. I don't think the line ref did.

 

Also, illegal contact, holding etc. happens all the time in the secondary, granted. But there was a really blatant hold on Graham that took away a TD. Just when he came out of his break, the DB literally hugged him.

 

That's why I'm not buying the narrative the Packers won the game due to the refs. We see the questionable calls that ARE called, not the ones that are missed. And spotlight is really on these calls at the end of the game. They even out. Lions couldn't get the ball in the end zone, let the Packers hang around, and it bit them. That's why they lost.

 

But that is simply not reality and is just a horrible horrible take. Probably one of the worst takes I've seen on these boards in a while

 

Actually, you are 100% spot on.

 

You're right, the Lions should just score a TD every drive and get a sack every defensive play. It's their fault for not having a perfect outcome on every play. Or, the Lions were 51-52% better than the Packers yesterday...and the refs favorable calls were enough to swing the outcome in our favor. Could the Lions have been better, yes...but it's not exactly fair for them to have to be 55-60% better than us in anticipation of compensating for bad calls. That's not a realistic expectation in this league...the teams are too good.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I was at the game, in the corner where the Lions "scored" their TD on 4th and goal from the one. You could not see the ball cross the line. That's not the worst part though. Two officials said no TD. Then the other line ref decided very late to slowly raise his hands to make the TD signal, looked very unsure the whole time.

 

So if it's THAT unclear, how do you award a TD? Easy, you figure replay will clean it up. That's yet another huge problem with replay. If you call a TD on the fled, you better be SURE you saw the ball cross the line. I don't think the line ref did.

 

Also, illegal contact, holding etc. happens all the time in the secondary, granted. But there was a really blatant hold on Graham that took away a TD. Just when he came out of his break, the DB literally hugged him.

 

That's why I'm not buying the narrative the Packers won the game due to the refs. We see the questionable calls that ARE called, not the ones that are missed. And spotlight is really on these calls at the end of the game. They even out. Lions couldn't get the ball in the end zone, let the Packers hang around, and it bit them. That's why they lost.

 

But that is simply not reality and is just a horrible horrible take. Probably one of the worst takes I've seen on these boards in a while

 

Actually, you are 100% spot on.

 

You're right, the Lions should just score a TD every drive and get a sack every defensive play. It's their fault for not having a perfect outcome on every play. Or, the Lions were 51-52% better than the Packers yesterday...and the refs favorable calls were enough to swing the outcome in our favor. Could the Lions have been better, yes...but it's not exactly fair for them to have to be 55-60% better than us in anticipation of compensating for bad calls. That's not a realistic expectation in this league...the teams are too good.

 

That's hyperbole. If the Lions get a TD instead of a FG on just one of those five scoring drives, they likely win. They could have/probably should have stomped the throat of the Packers in the first quarter, but instead settled for field goals, which allowed the Packers to hang around until the offense managed to get going. Then in the second half, the Lions completely went away from what had been working for them in the first quarter, going to a grind-out ball control offense, garnering them a grand total of 58 (!!!) second half yards. I will admit that several marginal, if not bad calls cost the Lions, but that team was flat out bad in the second half of that game after having 100% control into the second quarter. To say that the Packers were 100% gifted a win through poor refereeing, while not acknowledging that the Lions simply weren't good enough to make a Packers comeback unmanageable, seems like an attempt at trying to cheapen the win for some reason.

[thebruce44]

Nearly everything should be reviewable, but eliminate automatic challenges and limit coaches to a max of 2 challenges per game. Replay should be used to reverse egregious calls (or non-calls) only.

 

I think coaches should get two challenges with one of them being a super challenge that allows you to challenge anything called or uncalled.

 

If you use the super challenge before the regular challenge you lose the regular challenge as well and even if you win the super challenge you do not gain another challenge.

 

I think you should also be able to use your Super Challenge to block the other coach if he tries to just use a Regular Challenge. Or at least it should be that way in the NFC but not in the AFC. And in the NFC, all Regular Challenges should come from the Kicker and Super Challenges from the Punter. And they should call them Goodells- Regular Goodells and Super Goodells. And instead of red flags they should throw shredded CTE research papers like confetti up in the air to signal they are initiating a Goodell.

 

Of course, the players union would never go for this so I wont hold my breath.

[HiAndTight]

I was at the game, in the corner where the Lions "scored" their TD on 4th and goal from the one. You could not see the ball cross the line. That's not the worst part though. Two officials said no TD. Then the other line ref decided very late to slowly raise his hands to make the TD signal, looked very unsure the whole time.

 

So if it's THAT unclear, how do you award a TD? Easy, you figure replay will clean it up. That's yet another huge problem with replay. If you call a TD on the fled, you better be SURE you saw the ball cross the line. I don't think the line ref did.

 

Also, illegal contact, holding etc. happens all the time in the secondary, granted. But there was a really blatant hold on Graham that took away a TD. Just when he came out of his break, the DB literally hugged him.

 

That's why I'm not buying the narrative the Packers won the game due to the refs. We see the questionable calls that ARE called, not the ones that are missed. And spotlight is really on these calls at the end of the game. They even out. Lions couldn't get the ball in the end zone, let the Packers hang around, and it bit them. That's why they lost.

 

I didn't think 2 refs said no TD. There are only 2 Refs who should be making that call. In that case, the ref who didn't call a TD and then seemed to wait and then signaled the runner was down, he was plainly blocked from viewing the play. The ref on the other side had a better look at it. So I don't have a problem with one ref coming in and making the call there.

[HiAndTight]

 

That's hyperbole. If the Lions get a TD instead of a FG on just one of those five scoring drives, they likely win. They could have/probably should have stomped the throat of the Packers in the first quarter, but instead settled for field goals, which allowed the Packers to hang around until the offense managed to get going. Then in the second half, the Lions completely went away from what had been working for them in the first quarter, going to a grind-out ball control offense, garnering them a grand total of 58 (!!!) second half yards. I will admit that several marginal, if not bad calls cost the Lions, but that team was flat out bad in the second half of that game after having 100% control into the second quarter. To say that the Packers were 100% gifted a win through poor refereeing, while not acknowledging that the Lions simply weren't good enough to make a Packers comeback unmanageable, seems like an attempt at trying to cheapen the win for some reason.

 

 

I don't think that's what people are saying. I think the general gist is that the Lions got screwed...and it's pretty tough to argue against that. But that happens sometimes. I was upset about the Eagles game and it wasn't nearly as bad as the number of calls that went against the Lions. Even some of the calls being technically correct...I just think it's bad officiating to make such borderline calls at the point in the games they did. And for SO many either questionable calls or obvious calls go one way in the last 10 minutes, that's pretty egregious. But....oh well. It happened and it's over.

[OldHeidelberg]

 

I don't think that's what people are saying. I think the general gist is that the Lions got screwed...and it's pretty tough to argue against that. But that happens sometimes. I was upset about the Eagles game and it wasn't nearly as bad as the number of calls that went against the Lions. Even some of the calls being technically correct...I just think it's bad officiating to make such borderline calls at the point in the games they did. And for SO many either questionable calls or obvious calls go one way in the last 10 minutes, that's pretty egregious. But....oh well. It happened and it's over.

 

I think the Lions were at least a 50/50 bet to win if that last hands to the face call wasn't made considering how their kicker was nailing them, a good passing team with 4 downs only needing a FG is tough to stop. But I think the media is making way too big a deal out of this, I heard Bak on the radio the other day said that he complained to the refs since Flowers was doing it repeatedly and asked if he was allowed to do it too. I mean the guy just got called for the same thing the previous drive and did it again anyway, I am sure to try to keep Bakhtiari from getting his hands on him. I would prefer the refs stay out of it on plays of that magnitude unless it is blatant but that thinking is what made them not make the call in the NFCCG that started this whole round of ref madness.

[tmwiese55]

There's probably some probability calculator you can punch in teh scenario. But I'd guess it was closer to 66% for GB in the formulas. Then when you factor in that the Det offense had gained like 50 yards in 3 quarters you could probably tweak it up too

[nodakfan17]

Nearly everything should be reviewable, but eliminate automatic challenges and limit coaches to a max of 2 challenges per game. Replay should be used to reverse egregious calls (or non-calls) only.

 

And this would have changed zero calls from last night. Neither hands to the face was egregious, in fact the first one was correct. The roughing call with Allison wasn't remotely egregious.

 

What I meant by ‘egregious calls only’ was that if you eliminate the automatic reviews and cap coaches to a max of 2, the coach has to be very careful about how they burn their challenges. You wouldn’t see a challenge used because the opponent picked up a first down even though they may have bobbled the ball.

[OldHeidelberg]

There's probably some probability calculator you can punch in teh scenario. But I'd guess it was closer to 66% for GB in the formulas. Then when you factor in that the Det offense had gained like 50 yards in 3 quarters you could probably tweak it up too

 

Yeah but there was also maybe about a 10% chance Crosby blows the pressure kick from 37 yards or whatever it was at that point as well. It was one of those tough game end situations for the Pack, you want the TD but you are behind so really don't want to risk a turnover or sack when you are already in FG range. Plus you want Detroit to use it's timeouts so you sort of have to run it a couple of times but then you leave them a decent chance to win even with a minute and a half and no timeouts. I was certainly relieved when they called that penalty. Williams taking the knee at the 2 made me nervous about the FG as well, it is the right call obviously but still sort of a strange thing to do when behind in the score.

[areacodes]

Nearly everything should be reviewable, but eliminate automatic challenges and limit coaches to a max of 2 challenges per game. Replay should be used to reverse egregious calls (or non-calls) only.

 

And this would have changed zero calls from last night. Neither hands to the face was egregious, in fact the first one was correct. The roughing call with Allison wasn't remotely egregious.

 

What I meant by ‘egregious calls only’ was that if you eliminate the automatic reviews and cap coaches to a max of 2, the coach has to be very careful about how they burn their challenges. You wouldn’t see a challenge used because the opponent picked up a first down even though they may have bobbled the ball.

 

What happens if the refs miss three obvious calls that would normally be auto reviews?

[nodakfan17]

^^^

 

We all have to be willing to accept some human error in this process or the flow of the game will never improve. Either save the challenges for huge plays with a high probability of being overturned or risk being unable to challenge a questionable call late in the game.

[areacodes]

^^^

 

We all have to be willing to accept some human error in this process or the flow of the game will never improve. Either save the challenges for huge plays with a high probability of being overturned or risk being unable to challenge a questionable call late in the game.

 

Why do we have to be willing to accept more human error? I’ve got no problem with changing replay somehow, but getting rid of the auto review for scoring plays or turnovers would be a bad idea in my opinion. It isn’t like those take a long time unless they actually decide to take a closer look - and with your model, we would still have some stoppages in those situations.

 

I’d rather there be another chance for them to get it correct, with acknowledging that they will likely screw up the reviews as well (hey, look - still some human error ).

[nodakfan17]

^^^

 

We all have to be willing to accept some human error in this process or the flow of the game will never improve. Either save the challenges for huge plays with a high probability of being overturned or risk being unable to challenge a questionable call late in the game.

 

Why do we have to be willing to accept more human error? I’ve got no problem with changing replay somehow, but getting rid of the auto review for scoring plays or turnovers would be a bad idea in my opinion.

I totally get the desire for full consistency (I’m at the office right now on a Saturday just staring at some data), but it’s a game. My time is limited. It needs to finish in under 3 hours. Save the challenges for bad calls late in the game that are difficult to overcome (like Jerry Rice’s fumble in 1998 or the Rodgers face mask no call in 2009).

[young guns]

^^^

 

We all have to be willing to accept some human error in this process or the flow of the game will never improve.

I dont accept that at all. We can make things better AND faster(well maybe not the nfl, but at least someone competent can).

[adambr2]

Probably the best course of action right now is for the NFL to just admit that their replay sucks, admit that they have completely failed to fix it, and then copy the NCAA replay system in its entirety.

[areacodes]

^^^

 

We all have to be willing to accept some human error in this process or the flow of the game will never improve. Either save the challenges for huge plays with a high probability of being overturned or risk being unable to challenge a questionable call late in the game.

 

Why do we have to be willing to accept more human error? I’ve got no problem with changing replay somehow, but getting rid of the auto review for scoring plays or turnovers would be a bad idea in my opinion.

I totally get the desire for full consistency (I’m at the office right now on a Saturday just staring at some data), but it’s a game. My time is limited. It needs to finish in under 3 hours. Save the challenges for bad calls late in the game that are difficult to overcome (like Jerry Rice’s fumble in 1998 or the Rodgers face mask no call in 2009).

 

So, what happens if there are two situations where it is obvious the runner was down before fumbling in the 2nd and 3rd quarter and then you have a Jerry Rice fumble situation? The first fumbles aren’t worth challenging because there could be a more important screw up later?

 

I also highly doubt it is the auto reviews that are causing games to last 3+ hours. The league becoming a QB/passing game has a much bigger impact on games taking longer than a couple of reviews.

 

If anything, make it so if a decision can’t be made in 90 seconds the call stands.

[adambr2]

Actually for quite a long time the Rice fumble would not have been a reviewable play even after replay returned. For a pretty long period of time you could not review to have a play like that changed to a fumble because as soon they ruled the runner down the play is dead.

 

Eventually they changed that rule to allow a non-fumble to be reversed to a fumble if a "clear and obvious recovery" standard was met.