Anyone notice???? (NFL replay question)

[wondo]

I had a couple cold ones while watching the games, but let me pose this question to the group.

In the first game, GB had a reciever that apparently caught a pass and proceeded to fumble the ball, with SF recovering the potential fumble. When SF wanted to challenge the ruling on the field of an incomplete pass, the official told Mariucci that regardless of the outcome of the challenge, the play would not EVER give SF the ball, so the challenge never happened.

In the second game, the Raven's dropped what seemed to be an incomplete pass, in much the same way as occured in the first game. Again, it was ruled incomplete on the field, but it went to review to see if indeed it was a catch and a fumble. It was within the two minute warning period and the challenge was mandatory (or rather called for by above). THe pass was ruled incomplete, so no change in possesion occured.

However, my question is how was the same play interpreted two different ways via instant replay? I understand that one is automatic, but even so, if by rule the play can't be overturned to affect posession, why was it reviewed in one case and not reviewed in the other?

Anyone remember to the two plays I'm referring to? The Miami one was in the closing minute of the first half, and the SF one was (I believe) within the first half as well.

It seems this replay thing has inconsistent enforcement and rules that nobody is quite sure of.

 

[hoya]

I was wondering the same thing while watching them review the call in the Miami game. They seriously need to change some of these rules or at least teach the damn refs how the system works because many dont seem to have a clue. Lets just hope one of these replay incidents doesnt end up costing a team a playoff game.

 

[BahamaMama]

I watched one of the plays, and was listening to the 2nd on the radio, so wasn't as *in tune* to what was going on in the Balt/Mia game as i would have been if seeing it.........

anyway, the radio announcers were talking about how it wasn't a challengeable call (the same way i was thinking after seeing the first game)......

but as i say, wasn't totally aware of what was going on, and not even sure which team possibly fumbled, or where on the field they were exactly...... although what i was thinking was this.....

a complete pass downfield that would put a team in or near FG range, or even give them a first down may be worthy of a challenge to help the team that fumbled. In the first game they stated that no way would it be SF ball...... BUT, would it have been worth it for GB to have challenged that play if necessary?? If an incompletion was overturned to rule a catch/fumble, even tho essentially a whistle on an incompletion would like a inadvertant down by contact whistle.... WOULD the team that actually caught the pass and subsequently fumbled it then have the ball at the place of the fumble, rather than back at the line of scrimmage??

just a thought, like i said, don't really know......LOL

 

[ferdville]

Excellent point - I was wondering the same thing. The ridiculous rules that apply to replay will be the killer of it! Many NFL rules need to be revised and applied with some sort of consistency.

 

[BahamaMama]

Think I figured out a way to better say what my point was above.....LOL

It has been referred to in this thread as *inconsistant* rules as far as what is reviewable, and what isn't.......

i don't believe that the call in the first game was *NON REVIEWABLE* ..... i think what was told to SF, was that it could never benefit THEM to review that play, however, had GB chosen to have it reviewed, (if it was necessary to them) ... it would have gone to replay.

 

[dr. freeze]

a

 

[wondo]

I agree with you mama, and that might be the case -- the play wouldn't have changed the possesion, so SF wouldnt have wanted to waste a review and possibly a timeuout becuase the only outcome of an overturned call would have been GB to get possession a few yards farther downfield. In the second game, the same rule probably held true, but the announcers weren't savvy enough to realize that if the play was overturned, all it would mean was extra yards for the offense. It would have been really interesting to see if the play was overturned and the defense got the ball in the 2nd game, if Mariucci and the 49ers would have gone apeshit to the press saying they got the wrong interpretation.

 

[scrubbo]

The answer is easy: The Refs are IDIOTS:thefinger

But I think its all about when the Whistle blows but the Refs are IDIOTS!!!!:thefinger
Even with instant replay the Refs continue to control the outcome of too many games. The Refs are IDIOTS!:thefinger

 

[ctownguy]

scrubbo has the best explanation

But seriously, in the first game, the play should have been reviewed, it is definitely a reviewable play to see if a pass has been caught and or completed for the purpose of not only a complete pass, but for the reason of a fumble and recovery. It was done many times during the season. This crew just blew it and blew it big time, what a joke. They should have looked at it and since the whistle blew the recovery of the fumble by the 49ers dead, they would get possession at the point of recovery, if they would have reviewed it and ruled it a catch and fumble.

I did not even know what the explanation was the ref gave, because it completely made no sense.

In the second game it was reviewed just like it should have been in the first game.

How do these guys get away with blowing play after play every week.

This year the officiating in the NFL was the worst I have ever seen and I have been an official and don't usually rag on them, but the inconsistencies are getting out of hand.

 

[Bighoopsplayer]

they need to make changes to the insant replay rules

 

[Rod Thompson]

Did you hear the audio of Marriucci arguing with the refs? I heard:

SO?!

MY BUTT!!!

and

THATS A HORSE SH** RULE!!!

HA!