officials-seeing-things-that-didn't-happen rant

[LJP]

It was called a sack on the field and the clock ran, but the replay official initiated a review and the clock stopped with 4 seconds left. It was due to start again on the referee's signal, but the Redskins called a timeout so it stayed stopped.

[Reaser]

It was called a sack on the field and the clock ran, but the replay official initiated a review and the clock stopped with 4 seconds left. It was due to start again on the referee's signal, but the Redskins called a timeout so it stayed stopped.

No. That's not what happened. At all.

He was sacked with 11 seconds left and the clock stopped. The clock stopped incorrectly. After roughly 7 or so seconds - and the clock still stopped at "11" - the broadcast went to a replay that lasted another 7 or so seconds then came back to live action with 5 seconds on the clock and running and the Seahawks snapped it and spiked it with 4 seconds - the whistle blew after Wilson spiked it and then they reviewed whether he was down or not on the sack.

There was at least 14 seconds (if not more) from when Wilson was sacked (and that's what it was ruled on the field) to when the clock went from 11 seconds to 5 seconds. How? Because obviously as could be seen during the game the clock was stopped at 11 seconds.

[Reaser]

Wilson sacked with 12 seconds left (obviously 11 is next) ...

01.png (229.69 KiB) Viewed 12115 times

A couple seconds go by (though clock stopped at "11") before the play clock starts and here you can see 11 seconds on the game clock but 35 seconds on the play clock so 5 seconds off the play clock but 0 seconds off the game clock. This is right before FOX went to the replay.

02.png (205.1 KiB) Viewed 12115 times

When they came back from replay the game clock was at 5 seconds and play clock was at 27. Then the ball was spiked at 4 seconds left and 26 on the play clock. So 14 seconds had run off the play clock but only 7 seconds had run off the game clock.

03.png (247 KiB) Viewed 12115 times

So as explained, the clock stopped at 11 seconds when it should have been a running clock (as it was ruled a sack on the field) and at least 14 seconds elapsed (evidenced by the play clock) so that's just the minimum, there was about 2-3 seconds from when Wilson was sacked to when the play clock started so you're looking at 16-17 seconds between sack and spiking the ball yet the game clock went from 11 seconds to 4 seconds.

[LJP]

It was badly managed, but watching it again and again, the play appears to have initially been blown dead (incomplete), so the clocked stopped at ~0:11.

After discussion (and a delay) it was ruled a sack. The replay was initiated before the snap/spike, so no play and the clock stopped at ~0:04.

Difficult one really. There was no announcement from the field, no time I suppose. Wilson seemed ready to go and knew it was a sack.

Still not sure why the Seahawks didn't spike the ball after Richardson's long catch? Not the Seahawks way apparently.

[Reaser]

The clocks on the screen are not official.

It was badly managed, but watching it again and again, the play was initially blown dead (incomplete), so the clocked stopped at ~0:11.

After discussion (and a delay) it was ruled a sack. The replay was initiated before the snap/spike, so no play and the clock stopped at ~0:04.

Ha! No.

That's again, not what happened.

There was zero discussion by the officials. It was ruled a sack by the referee (not "incomplete"). So the clock was incorrectly stopped by the clock operator at 11 seconds then he started it, on his own. The mistake by the officials and later replay was not noticing it and coming back from replay with the clock still set at 4 seconds.

The referee instantly ran up and pointed to the ground signaling he was down (i.e. sack). The Seahawks ran back to spike the ball. They spiked it with 4 seconds left then the referee blew his whistle and said it was under review.

There was 14 to 17 (closer to 17) seconds between the sack and the spike (or refs initiating a review even though it came after the spike) ... During a running clock situation (he. was. ruled. down.) There was 12 seconds left when Wilson was sacked, the clock was stopped at 11 seconds incorrectly. Not sure why this is so difficult. I watched the game and noticed it instantly. Numerous others noticed it. There's articles about it. I gave you the screen shots and evidently you can watch it yourself so I'm confused by your response -- especially "after discussions and a delay it was ruled a sack" (there was no discussion or delay, the referee literally ruled him down instantly and the officials spotted the ball).

[JWL]

The one from Week 9 that really got me was in the Bengals-Jaguars game. No Bears game this week so decided to watch that one live. End of the first half AJ Green and Jalen Ramsey get thrown out for fighting. Green fair enough, he should get a multi game suspension for his disgraceful actions, but Ramsey did nothing. Outside of his inital shove on Green, which was just retaliation, he did absolutely nothing to get ejected. Apparently an official saw him throw a punch?!?! Quite when and where he managed that, I have no idea.

I don't know what the league tells officials to do when they have two guys wrestling on the field. I think it may be hard to eject one but not the other unless we have the officials go to video review to try to figure out how the scuffle started and find that one did not do much.

Green basically got a half-game suspension by being tossed early in that game. I do not think his actions deserved a multi-game suspension.

Ramsey has had issues with multiple players now. I don't know what he says on the field but obviously it is something. Interesting video from last year-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcKfveoqYE0

[Reaser]

Green basically got a half-game suspension by being tossed early in that game. I do not think his actions deserved a multi-game suspension.

I don't care about the fight, I'm more interested in the consistency of punishments.

If we compared five examples from this season I wonder what order people would put them in from most to least egregious?

(examples in no order)

- Marshawn Lynch comes off the sideline to break up a fight, official puts his arms around Lynch and Lynch gets him off of him = Ejected in 2nd Quarter AND suspended for one-game.

- Jameis Winston comes off sideline to poke an opponent in the back of the helmet essentially instigating a brawl = Not ejected and no suspension.

- Mike Evans cheap shots opponent in the back = Not ejected, one-game suspension.

- A.J. Green puts opponent in choke hold and takes him to the ground, twice, and throws multiple legitimate punches = Ejected in 2nd Quarter, no suspension.

- Jalen Ramsey gives light shove to opponent then gets thrown to the ground twice and punched/punched at = Ejected in the 2nd Quarter, no suspension.

So we have by quarters:
Lynch: 6 quarters for coming off the sideline, attempting to break up a fight and then getting an official off of him (a fairly common way "contact with an official" ejections happen.)

Evans: 4 quarters for cheap shot in the back and turning shoving match between others into a brawl.

Green: 2 quarters for choke holds, take downs and punches.

Ramsey: 2 quarters for getting put in choke holds, taken down and punched at.

Winston: 0 quarters for coming off the sideline, poking opponent in the back of the helmet and instigating fight.

Those numbers look out-of-order to me. It should be either you can come off the sideline or you can't. You either are breaking up or instigating a fight. You are fighting/punching or you aren't. etc ... No consistency is the annoying aspect. Also looks odd for Green/Ramsey to get ejected and Evans not to be on the very same day. Then for Evans to get suspended for fighting and Green not to be. Evans ends up serving twice the length of punishment and arguably worse because he's missing an entire game while Green just checked out of a game he was getting shut down in anyway.

[JuggernautJ]

I've been watching football since literally before I can remember.
I played sandlot (by NFL rules, with two exceptions) for over twenty years.
And I have no idea what the hell the NFL game is anymore (but it sure ain't the game I grew up loving).

There are so many penalties that the game is virtually unwatchable (not to mention unplayable).
If the game can't be played without 20-25% of the plays being deemed illegal or subject to review then the rules need to be changed to something more readily understood and executed.

I also play board games.
If a board game came out that was as convoluted and counter-intuitive as the NFL game now is it would never see the table. After looking at the rules for a bit we'd laugh, shrug and/or grunt in disappointment, toss the game on the dust heap and move on to something that made sense and was much more fun.

IMO, the only reason the NFL is popular today is that it became popular (and a part of our culture) when the game was very, very different.
If it was introduced today with the way it is played today almost nobody would watch or participate.

[preeths]

There are so many penalties that the game is virtually unwatchable (not to mention unplayable).
If the game can't be played without 20-25% of the plays being deemed illegal or subject to review then the rules need to be changed to something more readily understood and executed.

I have been fighting this very same feeling for awhile now

[John Grasso]

In the Cardinals-Seahawks game last Thursday, a Cardinals player caught a pass, ran 3 or 4 steps with it, then went to the ground
and when he did so lost the ball. It appeared to be a clean fumble thas was recovered by Seahawks. Upon review it was ruled
an incomplete pass since "he did not hold the ball all the way to the ground" even though he clearly caught it and ran with it.

The announcers, Cris Collinsworth and Mike Tirico, said the officials called it right according to the rules. Tirico then added but not to the rule of common sense. I was really surprised to hear them make that statement even though most fans would agree with it.