Chandon Sullivan

[Pokerbrat2000]

Yes, but your opinion does not count. Even the booth ref said he did not think it was obvious. The rule is that you have to have possession before being lost in the pileup. They can't say, " oh, you can throw the flag and stop the game w/o having any repercussions." I agree we got screwed, but that is the way the rule is for now. I would hope that MLF knows that and decided to take the chance.

The root of the problem is something that the NFL has been trying to correct for years and that is instructing the Refs to not blow a play dead, unless it is actually stopped. I think this is why we see more RB's carrying the ball in scrums until the Refs finally blow the play dead.

On that particular play, it was clearly a fumble (with replay), but I think because the Refs blew their whistle before the pile up, calling the play dead (no fumble), the call couldn't be reversed. Event though it wouldn't have been the correct call, the refs should have huddled up, walked over to MLF and said "Our bad, we blew the play dead and even if you challenge it, it won't get reversed, here is your challenge and timeout back".

I don't buy this "Couldn't see clear possession". As I said in a previous post, we see the situation all the time where there is a fumble and a pile up and until they untangle all the bodies, they have no clue who has possession until they peel the last few guys off the pile. In this situation, Chandon Sullivan is clearly in possession of the ball when the smoke clears.

Refs got this one wrong from start to finish.

 

[gopkrs]

The root of the problem is something that the NFL has been trying to correct for years and that is instructing the Refs to now blow a play dead, unless it is actually stopped. I think this is why we see more RB's carrying the ball in scrums until the Refs finally blow the play dead.

On that particular play, it was clearly a fumble (with replay), but I think because the Refs blew their whistle before the pile up, calling the play dead (no fumble), the call couldn't be reversed. Event though it wouldn't have been the correct call, the refs should have huddled up, walked over to MLF and said "Our bad, we blew the play dead and even if you challenge it, it won't get reversed, here is your challenge and timeout back".

I don't buy this "Couldn't see clear possession". As I said in a previous post, we see the situation all the time where there is a fumble and a pile up and until they untangle all the bodies, they have no clue who has possession until they peel the last few guys off the pile. In this situation, Chandon Sullivan is clearly in possession of the ball when the smoke clears.

Refs got this one wrong from start to finish.

You may not buy it but that is what it is for now. If he would have had the ball tucked with clear possession; it would have been a turnover. It is because of the whistle blow. Not going to explain it anymore.

 

[El Guapo]

I think this solves it:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

From the NFL rules (this was a new one in 2019), they have to clearly recover in the immediate continuing action. To me that means that in a regular fumble that was not ruled dead, the refs can dig through the pile and discover who has possession (Pokerbrat2000's point). However, if the on-field ruling was a dead ball as it was in the Seahawks game, the replay review needs to show clear recovery in the immediate continuing action. We can debate what that means, but a fair conclusion that it means that the replay shows the ball being recovered by the other team without a doubt and before a pileup ensues.

Sullivan appeared to have it but the Seahawks player also seemed to be wrestling for it. I don't think the replay official could call it a clear recovery, and therefore the ball stayed with the Seahawks.

One issue that I had was with the head official. He stated that the Packers were challenging the ruling on the field, that it was not a fumble. By those words, our challenge was won because it was indeed a fumble. MLF could have argued that he won the challenge, despite the Packers not being awarded possession, and that we should have been able to keep our timeout and challenge. Maybe that's the wannabe lawyer in me looking for a loophole...

 

[Mondio]

You may not buy it but that is what it is for now. If he would have had the ball tucked with clear possession; it would have been a turnover. It is because of the whistle blow. Not going to explain it anymore.

I know that's how it is for now, but it's kind of silly. At no point ever does it look like a Seahawk could do anything more than reach in and touch the ball. it was as silly as the one against Philly a year or 2 ago. There was no other outcome possible but a Philly recovery, but because there was a pile, it wasn't "clear" LOL

and the only reason that came into play was because they blew a whistle and subsequently blew the call. if that was a "live" play, and for all intents and purposes it was. Nobody quit on that whistle, nobody. it would have been ruled GB ball 100 times out of 100. It's a silly rule.

I'd be more ok with it had they just made a call and moved on. Replay was just a joke at that point.

 

[El Guapo]

I'd be more ok with it had they just made a call and moved on. Replay was just a joke at that point.

I think that's why you see more quick whistles. While we all would love for something to not be blown dead prematurely, the NFL hears the fans (a little) and doesn't want everything going to replay - slowing down the games. They want the refs to make the best calls they can on the field. It's a blurred line because nobody wants them holding their whistles on every play, and the human element always comes into play.

What I would prefer is that the dead ball whistle is intentionally held for an extra beat, just in case of a fumble. If a ball is loose, always let it play out unless you are 100% certain the ball carrier was down by contact. Most importantly, after such an event the refs should huddle up and determine the appropriate outcome in 30 seconds instead of sending it to replay. There are enough refs with eyes on the ball to reasonably get to the correct call most of the time.

 

[Mondio]

I think that's why you see more quick whistles. While we all would love for something to not be blown dead prematurely, the NFL hears the fans (a little) and doesn't want everything going to replay - slowing down the games. They want the refs to make the best calls they can on the field. It's a blurred line because nobody wants them holding their whistles on every play, and the human element always comes into play.

What I would prefer is that the dead ball whistle is intentionally held for an extra beat, just in case of a fumble. If a ball is loose, always let it play out unless you are 100% certain the ball carrier was down by contact. Most importantly, after such an event the refs should huddle up and determine the appropriate outcome in 30 seconds instead of sending it to replay. There are enough refs with eyes on the ball to reasonably get to the correct call most of the time.

It all boils down to training refs to officiate a game by the desired outcomes and not just by what they see on the field. If an official thinks he's down and the play is over, fine, blow the whistle. If he doesn't think he's down let it play a second. If you're not in position, you're not the whistle man.

But what we get or officials trained for different situations and when to use a whistle and when not to for injury, for replay, for this, for that, rather than use the whistle to officiate what YOU SEE.

i know they'll get some wrong. But they don't blow a whistle 2 years in a row in GB Detroit games to let it play out for replay despite not a single official seeing it touch a GB player, only replay can't get it right. Should have been blown dead the second a Detroit defender touched it. And yesterday they blow it quick and replay still can't get it right. Just get officials that call mostly a good game, they exist, we've had them before, and let them officiate a game by what they see and call it good. The rest just adds more layers of controversy and it doesn't help.

Then we're sitting here today, man, it was close, but the ball was out. Instead of, man it was close, but the ball was out. Let's replay. Replay shows the ball was out clearly but they blew a whistle too soon so we can't give it to them because there was a pile of bodies like every loose ball in which we have to dig in and make a judgement on who recovered. and clearly GB did, but we can't call it that because we didn't see him possess it clearly before the ensuing pile of bodies even though we can see the ball being pulled into his grasp and covered by his entire body as the pile builds up. It's a joke.

 

[Sky King]

The nearest official did not see the fumble.
The nearest official did not see the recovery.
Maybe the nearest official needs to see an eye doctor.

I feel like sending a bag of carrots to him c/o the NFL office.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

It all boils down to training refs to officiate a game by the desired outcomes and not just by what they see on the field. If an official thinks he's down and the play is over, fine, blow the whistle. If he doesn't think he's down let it play a second. If you're not in position, you're not the whistle man.

But what we get or officials trained for different situations and when to use a whistle and when not to for injury, for replay, for this, for that, rather than use the whistle to officiate what YOU SEE.

i know they'll get some wrong. But they don't blow a whistle 2 years in a row in GB Detroit games to let it play out for replay despite not a single official seeing it touch a GB player, only replay can't get it right. Should have been blown dead the second a Detroit defender touched it. And yesterday they blow it quick and replay still can't get it right. Just get officials that call mostly a good game, they exist, we've had them before, and let them officiate a game by what they see and call it good. The rest just adds more layers of controversy and it doesn't help.

Then we're sitting here today, man, it was close, but the ball was out. Instead of, man it was close, but the ball was out. Let's replay. Replay shows the ball was out clearly but they blew a whistle too soon so we can't give it to them because there was a pile of bodies like every loose ball in which we have to dig in and make a judgement on who recovered. and clearly GB did, but we can't call it that because we didn't see him possess it clearly before the ensuing pile of bodies even though we can see the ball being pulled into his grasp and covered by his entire body as the pile builds up. It's a joke.

It was a bad call.

Fortunately, it did not alter the outcome of the game.

Hopefully, they learn from this and do better next time.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Chandon Sullivan has been a force this season. Allowed a completion percentage of only 35.5% (first in the NFL among CB's that have played a minimum of 350 snaps) and a passer rating of 34.3 (third in the NFL). When he went off the field with the injury in the divisional game, it was a different team defensively. Lets hope he is healthy for next Sunday evening.

He's a decent player but I wouldn't put too much stock in those numbers. He plays mostly true dime, with 6 DBs dropping in coverage. It's not like he's man-covering 1's, 2's or even 3's. There's a lot of zone coverage in that mix.

You don't have to look any further than Chris Harris Jr. to see how even a switch from primarily slot corner to primarily perimeter corner can make a substantial difference. His numbers have shot way up (in the not good way) in that transition.

Still and all, as dime DBs goes, Sullivan is a good guy to have around.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

One issue that I had was with the head official. He stated that the Packers were challenging the ruling on the field, that it was not a fumble. By those words, our challenge was won because it was indeed a fumble. MLF could have argued that he won the challenge, despite the Packers not being awarded possession, and that we should have been able to keep our timeout and challenge. Maybe that's the wannabe lawyer in me looking for a loophole...

Good explanation and yes, this is the part that I have the biggest problem with. Once again, the refs made a mistake and then doubled down on it. Packers not only don't get the ball, but they lose a challenge and a timeout.

 

[El Guapo]

He's a decent player but I wouldn't put too much stock in those numbers....

Still and all, as dime DBs goes, Sullivan is a good guy to have around.

Agreed. Nobody is talking about him taking over for King or Alexander, but when we can have enough quality DBs to shut down teams when they go 4- and 5-wide.....we got something.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Agreed. Nobody is talking about him taking over for King or Alexander, but when we can have enough quality DBs to shut down teams when they go 4- and 5-wide.....we got something.

Well, the OP stated this was "a different team defensively" when Sullivan went out. That's saying he's a difference maker. That's an exageration.

The problem in the second half was that defense was gassed chasing Wilson, and the receivers on extended plays, all over the ball yard. I don't know if anybody else noticed, but there was some well-timed "clock management" in there in recognition of the gassing. I believe it was King and Z who were down on the field and went out for a snap (by rule), maybe two, and bounced right back none the worse for wear. It goes to show there can be more than 3 timeouts per half.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don't know if anybody else noticed, but there was some well-timed "clock management" in there in recognition of the gassing. I believe it was King and Z who were down on the field and went out for a snap (by rule), maybe two, and bounced right back none the worse for wear. It goes to show there can be more than 3 timeouts per half.

Yup and I believe Preston Smith as well. You could see just how gassed they all were as you watched them struggle to get from one play to the next. Very smart move by the Packer players/coaches, despite making us fans nervous that they actually were hurt hurt. I think Z has done that quiet a few times this season.

Also to note is something that I have questioned for years, a bit of a loophole in the "clock rules". The Packers took advantage of the fact that the game clock keeps rolling with 5 or more minutes left, even after an offensive penalty occurs and the offense gets 25 more seconds to run their play and thus 25 more seconds to run off the game clock. I think that they did that twice in row (delay of game and illegal procedure) while lining up to punt with just under 6 minutes left in the game. One other NFL team did that in the playoffs as well, I just can't remember who it was. In that game I think the offense took 3 penalties and the broadcasters were talking about the refs could eventually impose an unsportsmanlike penalty on them.

I realize they want to speed up games, but I never understood how you reward a team by running time off the game clock when they intentionally take a penalty to do so.

 

[gopkrs]

I think this solves it:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

From the NFL rules (this was a new one in 2019), they have to clearly recover in the immediate continuing action. To me that means that in a regular fumble that was not ruled dead, the refs can dig through the pile and discover who has possession (Pokerbrat2000's point). However, if the on-field ruling was a dead ball as it was in the Seahawks game, the replay review needs to show clear recovery in the immediate continuing action. We can debate what that means, but a fair conclusion that it means that the replay shows the ball being recovered by the other team without a doubt and before a pileup ensues.
brings
Sullivan appeared to have it but the Seahawks player also seemed to be wrestling for it. I don't think the replay official could call it a clear recovery, and therefore the ball stayed with the Seahawks.

One issue that I had was with the head official. He stated that the Packers were challenging the ruling on the field, that it was not a fumble. By those words, our challenge was won because it was indeed a fumble. MLF could have argued that he won the challenge, despite the Packers not being awarded possession, and that we should have been able to keep our timeout and challenge. Maybe that's the wannabe lawyer in me looking for a loophole...

I wanted to say that I had been talking the whole time about the ball being ours or not. El Feo I mean Guapo brings up the very interesting question about whether or not we should have lost the time out and challenge. I recall Belichek asking for two things at one time during a red flag escapade and the announcers did not really talk about what were the rules about it. I would guess from the outcome that we needed to win both. Or maybe MLF did not really ask the proper question no matter what the ref said. Don't know. But I would think you could call for a red flag review if the fumble only resulted in lost yardage. But maybe they will start talking about first downs then. I agree they should clarify what happened because of the loss of a time-out and challenge.

 

[Mondio]

It’s the same as challenging a spot. They might move it forward a yard because the spot was wrong. But if it’s not also a first down, you lose.

if you challenge a fumble you must also recover. I think everyone watching knows who did. But because there was a pile up the recovery wasn’t “clear” so we lost part 2 of the 2 part challenge. So we lose the whole thing.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Yup and I believe Preston Smith as well. You could see just how gassed they all were as you watched them struggle to get from one play to the next. Very smart move by the Packer players/coaches, despite making us fans nervous that they actually were hurt hurt. I think Z has done that quiet a few times this season.

Also to note is something that I have questioned for years, a bit of a loophole in the "clock rules". The Packers took advantage of the fact that the game clock keeps rolling with 5 or more minutes left, even after an offensive penalty occurs and the offense gets 25 more seconds to run their play and thus 25 more seconds to run off the game clock. I think that they did that twice in row (delay of game and illegal procedure) while lining up to punt with just under 6 minutes left in the game. One other NFL team did that in the playoffs as well, I just can't remember who it was.

I realize they want to speed up games, but I never understood how you reward a team by running time off the game clock when they intentionally take a penalty to do so.

Yes, I believe Z. has availed himself of the injury timeout on several occasions throughout this season. Consider it the captain's prerogative to give his guys a blow when he sees they need it. And yes, it would seem there have been some Preston Smith contributions in this regard. But don't let this go beyond these pages! I believe these are player calls, not coaches calls, otherwise it would be Lancaster or the like taking the fall, not Z. or Preston or King.

The tactic you mention to run time off the clock with penalties is a loophole in the rules. The announcers commented on this during the telecast. Remember, this is the NFL. Rule changes address specific situations that have already occurred. There is no imagination or "what ifs" in the process. This issue will probably get kicked around in the rules committee this offseason now that teams are using that loophole with obvious intent.

Of course, nobody had a problem with "what is a catch?" until they messed with it and kept messing with it from Megatron through Bryant and then finally after Jesse James they put it back the way it was. It took the better part of a decade for respect for athleticism to finally be put back where it belongs.

I forget the discussion, but earlier this year I cited a passage in the rules where the language was so garbled and gramatically messed up you wouldn't know what they were trying to say if you didn't already know the rule from its application. They can't even thoroughly edit these things.

On the subject of faking an injury to give your D a blow, here's a "what if" loophole that may come home to roost someday. A team is driving in hurry-up in the last minute. The D needs a timeout for a blow, to break up the opponents ryhthm and/or to get situational substitutions on the field, but they are out of timeouts. A defensive player fakes an injury to stop the clock. There's the 10 second run-off rule, but the offense would obviously decline it. It's a free lunch (or should I say "snack break") for the defense. There should be a 10 second add-on penalty for the benefit of the offensive opponent. The rule change would be simple. When the situation occurs, offensive or defensive injury, the opposing team has an option: 10 second run-off, decline (the two current options), or a 10 second add-on. Why try to imagine every possible scenario? These options cover all the bases.

 

[El Guapo]

One other NFL team did that in the playoffs as well, I just can't remember who it was. In that game I think the offense took 3 penalties and the broadcasters were talking about the refs could eventually impose an unsportsmanlike penalty on them.

Mike Vrabel did it to his old coach, Belichick, in their win up at Foxboro. I hadn't been aware of the rules until that point as well. Brilliant! Interesting that the Packers did it as well, I missed that.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The tactic you mention to run time off the clock with penalties is a loophole in the rules. The announcers commented on this during the telecast. Remember, this is the NFL. Rule changes address specific situations that have already occurred. There is no imagination or "what ifs" in the process. This issue will probably get kicked around in the rules committee this offseason now that teams are using that loophole with obvious intent.

I brought this loophole up several years ago, because I saw it intentionally (or unintentionally) happen during several Badger games one season. I was besides myself watching the play clock get changed from 0 to 25 and then the game clock start and more precious time came off the clock. I actually thought it was an error by the time keeper, not knowing that this was the rule at the time.

Now if you are only up by one score or less, as the Packers were on Sunday night, this intentionally taking time off the game clock could come back to bite you. However, in a game where you are up by 2 or more scores, what a way to burn a ton of time.

Time, no pun intended, to close that loophole.

Also, agree with you on feigning injuries and how that needs to be dealt with.

 

[Poppa San]

I brought this loophole up several years ago, because I saw it intentionally (or unintentionally) happen during several Badger games one season. I was besides myself watching the play clock get changed from 0 to 25 and then the game clock start and more precious time came off the clock. I actually thought it was an error by the time keeper, not knowing that this was the rule at the time.

Now if you are only up by one score or less, as the Packers were on Sunday night, this intentionally taking time off the game clock could come back to bite you. However, in a game where you are up by 2 or more scores, what a way to burn a ton of time.

Time, no pun intended, to close that loophole.

Also, agree with you on feigning injuries and how that needs to be dealt with.

Badgers had offsides on kickoffs 3 or 4 times in a row because the clock started when the ball was kicked. They were like 10 yards off sides, not barely, and half the team.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Badgers had offsides on kickoffs 3 or 4 times in a row because the clock started when the ball was kicked. They were like 10 yards off sides, not barely, and half the team.

I remember that series against PSU

https://archive.triblive.com/news/badgers-ploy-exploits-new-rule-vs-psu/

However, this was not what I was thinking of. It involved more than one games with the offense having a lead and taking what appeared to be intentional penalties to keep the clock moving.

I believe the original intent of the rule, was to not allow an offensive team that was actually behind and trying to conserve time to be rewarded with a complete stoppage of the clock after a false start.