Rule explanation - or lack thereof

[BillsIsrael]

2 rulings on the field I felt were not explained by the commentators and I'd be happy if they'd be explained
A. On the 4th down that the Jets did not convert - the camera showed Saleh debating if to throw the red challenge flag. Isn't it a change of possession so it's automatically reviewed so no challenge? After the ref's discussed it and decided it was indeed incomplete, the commentators said that Saleh was about to throw the red flag but the refs told him we reviewed it so it's a waste of your time - wouldn't it be something the ref's are not allowed to say to a coach? I was totally confused

B. Jets had a 3rd down (sometime in the 4th qtr) the bills rushed well and Mike White was flushed out of the pocket and managed to get only 3 yards rushing. A flag was thrown for defensive holding - 5 yards. The refs added it to the end of the play. Isn't an accepted penalty during the play instead of the play, not in addition to the play. Also didn't understand that. What are the rules?

[Robert Paulson]

I had the same questions. Also, Saleh threw the challenge flag anyways which used to be a delay of game penalty. 

[BillsIsrael]

If you want to re-watch
A. 8:17 left in the 4th. and you're correct he did eventually throw the challenge flag and the refs just told him pick it up 😕
B. Was a 4th down 13:06 left in the 4th qtr.

[CSBill]

2 hours ago, BillsIsrael said:

2 rulings on the field I felt were not explained by the commentators and I'd be happy if they'd be explained
A. On the 4th down that the Jets did not convert - the camera showed Saleh debating if to throw the red challenge flag. Isn't it a change of possession so it's automatically reviewed so no challenge? After the ref's discussed it and decided it was indeed incomplete, the commentators said that Saleh was about to throw the red flag but the refs told him we reviewed it so it's a waste of your time - wouldn't it be something the ref's are not allowed to say to a coach? I was totally confused

B. Jets had a 3rd down (sometime in the 4th qtr) the bills rushed well and Mike White was flushed out of the pocket and managed to get only 3 yards rushing. A flag was thrown for defensive holding - 5 yards. The refs added it to the end of the play. Isn't an accepted penalty during the play instead of the play, not in addition to the play. Also didn't understand that. What are the rules?

 

On "B" - I believe because it was a run, they get the yards added. If it was an incomplete pass, they just get the five yards.

[y2zipper]

A. When the bills defender hit the jet player on the sideline, he bobbled the ball as he was going out of bounds. The officials ruled this as a loss of control the ball, which is very very subjective in the rulebook, so the fact that he got both feet in bounds doesn't matter. It's a little bit of a ticky tack call, brought to you by an officiating crew that makes ticky tack calls. The other note here is that if there's any question whether or not it's a completion, a pass is going to be ruled incomplete. 

 

They generally don't call the penalty for throwing a challenge flag on a reviewed play anymore and the NFL has expanded Booth reviews this year. So it was either reviewed because it was a change of possession as you said, or it was reviewed as part of the NFL's new expedited replay review, where are the replay office basically reviews any play that's close and radios in. Officiating Crews use the words after discussion on the field in that situation in particular.

 

B. On a penalty during a run play, defensive penalties are enforced at the end of the run. Think facemask, horse collar or hands to the face. 

 

 

 

 

[JMF2006]

The sky judge had already called the on field officials with his ruling.

 

The play was already reviewed so it there was no ability to challenge it which would have resulted in the same call anyway so the refs were nice and let him pick the flag up.

[Nextmanup]

I totally agree that the refs should NOT have handed the challenge flag back to Saleh and just told him "you can't do that."

 

If the idiot wants to challenge an un-challengeable call, or challenge a review that has already been made (so that there is no chance of overturning the call) he should be allowed to do so! 

 

And suffer the consequence of the failed challenge.

 

That struck me as amateurish.

 

 

 

 

[Ethan in Cleveland]

Along the same lined, there were two other plays that reviews came into mind..

Allen's INT was not reviwed. They never showed a replay in the stadium. I saw comments here that seemed to suggest it was not caught before hitting the ground. I would have thought that should have been reviewed.  

Diggs almost TD catch. Looked on the stadium replay his second foot was in bounds. Was it close enough that McD should have challenged or was it obvious it was not a catch?

[JGMcD2]

1 hour ago, Nextmanup said:

I totally agree that the refs should NOT have handed the challenge flag back to Saleh and just told him "you can't do that."

 

If the idiot wants to challenge an un-challengeable call, or challenge a review that has already been made (so that there is no chance of overturning the call) he should be allowed to do so! 

 

And suffer the consequence of the failed challenge.

 

That struck me as amateurish.

 

 

 

 

I was doing my best amateur lip reading but it looked like some sort of miscommunication. 
 

It seemed like Saleh believed that only the referees on the field had made the call on the field and the Sky Judge hadn’t buzzed in. If I read his lips right after he threw the flag he said “you told me it was your call!” Meaning the ref on the field made the call but obviously that wasn’t the case. 

[nkreed]

3 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

Along the same lined, there were two other plays that reviews came into mind..

Allen's INT was not reviwed. They never showed a replay in the stadium. I saw comments here that seemed to suggest it was not caught before hitting the ground. I would have thought that should have been reviewed.  

Diggs almost TD catch. Looked on the stadium replay his second foot was in bounds. Was it close enough that McD should have challenged or was it obvious it was not a catch?

The Diggs almost TD, the play before his real TD, was not even close. The second "foot" you see hit the turf is the defenders.

 

The first one, there was a clear replay form the far endzone that shows the defender trapped the ball on the turf. Don't know how the replay officials missed that.

[JGMcD2]

5 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

Along the same lined, there were two other plays that reviews came into mind..

Allen's INT was not reviwed. They never showed a replay in the stadium. I saw comments here that seemed to suggest it was not caught before hitting the ground. I would have thought that should have been reviewed.  

Diggs almost TD catch. Looked on the stadium replay his second foot was in bounds. Was it close enough that McD should have challenged or was it obvious it was not a catch?

The ball definitely hit the ground and was rolling around when the player rolled over himself. You could only see this from the back angle - but I thought it was pretty blatant. All turnovers are reviewed and by giving the Jets the ball… they either decided there wasn’t enough evidence or that they should “just give it to them.” 
 

Diggs didn’t get 2 feet in. His left foot was down just before the ball hit his hands and he couldn’t manage to drag it after he got his right foot down. In real time during the broadcast I thought he got a knee or his ass down in bounds… but it was pretty clear all he got was 1 foot. 

[Frostbite]

6 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

Along the same lined, there were two other plays that reviews came into mind..

Allen's INT was not reviwed. They never showed a replay in the stadium. I saw comments here that seemed to suggest it was not caught before hitting the ground. I would have thought that should have been reviewed.  

Diggs almost TD catch. Looked on the stadium replay his second foot was in bounds. Was it close enough that McD should have challenged or was it obvious it was not a catch?

Allen's INT was very questionable. The one replay i saw made it look like the ball might have hit the ground and should've been reviewed (We've all seen less questionable plays reviewed for a while). TBH, i feel like the NFL wanted something to go the Jets way to keep the fans engaged.

 

Note - I've been known to be a conspiracy theorist when things don't go our way.

[Buffalo Boy]

1 hour ago, y2zipper said:

It's a little bit of a ticky tack call, brought to you by an officiating crew that makes ticky tack calls.

   Said the same on the play. My wife yelled at me for taking the Jets side but I’m at the point where I’m so sick of crap calls. A ball can move while you still have control. 

[Rochesterfan]

4 hours ago, BillsIsrael said:

2 rulings on the field I felt were not explained by the commentators and I'd be happy if they'd be explained
A. On the 4th down that the Jets did not convert - the camera showed Saleh debating if to throw the red challenge flag. Isn't it a change of possession so it's automatically reviewed so no challenge? After the ref's discussed it and decided it was indeed incomplete, the commentators said that Saleh was about to throw the red flag but the refs told him we reviewed it so it's a waste of your time - wouldn't it be something the ref's are not allowed to say to a coach? I was totally confused

B. Jets had a 3rd down (sometime in the 4th qtr) the bills rushed well and Mike White was flushed out of the pocket and managed to get only 3 yards rushing. A flag was thrown for defensive holding - 5 yards. The refs added it to the end of the play. Isn't an accepted penalty during the play instead of the play, not in addition to the play. Also didn't understand that. What are the rules?

 

A.). I believe the issue was that the league allows the “sky judge” to make some reviews, but the coaches do not always know when that is employed.  I believe in this case they ruled it incomplete on the field and then got confirmation of that incompletion from the “sky judge”.  Saleh does not know it was reviewed and his guys say it is close and as it was a 4th down - so no harm in challenging the call.  The Ref steps over and says it was already reviewed and ruled incomplete- there is no reason to challenge.  
 
The current system is so dumb because they allow some review, but it is not clear to the coaches what has been reviewed and what hasn’t.  The Bills used a timeout to try and get a review the week before.

 

B.) The penalty is typically added to the end of the play - a play like defensive holding is typically on an incomplete pass and therefore from the LOS.

 

 

[Ethan in Cleveland]

3 minutes ago, Frostbite said:

Allen's INT was very questionable. The one replay i saw made it look like the ball might have hit the ground and should've been reviewed (We've all seen less questionable plays reviewed for a while). TBH, i feel like the NFL wanted something to go the Jets way to keep the fans engaged.

 

Note - I've been known to be a conspiracy theorist when things don't go our way.

Yeah I was shocked it was not at least reviewed. 

1 minute ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

A.). I believe the issue was that the league allows the “sky judge” to make some reviews, but the coaches do not always know when that is employed.  I believe in this case they ruled it incomplete on the field and then got confirmation of that incompletion from the “sky judge”.  Saleh does not know it was reviewed and his guys say it is close and as it was a 4th down - so no harm in challenging the call.  The Ref steps over and says it was already reviewed and ruled incomplete- there is no reason to challenge.  
 
The current system is so dumb because they allow some review, but it is not clear to the coaches what has been reviewed and what hasn’t.  The Bills used a timeout to try and get a review the week before.

 

B.) The penalty is typically added to the end of the play - a play like defensive holding is typically on an incomplete pass and therefore from the LOS.

 

 

It was a turnover on downs though. Aren't those subject to automatic review not just the sky judge?

[JGMcD2]

3 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

Yeah I was shocked it was not at least reviewed. 

It was reviewed. All turnovers are reviewed… by moving forward with the play the call either stood or was confirmed.

[Rochesterfan]

4 minutes ago, Frostbite said:

Allen's INT was very questionable. The one replay i saw made it look like the ball might have hit the ground and should've been reviewed (We've all seen less questionable plays reviewed for a while). TBH, i feel like the NFL wanted something to go the Jets way to keep the fans engaged.

 

Note - I've been known to be a conspiracy theorist when things don't go our way.

 

It was a turnover and all turnovers are automatically reviewed.  They had 1 angle from the back that looked trapped, but they never showed any other angles - so it was impossible to say what replay saw going from multiple angles.

 

I thought it should of been overturned based upon the one angle they showed, but with nothing else that was a pretty blurry camera angle to make a definitive call.

[Jerome007]

What about when the receiver touches down twice but with the same foot before going out of bounds? I think it was  Sanders or maybe Davis that did it yesterday. It seems to count as a catch if the call was right

[JMF2006]

1 hour ago, Nextmanup said:

I totally agree that the refs should NOT have handed the challenge flag back to Saleh and just told him "you can't do that."

 

If the idiot wants to challenge an un-challengeable call, or challenge a review that has already been made (so that there is no chance of overturning the call) he should be allowed to do so! 

 

And suffer the consequence of the failed challenge.

 

That struck me as amateurish.

 

 

 

 

 

They were already getting killed I really don't mind giving the rookie coach a break on a meaningless play.

 

The Bills but 34 on his D last year in SF so they probably felt sorry for him

[msw2112]

2 hours ago, Jerome007 said:

What about when the receiver touches down twice but with the same foot before going out of bounds? I think it was  Sanders or maybe Davis that did it yesterday. It seems to count as a catch if the call was right

 

I noticed that too.  He got "2 feet down" but it appeared to be the same foot twice.  And I also don't know the rule on that.  They gave him the catch.  It is possible that it was late in a blowout game, so they didn't take the time to scrutinize things as they may have done in a close game (the late Jests INT being a similar situation).

Edited November 15, 2021 by msw2112