The Jones Fumble/McCarthy Red Flag Call

[Sinatra]

I'm not sure how it actually came about but there were two reviews of a play. My recollection was that the booth conducted a review on the scoring play and then a challenge ensued. IIRC the challange dealt with a different part of the play (still pertaining to the same play, however) and then the upheld touchdown became no touchdown. (I don't recall it specifically, but I might try to review my old recording of that game to get/give an accurate picture.) Give me a day or two and I'll post the circumstances here, unless someone else beats me to it...

Edit - I was able to go forward a few pages in the thread and refresh my memory. See the post from soflavike on this page. It was a fumble recovery that the Vikings returned for a Touchdown. The booth reviewed and upheld. Then Chicago challenged the "fumble" part of the play and after first being upheld by the booth, it was then overturned and ruled down - no fumble. It was all part of the same play...

I still don't think I have enough to comment. When I first read through that thread, I walked away with the impression that the refs reviewed it, made a decision, and then decided to review it again. I never saw it explicitly stated that the second review was due to a Chicago challenge...

[Just Me]

I still don't think I have enough to comment. When I first read through that thread, I walked away with the impression that the refs reviewed it, made a decision, and then decided to review it again. I never saw it explicitly stated that the second review was due to a Chicago challenge...

I'll look at my recording again in the next day or two and see if it was a "double booth review" (which I don't think it was) or if Chicago had input, and I'll let you know...

[jackal]

I don't know the player is allowed to pick up the challenge once its been thrown out by the coach

[me4get]

I don't know the player is allowed to pick up the challenge once its been thrown out by the coach

Their not allowed to pick up any flag. Palpably unfair conduct.

[saint33]

Then you're SOL. Coaches can no longer challenge turnovers or scoring plays. Period.
It is, trust me. NFL rules are generally much simpler and straightforward than people think. The rule was created to prevent teams from delaying the game, so as to buy more time to decide whether they want to challenge or not. If the booth has already triggered a review, then obviously you can't delay the game -- it's already being 'delayed' by the review. However, if the booth HASN'T yet triggered the review then, in theory, you're delaying the game by throwing a flag on a play that you can't challenge. Yes, it may be that the booth would have ended up buzzing it for review anyway, but they hadn't yet, so you've delayed the game.

The "delaying" aspect is what voids the ability to review. If the booth has already buzzed for a review, then there's nothing to delay. If the booth hasn't buzzed then, ostensibly, you're delaying the game. The rule doesn't delineate whether the booth WOULD have review it -- it only discusses whether you're delaying the game at that moment. And if the booth hasn't yet buzzed, then you're delaying the game.

Again, I don't think this rule was written with booth reviews in mind, and I think it'll be changed this offseason -- because currently, it's a totally crap rule.

I understand the logic used in determining the timing of the flag vs the booth buzz to dictate whether the review is being delayed or not, however there is one major issue with using this interpretation of the rule to dictate the outcome. What if ref is unaware of which came first? Carey has admitted as much after the game, he did not actually know which came first.

Since there is no direct rule that indicates the timing of the flag is important, I don't believe it's fair or consistent to use personal interpretation or intention to justify the call, no matter how logical it may be. By penalizing Schwartz for clearly throwing it before the buzz, yet not penalizing another coach who clearly throws the flag after the buzz, you then have no precedent, nor do you have any clear rule, to determine what you do in an instance where you are unaware of which came first (as was the case in our game). And thus, until the rule is clarified through a change, I don't believe it's justifiable to use the timing interpretation to differentiate the whether a review should be allowed or not. It needs to be administered as written, which does not include the timing of the challenge flag as a viable clause.

In the end, the rule itself is awful and needs to be changed, but until it does get changed, it needs to be called consistently, which the timing aspect does not allow.

[Hunter Morrow]

Turnovers and touchdowns are the most important aspect of the game, really. You might be able to argue that they should be the ONLY things coaches can challenge. Is the rule stupid? However, the stupid rule must be enforced the same stupid way for every stupid team. There shouldn't be a Regular Rulebook and a Packers Rulebook.

[Reignman]

I read the page you linked, and the pages before and after, but I wasn't able to put together a whole picture of what happened. Can you recap? I'm genuinely curious.

I remember that play as well. A detailed recap of it can be read here. Certainly a turning point in the game. Mistral Raymond returned a Matt Forte fumble for a TD. Initially the ref reviewed the play and said the play stands, then he went back to review it again after a brief discussion with Lovie Smith. The 2nd time he came back and overturned the call.

http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/NFL_ ... wice112612

Here's my take of the Jones fumble/illegal challenge/overturn fiasco. We got screwed, that's all there is to it. As others have already alluded to, this "interpretation" seems to have been made up on the fly to save face of the NFL and their flawed rule. Had we lost by fewer than 7 points people would be singing a different tune right now.

HOWEVER, and I can say this now that we won, I'm glad the call went as it did because if it didn't, Packer fans would be all bent out of shape and saying we only won because of the refs or a flawed rule. As it stands, we beat em straight up, and no excuses can be made.

[Sinatra]

There shouldn't be a Regular Rulebook and a Packers Rulebook.

Lol, I guess I shouldn't have expected a reasonable discussion. What a dumbass thing to say.

The rule was interpreted "correctly" in both cases. If the play has already been buzzed for review, you can't "cancel" the review.

To the point about "timing" being irrelevant, then what if the official is already under the hood, and THEN a penalty is incurred. Perhaps for fighting. The official then immediately comes out from under the hood and calls off the challenge? No, of course not. The timing absolutely is relevant. It's just sour grapes to say otherwise.

Here's a curious thing about this rule. What if Leslie Frazier had thrown the flag on that play? By rule, that should mean the play can't be reviewed. Clearly, this rule wasn't intended to be applied to booth reviews. But if the official's position is that it does apply, which apparently is the case, then they applied it correctly in both Schwartz's and McCarthy's case.

[Mothman]

Lol, I guess I shouldn't have expected a reasonable discussion. What a dumbass thing to say.

The rule was interpreted "correctly" in both cases. If the play has already been buzzed for review, you can't "cancel" the review.

To the point about "timing" being irrelevant, then what if the official is already under the hood, and THEN a penalty is incurred. Perhaps for fighting. The official then immediately comes out from under the hood and calls off the challenge? No, of course not. The timing absolutely is relevant. It's just sour grapes to say otherwise.

Here's a curious thing about this rule. What if Leslie Frazier had thrown the flag on that play? By rule, that should mean the play can't be reviewed. Clearly, this rule wasn't intended to be applied to booth reviews. But if the official's position is that it does apply, which apparently is the case, then they applied it correctly in both Schwartz's and McCarthy's case.

Sigh... the problem here is that Carey's in-game explanation that the booth buzzed the officials on the field to signal the review was BS:

http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_222 ... ant-replay

Carey told a pool reporter after the game he couldn't tell if the buzz came before McCarthy threw the flag, adding that the play would be unreviewable if the flag came "well before" the buzz.

[VikingLord]

The rule was interpreted "correctly" in both cases. If the play has already been buzzed for review, you can't "cancel" the review.

I get what you're saying, but in my view, there is no "buzzing" for a play that is automatically reviewed *by rule*. How can there be? If a guy runs for a clear first down, is it not a first down unless the markers are moved? No, it's a first down. The markers move as a procedural step to ensure the game can continue, but if the guys holding the markers happen to be chatting it up with the cheerleaders and don't move them fast enough, it doesn't invalidate the first down.

From my perspective, the important thing is that the play was called correctly. That ensures the integrity of the game, and if the situation were reversed, I'd want them to get it right.

But, there is no doubt in my opinion that the Packers were exempted from consistent enforcement of the rule per what happened to the Lions against the Texans. No doubt at all. You can see that by the reactions of both Jennings and Rodgers after they saw what McCarthy did, and by the fact that Carey admitted he could not tell which happened first - the "buzz" or the throwing of the challenge flag, yet he based the outcome of his ruling on it.

[saint33]

Lol, I guess I shouldn't have expected a reasonable discussion. What a dumbass thing to say.

The rule was interpreted "correctly" in both cases. If the play has already been buzzed for review, you can't "cancel" the review.

To the point about "timing" being irrelevant, then what if the official is already under the hood, and THEN a penalty is incurred. Perhaps for fighting. The official then immediately comes out from under the hood and calls off the challenge? No, of course not. The timing absolutely is relevant. It's just sour grapes to say otherwise.

Here's a curious thing about this rule. What if Leslie Frazier had thrown the flag on that play? By rule, that should mean the play can't be reviewed. Clearly, this rule wasn't intended to be applied to booth reviews. But if the official's position is that it does apply, which apparently is the case, then they applied it correctly in both Schwartz's and McCarthy's case.

So again, address the case I asked you to when the ref is unaware of which came first? What side do you lean to and why. Clearly Carey, who admitted to not knowing which came first, decided it didn't delay the play. Of course, had he actually been aware when the flag came, the exact flag thrown at the same time may have been deemed to delay the game despite the only change in the situation being the referee's awareness.

Again as logical as the argument is that timing is important, it is not that clear cut in the rulebook as it is now and the rule book is all that matters. You can argue to the death how stupid it would be to start a review then stop it, but how stupid is it to not start it at all because of a penalty? This isn't an argument about the validity of a rule, simply the inconsistency of it

There is no sour grapes from me, what do i have to be sour about? The Vikings won and the play on the field was called correctly. I'm just pointing out that this call is not as simple as your making it, because you are ignoring one important factor, Carey wasn't aware which came first.

In the end it's not important, the rule will be changed and clarified in the off season.