Detroit Lions @ Dallas Cowboys 8:15 pm

[Motorin']

2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

68 was legal if he reported. The illegal formation they actually called was on 70 because they thought he reported. He was covered up. Can’t have 2 eligible WRs on the line. They thought 70 was eligible because the ref said he reported.

 

A tackle who reports still has to be lined up in an eligible position to go out for a pass. He wasn't the third lineman to the left of the center. He was the second, and thus the illegal touching penalty. 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

1 minute ago, bills742 said:

I don't think he would admit making a mistake so he's just covering for himself.

Normally we don’t hear from refs after big calls.

 

Also sometimes the mind can play tricks on you. He might actually believe 70 reported based on all the times he reported during the game. He got careless and should’ve confirmed it knowing the situation was huge.

[CircleTheWagons99]

I dont mind goiing for the win but after the penelty you kick the fg and play OT. 

[Avisan]

1 minute ago, Motorin' said:

 

A tackle who reports still has to be lined up in an eligible position to go out for a pass. He wasn't the third lineman to the left of the center. He was the second, and thus the illegal touching penalty. 

Incorrect.  You can do offset formations.  The formation here would be TE-G-C-G-T-T.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

2 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

A tackle who reports still has to be lined up in an eligible position to go out for a pass. He wasn't the third lineman to the left of the center. He was the second, and thus the illegal touching penalty. 

He was in eligible position. You need 7 men on the line, that’s all. If 68 reported, their formation was legal.

[Motorin']

2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

He was in eligible position. You need 7 men on the line, that’s all. If 68 reported, their formation was legal.

 

68 was covered by the wr who was on the end of the line on the right, was he not? Only 2 wr's on the line of scrimmage can be eligible, and have to be on the end. 

[DCOrange]

Just now, Motorin' said:

 

68 was covered by the wr who was on the end of the line on the right, was he not? Only 2 wr's on the line of scrimmage can be eligible, and have to be on the end. 

No. The WR in his left (Reynolds) was off the line so Decker was properly uncovered. It was a legal formation, just unbalanced OLine. 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Just now, Motorin' said:

 

68 was covered by the wr who was on the end of the line on the right, was he not? Only 2 wr's on the line of scrimmage can be eligible, and have to be on the end. 

Wr on 68 side was off the line. 
 

They did actually call illegal formation along with illegal touching on 68. The illegal formation was 70 being covered.

[Avisan]

1 minute ago, Motorin' said:

 

68 was covered by the wr who was on the end of the line on the right, was he not? Only 2 wr's on the line of scrimmage can be eligible, and have to be on the end. 

He was uncovered, WR lined up off the line and confirmed being off with the official prior to setting.

[Motorin']

Just now, Avisan said:

He was uncovered, WR lined up off the line and confirmed being off with the official prior to setting.

 

That wr was lined up as close to the line of scrimmage as the wr on the end of the line on the opposite side. 

2 minutes ago, DCOrange said:

No. The WR in his left (Reynolds) was off the line so Decker was properly uncovered. It was a legal formation, just unbalanced OLine. 

 

Reynolds was twice as close to the line than KC's OT's line up, lol. 

[Punch]

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

19 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Statistics say go for 2 there because you don't even know for sure if you'll get the ball in OT. If you do you have to execute an entire drive. A lot can go wrong. One play for 7 yards for the win gives you the best shot even though it's not ideal. It's not as clear cut as it would be from the 2 but I understand his decision.

Well with that failure... I suspect the Stats will be going in the other direction.

 

😆 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Why didn’t Detroit correct it?

 

 

[Dick_Cheney]

There is undoubtedly audio available from every individual involved in this place. For the ref and for whichever Lions players actually said something.  Whether it’s from a microphone for NFL films footage or from a player who is wearing a mic, it’s there somewhere. 

 

This has to be released by the league. You think you’ve seen every way the refs can possibly sabotage a game and then something egregious like this happens. 

 

Something about the officiating has to change. It is legitimately past the point of compromising the integrity of the game. 

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Why didn’t Detroit correct it?

 

 

Personally I don’t believe that the burden should be on them in this situation. It seems as though they did what they were supposed to do. 

 

Detroit “correcting it” is literally them doing the refs job for them. Players try to correct refs on bad/missed calls all the time and we all know how well that works out. 

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

1 minute ago, Dick_Cheney said:

Something about the officiating has to change. It is legitimately past the point of compromising the integrity of the game. 

Audio and video wouldn’t prove anything other than referee Brad Allen made a mistake due to getting a little sloppy on his mechanics of ineligible lineman reporting and the Lions trickery being a little too good for their own good. 
 

All of which we already assume to be true. 

[DCOrange]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Why didn’t Detroit correct it?

 

 

They probably never heard it in the first place given the fact that it was loud and they were focusing on running the play. 
 

But even if they did hear the announcement, how do you want them to correct it without (1) taking long enough to get a delay of game and (2) without being like “Hey guys, it’s me, #68, I’m the one that’s supposed to sneak into the end zone and catch the game winner” without making it blatantly obvious to the defense at that point? They would have wanted to run an entirely different play instead. 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

3 minutes ago, Dick_Cheney said:

There is undoubtedly audio available from every individual involved in this place. For the ref and for whichever Lions players actually said something.  Whether it’s from a microphone for NFL films footage or from a player who is wearing a mic, it’s there somewhere. 

 

This has to be released by the league. You think you’ve seen every way the refs can possibly sabotage a game and then something egregious like this happens. 

 

Something about the officiating has to change. It is legitimately past the point of compromising the integrity of the game. 

Personally I don’t believe that the burden should be on them in this situation. It seems as though they did what they were supposed to do. 

 

Detroit “correcting it” is literally them doing the refs job for them. Players try to correct refs on bad/missed calls all the time and we all know how well that works out. 

Detroit purposely tried to disguise who was reporting. So in this case yes, they should’ve made sure the ref had the right player.

 

Doesn’t excuse the ref as he rushed it for no reason.

[Motorin']

5 minutes ago, Dick_Cheney said:

There is undoubtedly audio available from every individual involved in this place. For the ref and for whichever Lions players actually said something.  Whether it’s from a microphone for NFL films footage or from a player who is wearing a mic, it’s there somewhere. 

 

This has to be released by the league. You think you’ve seen every way the refs can possibly sabotage a game and then something egregious like this happens. 

 

Something about the officiating has to change. It is legitimately past the point of compromising the integrity of the game. 

Personally I don’t believe that the burden should be on them in this situation. It seems as though they did what they were supposed to do. 

 

Detroit “correcting it” is literally them doing the refs job for them. Players try to correct refs on bad/missed calls all the time and we all know how well that works out. 

 

In what world do they Lions hear 70 being reported as eligible and think it's going to be ok throwing to 68? 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

1 minute ago, DCOrange said:

They probably never heard it in the first place given the fact that it was loud and they were focusing on running the play. 
 

But even if they did hear the announcement, how do you want them to correct it without (1) taking long enough to get a delay of game and (2) without being like “Hey guys, it’s me, #68, I’m the one that’s supposed to sneak into the end zone and catch the game winner” without making it blatantly obvious to the defense at that point? They would have wanted to run an entirely different play instead. 

If you’re running a trick play and trying to disguise the reporting lineman I would think that you’d be aware of who the ref actually reports as eligible.

[Doc Brown]

21 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Statistics say go for 2 there because you don't even know for sure if you'll get the ball in OT. If you do you have to execute an entire drive. A lot can go wrong. One play for 7 yards for the win gives you the best shot even though it's not ideal. It's not as clear cut as it would be from the 2 but I understand his decision.

Dallas doesn't know if they'll get the ball in OT either so I don't get that logic.  Maybe he didn't trust Badgley to make a 38 yard extra point.