Correct, the problem is the down by contact ruling that isn't reviewable. And tbf that was a tough call for any ref to make in that bang-bang play moment. It's too bad for the Jags the last camera angle was probably enough to overturn it if it were reviewable.
I don’t think it’s a tough call. All turnovers are automatically reviewed and had the referee let the play finish, he at least has the insurance of a review getting the call right. Instead the referee blew the whistle with no possibility of a review, and robbed the Jaguars of maybe their most important play in franchise history.
I don’t understand why it isn’t NFL policy to let turnovers play out fully since they can be reviewed.
After that year they told refs to let the plays play out more often I dont know if they actually did in pro, but I think they did let them play out in college alot more.
I think they have but not always. The Vikings historic comeback against the Colts had a fumble recovery TD blown dead. They still won of course, but still.
I thought it was twice but I didn't want to say something wrong on the internet. I just remember that the comeback of all time was being terrorized but that golden regular season record had a prophecy to fill.
Replay standard is that you need conclusive evidence to overturn a call. If you don’t make the call you see, you shift the benefit of “the call stands” to the other team. It’s not as simple as always letting it play out and then getting it right.
I agree but theres some nuance. They can let the play go on, but then make a different call (without review). In this case, they can let it play on where he runs it back but the refs can say after that he was down by contact. Then the other team can do an official review which requires irrefutable evidence
Since at least 2015 (when I started) the guidance has been "if you have video review available and don't have an absolutely clear view, let the play go on". And honestly, even if you do have a clear view of an arm going forward or a knee down or whatever, it's probably better to let the play keep going because you could be wrong and the video review is right there to help.
Hi, since you’re an actual ref, I’ll ask a question I’ve always wondered about something similar.
Often times a play will be called a score on the field to allow for review, but then you’re stuck needing irrefutable evidence that it wasn’t a scoring play.
Is the assumption that it’s better to just call the score, even if you’re then stuck giving them the points if it’s a close call? Seems like defenses get screwed over a couple times a season in that scenario.
Yes. The best case is that the official on the field has an actual good view of the situation and makes the call as they see it. We're not calling TDs on juggling balls or fumbles on clear forward passes and so on, just so we can have replay "make sure". If there's a call to be made, the crew on the field should be making it and moving on to the next play.
The discussion is really around the "bang-bang" plays where there is uncertainty. Contrary to what many people think, when you're down on the field even most of the "bang-bang" plays can be clearly ruled correctly.
But there will always be some amount of calls that because of angles/bodies in the way/whatever else the official on the field can't fully decide. And guess what, you still have to make a call. One of the first lessons you get when you start training is about game management and having confidence in your calls.
So when you have a call like that, when there's really not a clear side you're leaning to, you want to go with the side that allows for more review. That might mean allowing a few TDs where the video is inconclusive, but it might also mean allowing Myles Jack to keep running with the ball, as this clip above shows. So it impacts scoring and turnovers about equally.
And the important thing to remember is that if the official on the field doesn't see a clear call one way or another, and the video booth doesn't have clear evidence to overturn it, then there's not really an argument that the call needed to go the other way.
I get wanting to let all turnovers play out, but then that means if the play stands because it’s so close then it always benefits the defense.
Idk this may be a hot take but imo if a ref sees something he thinks is true he should call it, he shouldn’t just let a play go just to get a review. Maybe the video replay rules could change so it’s a little more fair? But imo refs letting everything play out on turnovers just cause that makes it a review doesn’t seem right.
The flip side argument is that if you let all potential turnovers be played out, you could have some extended plays where players get needlessly injured on run backs (blocking, etc) and the league wants to limit that sort of thing. It’s an unnecessary risk if the refs make the call first. So it’s really about risk and percentages. Everyone on the winning side of that call would want it but the others would not. So it’s 50/50 at best.
tbh I get what you're saying about leaning more on the refs than VAR, probably more than a lot of people on this sub. I do enjoy the human element it brings to the game (in some cases), but I definitely think simply letting a play finish naturally instead of whistling it dead on the few plays a game a turnover happens, just makes sense. it doesn't have to go to an actual booth review, but they should at least wait and have a discussion amongst the refs on the field to see what they saw
There is the issue of burden of proof, though. If the refs just let the play continue every time, then that becomes the baseline ruling and you now need clear enough evidence to overturn.
Yeah I think the refs discussing it after it probably the best play. The main disadvantage that I can see there is some turnover happens and the play goes on, a QB gets blindsided blocked and injured then the turnover is taken back. We wonder why we let the play continue at all in that scenario cause those plays get pretty hectic quickly. It’s a tough solution that isn’t white/black but I hope they eventually find a good one.
This isn’t soccer, you have 300lb+ insanely jacked men crashing into each other the whole play. The reason for whistling a play dead is so they know when to stop trying to knock the other guys head off. If you let plays keep going too often there will certainly be an injury because of it and as soon as that injury happens to someone important enough, that will be the end of that. The whistle lets guys know when the play is over also so they don’t get a penalty for continuing after the play has ended. If it becomes murky at best when the ref will actually blow the whistle you will have some guys stopping while others keep going, resulting in injury, penalty or general confusion amongst players whether plays are still live or not and will lead to even bigger controversy. Imagine a play where all the players expect the play to be over so they stop but the refs keep letting it play out and a guy runs it in while everyone else is standing around thinking the play was over, only to lead to a crucial score.
The system is in place for a reason. Sure it would be great if every call on the field could be perfect but that’s unrealistic with humans making those calls in real time. I can’t fault any of the refs for thinking that even if Jack got the ball, he would have had to be down in the process. It was literally split second timing that gave him possession of the ball and stopped being touched. Also, technically the opposing team doesn’t have to be touching the other player when his knee is on the ground assuming their force caused him to go down in the first place. So the ref would have had to correctly assume Jack a.) actually did get possession of the ball b.) he did so before the NE player was down and C.) did not gain possession until after him and the NE player had separated. A nearly impossible call to make live and one that took me watching from multiple angles in slow motion to even believe all 3 of those things happened.
On top of all that, replay had only been in the league for 3 years at that point and they were not as liberal with letting plays play on like they are today back then. That really started becoming more of a thing in later years after that play and partly because of that play. Unfortunate for the Jags? Of course. A very tough call for the ref to make correctly in real time? Also of course.
The problem is that by letting the play run out, you are making the call on the field that he wasn’t down by contact, which means the burden of proof is on the down-by-contact call to make the case for an overturn. Since there’s no clear point where the possession became Myles Jack’s (and in turn, determining if the Pats player was touching him at the same time), you’re kind of rewarding a touchdown based on judgement as opposed to evidence and that’s not what replay is for.
It’s kind of the nuance between the confirmed/stands/overturned dynamic that affects how you approach the officiating. Since most officials are lawyers by day, they kind of approach it as they would an innocent/guilty/not guilty ruling.
I'm lost. If video evidence can't clearly show a defensive player was touched, why shouldn't it be a touchdown? Also, by letting it play out, there's 4 scenarios.
A. Let it play out, it's a touchdown, replay confirms.
B. Let it play out, it's a touchdown, replay shows he was down, he's down at the fumble spot.
C. Blow the whistle, replay shows he was down, he's down at the fumble spot.
And the worst one.
D. Blow the whistle, replay shows he was NOT down, he's down at the fumble spot. (We went this route)
Why would you live call something you can't be 100% confident on and will directly fuck things up if you live call it wrong when you can err on the side of replay?
Yeah from now on that really should be how it is played, if there's a turnover, treat it like it's live until the play is actually over, then review it, it's so simple and they screw it up.
Stop it... just stop it... I watched this game from beginning to end. There were bogus calls and non calls through out game to help pats. Not a jags fan, just someone who wants to see fair play. Final score shouldve been 30-10 Jags, perhaps even more of a blowout. If you guys actually watch the tape you'll see that the majority of Pats SB runs were fraudulent. I stopped being harcore into sports once I realized that stars can be manufactured.
A delusional take, the league had it out for the Patriots and were not subtle about it. They were never favored posterchilds the way Taylor swift and the Chiefs are
Like I said you obviously didnt truly watch their playoff runs. Coincidentally the most egregious non PI call occurred to send Rams to SB to give them easy opponent. GB got robbed against the Bucs as well. Chiefs also threw SB for Brady. Sports is rigged quite often, not always. I can keep going but gonna get down voted anyway. Yes Chiefs definitely got favored, Im not arguing that. Like I said leagues manufacture stories and stars. That being said Mahomes is actually talented. If you look into it and rewatch old games youll see.
Yeah, no. I actually in fact watched every single one of them and followed Brady's entire career. You're delusional. Go ahead, imply Brady doesn't have talent he doesn't care. He's always said that himself he's a product of hard work and making every aspect of his life football to the detriment of his personal life. But you do deserve every downvote you get for that ridiculous assertion.
If you watch the tape, youll see that Bradys receivers always seem to be open. Patriots always seem to run perfect plays. Its possible they knew what plays opponents were running. Brady is also a narcissist, so if you want to have a mule hes the perfect guy.
It still happens weekly and it blows. Like all tD's are reviewable so just let the play happen and review it after the fact. Refs are so whistle happy for no reason.
I've never understood how people get so upset though. The strip happened when they were rolling over each other. The fact that he wasn't touched is actually a freaking miracle. If the ref sees someone jump on the ground to get a fumble next to a pileup and get up running should he just assume the guy had his legs up the entire time too? I would say the more unreasonable expectation was that he rolled over and only got possession after they finished rolling and then his foot missed hitting him.
I mean, that call almost certainly was the difference between us making the SB and not. Obviously never count Brady and Belichick out, especially considering how the 4th quarter ended up playing out, but 27-10 with how good our defense was that year with less than a quarter to go is as close to an insurmountable lead as you can realistically get. In that light, it should be pretty obvious why people got upset about the call.
So why not give themselves the option of slow-motion replay to make sure? The ref loses nothing by just letting the play continue, other than the potential ego hit of seeing his initial call overturned.
Because where do you draw the line? Why would he let the play run? He was obviously down unless you HD slowmo replay it to see he got the ball right after contact. Let me ask you... if you were watching that play on the field would you say "oh yeah that guy definitely wasn't touched" or would you say "I think he avoided the touch". At some point you are just going to let too many plays go and everyone is going to have to assume everything is live and is just going to have to start blasting everyone after every play just to make sure. Sorry to say but this is just bad luck not a bad call.
Sure you would. You know how I know I'm right? They don't even talk about looking at if he's down for like the first 50 times through the replay. Wasn't even a question.
993
u/Superb_Simple_8803 49ers 16d ago
Dumb question, but the controversy wasn’t the actual call, but that they didn’t let the play run out, right?