Rams 30 vikings 20

[Voyageur]

But he did go down for the safety or are you talking about a different play.

is it anything like time travel? Had he gone down for the safety it would have been a scoring play and reviewed and the facemask would have wiped out the scoring play meaning the play would not have been reviewed meaning it would have been a safety which means it would have been a scoring play and been reviewed...

Yes. He did go down, and it was a score, in my opinion, interpreting the rules, the play should have been reviewed. But, if they actually did review the play, did they determine that they didn't have the option to reverse it because of a penalty, or did they have to leave it stand because it was a score, and they can't go back and review for a penalty to nullify the play?

The rule is ambiguous, and I think open to way too many interpretations, and for the most part, creates insane decisions that shouldn't happen. I go back to the old "simultaneous catch" the Packers had in the end zone, which shouldn't have been a Seattle score years ago, in the playoffs, and how they awarded the ball to the receiver despite the evidence it wasn't simultaneous. The Packer defender had the ball in both hands as they hit the ground, and the Seahawk only had one hand on it. After they hit the ground, the play should have been over, but the Seahawk receiver latched onto the ball to make it "appear" to be a simultaneous catch, which it wasn't even close. It's gone done as a historical play; "The Fail Mary."

The rule failed because the definition of simultaneous catch did not spell out the two vs one hand, and the fact that the play ends when the player possessing the ball has it secured, and hits the ground. Essentially, the officials made that one up because it wasn't spelled out in the rules.

What makes it worse on this safety is that the review was supposed to be a booth review, and I'm not certain how they came to the ruling they did. They'll supposedly close the loop holes next year, but they'll open up several more at the same time. It's their usual method of operation.

 

[milani]

Yes. He did go down, and it was a score, in my opinion, interpreting the rules, the play should have been reviewed. But, if they actually did review the play, did they determine that they didn't have the option to reverse it because of a penalty, or did they have to leave it stand because it was a score, and they can't go back and review for a penalty to nullify the play?

The rule is ambiguous, and I think open to way too many interpretations, and for the most part, creates insane decisions that shouldn't happen. I go back to the old "simultaneous catch" the Packers had in the end zone, which shouldn't have been a Seattle score years ago, in the playoffs, and how they awarded the ball to the receiver despite the evidence it wasn't simultaneous. The Packer defender had the ball in both hands as they hit the ground, and the Seahawk only had one hand on it. After they hit the ground, the play should have been over, but the Seahawk receiver latched onto the ball to make it "appear" to be a simultaneous catch, which it wasn't even close. It's gone done as a historical play; "The Fail Mary."

The rule failed because the definition of simultaneous catch did not spell out the two vs one hand, and the fact that the play ends when the player possessing the ball has it secured, and hits the ground. Essentially, the officials made that one up because it wasn't spelled out in the rules.

What makes it worse on this safety is that the review was supposed to be a booth review, and I'm not certain how they came to the ruling they did. They'll supposedly close the loop holes next year, but they'll open up several more at the same time. It's their usual method of operation.

Very good. What further supports the mistake on the Fail Mary is that unlike a catch in the middle of the playing field in the end zone the play is over once possession is established even standing. Just the same had it been a TD. The play is dead.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Yes. He did go down, and it was a score, in my opinion, interpreting the rules, the play should have been reviewed. But, if they actually did review the play, did they determine that they didn't have the option to reverse it because of a penalty, or did they have to leave it stand because it was a score, and they can't go back and review for a penalty to nullify the play?

The rule is ambiguous, and I think open to way too many interpretations, and for the most part, creates insane decisions that shouldn't happen. I go back to the old "simultaneous catch" the Packers had in the end zone, which shouldn't have been a Seattle score years ago, in the playoffs, and how they awarded the ball to the receiver despite the evidence it wasn't simultaneous. The Packer defender had the ball in both hands as they hit the ground, and the Seahawk only had one hand on it. After they hit the ground, the play should have been over, but the Seahawk receiver latched onto the ball to make it "appear" to be a simultaneous catch, which it wasn't even close. It's gone done as a historical play; "The Fail Mary."

The rule failed because the definition of simultaneous catch did not spell out the two vs one hand, and the fact that the play ends when the player possessing the ball has it secured, and hits the ground. Essentially, the officials made that one up because it wasn't spelled out in the rules.

What makes it worse on this safety is that the review was supposed to be a booth review, and I'm not certain how they came to the ruling they did. They'll supposedly close the loop holes next year, but they'll open up several more at the same time. It's their usual method of operation.

I could be wrong, but a face mask call/no call isn't reviewable.

 

[Voyageur]

I could be wrong, but a face mask call/no call isn't reviewable.

I think that's their interpretation. But, if you're reviewing a play to see if there was a score, any contributing factor should be considered, especially if it's in direct conjunction with the score happening. At least, I think it should be.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think that's their interpretation. But, if you're reviewing a play to see if there was a score, any contributing factor should be considered, especially if it's in direct conjunction with the score happening. At least, I think it should be.

"Should be", but I don't think it is.

Even during a scoring play or turnover, I don't think the booth can look at "judgement" type penalties. If there was clear holding, hands to the face, pass interference, etc....they can't reverse it. Now if there's too many men on the field.....12th guy has half a foot still on the playing field....they can.