Lions/Cowboys

[Irishman]

Being skeptical of this.....I agree that the Lions f;ed this up; maybe even more so than the official. While we can see the 2 linemen approach the ref, no one knows exactly what they said. It very well could be part of the deception to throw off the defense? 

[JustRules]

21 hours ago, CoachGallogly said:

It’s pretty obvious if you watch the wider version that the white hat makes eye contact with 70 running on and the white hat even points at 70

 

70 said he didn’t report. I believe that to be true.  68 also said he said one single word “report” I also believe this to be true.  
 

but the timing here is where we can see plausibly what happens.  70 runs on like he had other times directly at the white hat instead of the huddle (this is important) the white hat sees him, jumps the gun and begins to go tell the cowboys when 68 and 58 impede his path. 68 says “report” and the white hat likely thought “yeah I already know buddy I see 70 coming in” and didn’t process that 68 was reporting himself.  White hat continues on his path and informs cowboys of 70. 

I agree with your assessment. The R clearly communicates with 70. 70 is brushing his chest as he's running to the R so that is a form of reporting. He wasn't intending to actually report. Coach Campbell has admitted they were attempting to deceive the Cowboys defense so they didn't know who was reporting. There is nothing wrong with doing that, but I don't get why they would do it. The referee is going to tell the defense who reported so any deception goes away long before the they get lined up. It's 100% on the Lions to make sure the referee knows who is reporting. The R never acknowledged 68 but he did acknowledge 70 so even if they didn't hear the announcement on the PA of 70 reporting as eligible, 70 knew he was the one identified as eligible by the R. The referee had no idea he had the wrong number so I'm not sure how he can be faulted in any way here. If the Lions had made sure 68 was the one who was considered as reporting the play was perfectly legal.

[Bash Riprock]

22 hours ago, JustRules said:

I agree with your assessment. The R clearly communicates with 70. 70 is brushing his chest as he's running to the R so that is a form of reporting. He wasn't intending to actually report. Coach Campbell has admitted they were attempting to deceive the Cowboys defense so they didn't know who was reporting. There is nothing wrong with doing that, but I don't get why they would do it. The referee is going to tell the defense who reported so any deception goes away long before the they get lined up. It's 100% on the Lions to make sure the referee knows who is reporting. The R never acknowledged 68 but he did acknowledge 70 so even if they didn't hear the announcement on the PA of 70 reporting as eligible, 70 knew he was the one identified as eligible by the R. The referee had no idea he had the wrong number so I'm not sure how he can be faulted in any way here. If the Lions had made sure 68 was the one who was considered as reporting the play was perfectly legal.

I love how the officials run to one side of the fence every single time....of course, officials don't make mistakes.  🙄

Can you show me the NFL rule where it states a form of lineman reporting as a eligible receiver is the "brushing of their chest"?  .....

I guess there no absolute way the official could have "assumed" 70 was reporting, correct?  

[JustRules]

On 1/4/2024 at 11:27 AM, Bash Riprock said:

I love how the officials run to one side of the fence every single time....of course, officials don't make mistakes.  🙄

Can you show me the NFL rule where it states a form of lineman reporting as a eligible receiver is the "brushing of their chest"?  .....

I guess there no absolute way the official could have "assumed" 70 was reporting, correct?  

I don't have a copy of the NFL rule book, but we are fortunate to have several NFL officials in Indiana who know the rules. They've shared with me you can report either verblly or physically. Usually it's just one eligible player giving a quick signal to the R who then announces and tells the defense. They can verbally tell them as well. As long as they communicate. It's usually a very simple, uncomplicated thing. The Lions decided to get cute and it backfired. The referee likely didn't look for any additional people reporting because he knew there were 6 ineligible numbers on the field and 1 of them reported to him as ineligible. If you watch the all-22 video he gets the attention of the area shortly after he started moving from the sideline area. This was coming out of a time out. The Lions sent 11 players out and then swapped out 2 of them including 70. 

Yes, I guess you can say the referee "assumed" 70 was reporting, but it was because 70 gave him a clear "reporting" signal as he ran in from the sideline as he had done the entire game. I'm not blindly supporting the official. I'm just stating what you can clearly see on video.

[Bobref]

8 hours ago, JustRules said:

don't have a copy of the NFL rule book, but we are fortunate to have several NFL officials in Indiana who know the rules. They've shared with me you can report either verblly or physically.

Amazing. In all the heat and light this play generated, I have not seen one player, Coach, talking head, journalist, etc., mention this critical factor in analyzing what went wrong. It’s much easier when you just put the blinders on so that you examine the play only superficially, rather than really digging in and gathering the necessary facts. Much easier to just pile on the officials.

Sometimes the hardest thing to know … is what you don’t know. Wouldn’t you agree @Footballking16 and @Bash Riprock?

Edited January 6 by Bobref

[Coach Nowlin]

I have seen NFL lineman come in brushing their front of chest to indicate their eligible for years.   

 

[Bash Riprock]

11 hours ago, JustRules said:

I don't have a copy of the NFL rule book, but we are fortunate to have several NFL officials in Indiana who know the rules. They've shared with me you can report either verblly or physically. Usually it's just one eligible player giving a quick signal to the R who then announces and tells the defense. They can verbally tell them as well. As long as they communicate. It's usually a very simple, uncomplicated thing. The Lions decided to get cute and it backfired. The referee likely didn't look for any additional people reporting because he knew there were 6 ineligible numbers on the field and 1 of them reported to him as ineligible. If you watch the all-22 video he gets the attention of the area shortly after he started moving from the sideline area. This was coming out of a time out. The Lions sent 11 players out and then swapped out 2 of them including 70. 

Yes, I guess you can say the referee "assumed" 70 was reporting, but it was because 70 gave him a clear "reporting" signal as he ran in from the sideline as he had done the entire game. I'm not blindly supporting the official. I'm just stating what you can clearly see on video.

Everything that I have read online, including from NFL.com, it is not an "or" option.  It is an "and" option.  That was my point about did the official possibly assume based on what he saw and not what he heard. (#70) I would also have to assume, he never heard or saw #68 report, unless he saw the signal from 70, heard the verbal report from 68, and assumed it was 70.  Those are absolute possibilities of human error potential from the official. 

https://www.nfl.com/news/league-sends-video-to-teams-regarding-players-with-ineligible-numbers-reporting-#:~:text=It noted that any offensive,an announcement to the stadium.

The video sent Tuesday underscores that it is a player's responsibility to make certain his status change "is clearly communicated to the referee by both a physical signal up and down his chest and to report to the referee his intention to report as an eligible receiver."

1 hour ago, Coach Nowlin said:

I have seen NFL lineman come in brushing their front of chest to indicate their eligible for years.   

 

And because you are not down on an NFL field, my guess is that you could not hear their verbal indication which is also required.

[Bash Riprock]

3 hours ago, Bobref said:

Amazing. In all the heat and light this play generated, I have not seen one player, Coach, talking head, journalist, etc., mention this critical factor in analyzing what went wrong. It’s much easier when you just put the blinders on so that you examine the play only superficially, rather than really digging in and gathering the necessary facts. Much easier to just pile on the officials.

Sometimes the hardest thing to know … is what you don’t know. Wouldn’t you agree @Footballking16 and @Bash Riprock?

It's a shame that one cannot discuss possible human error from both sides, without being accused of "piling on".  I understand your passion and bias being a formal official....but yes, officials can make mistakes as well.  They are human.

Edited January 6 by Bash Riprock

[CoachGallogly]

It’s not really that amazing Bob, most people don’t actually want an explanation, they want the drama. 

[JustRules]

4 hours ago, Bash Riprock said:

It's a shame that one cannot discuss possible human error from both sides, without being accused of "piling on".  I understand your passion and bias being a formal official....but yes, officials can make mistakes as well.  They are human.

They absolutely do make mistakes. Most of the time those mistakes are caused by not having the best angle or getting fooled by what they saw. The only fault in this situation is if the R noticed there were 2 other players approaching him after he ruled 70 as the player reporting, he could have stopped to ask them if they had anything to add. But he never saw them or acknowledged them so 68 should have realized he never completed his reporting. And 70 clearly should have seen the referee point to him to acknowledge his signal. Detroit was intentionally trying to create confusion so they knew they weren't clear in what they were doing. But it is 100% on them to make sure the R knows who is reporting so the officials can correctly officiate the play. The R could have slowed down and possibly saved the Lions from their clumsiness and officials often are able to recognize and do that. But you can't fault them for something that is ultimately the responsibility of the team to execute clearly.

I'll provide a good example. When we line up the teams for a kickoff, we'll never allow a kickoff to occur if each team doesn't have 11 players on the field. If they have 10 or 12 we'll let them know before the BJ and LJ leave the field. That's not our responsibility. The number of players on the field are the responsibility of the teams. Another example is getting players to line up before the snap. If there appears to be 5 in the backfield or an eligible number is covered and the wing can get the attention of the wideouts, he'll let them know he has them on or off. It's then up to the player to determine if they need to adjust, but these are all examples of preventative officiating. They aren't required and being unable to do it isn't an error by the official as the teams are ultimately responsible for being legal.

So yes in this case, the referee could have possibly prevented the Lions from poor communication that resulted in a foul. But it's the players who ultimately needed to be more clear. This site provides a good summary of what happened. A key thing they have confirmed is the officials were graded as Correct Call for this specific play. This lines up with the two things released from the league this week.

https://www.footballzebras.com/2024/01/final-analysis-of-the-lions-eligibility-reporting-scheme/

[Bobref]

On 1/2/2024 at 9:51 AM, Footballking16 said:

the fault lies with one person and one person only. 

Often wrong, but never in doubt. 😉

[Bash Riprock]

On 1/6/2024 at 4:14 PM, JustRules said:

They absolutely do make mistakes. Most of the time those mistakes are caused by not having the best angle or getting fooled by what they saw. The only fault in this situation is if the R noticed there were 2 other players approaching him after he ruled 70 as the player reporting, he could have stopped to ask them if they had anything to add. But he never saw them or acknowledged them so 68 should have realized he never completed his reporting. And 70 clearly should have seen the referee point to him to acknowledge his signal. Detroit was intentionally trying to create confusion so they knew they weren't clear in what they were doing. But it is 100% on them to make sure the R knows who is reporting so the officials can correctly officiate the play. The R could have slowed down and possibly saved the Lions from their clumsiness and officials often are able to recognize and do that. But you can't fault them for something that is ultimately the responsibility of the team to execute clearly.

 

Perhaps...if one goes back and reads my comments, I don't excuse anyone...but when it comes to human error, I can see where both sides need to own this.  I too have watched the video's over a number of times.  The official absolutely could have seen 70 (as he saw several times earlier in the game) and assumed he was reporting again WITHOUT actually hearing his report, which has been pointed out is required.  70 has stated he never verbally reported.  If he is being honest, then there was an error on the official's part by assuming 70 did verbally report.  Do the Lion's players ultimately own the reporting...sure...no one is arguing they don't.  But that doesn't mean the official did not err as well, and I am simply pointing out this possibility.

After being on this forum for a long time, I understand the mere mention of a possible official error would lead to responses from you and Bob.  Kind of like death and taxes, it was a certainty.  

BTW, that wasn't the only error/controversial call during the game......so it indeed happens from time to time.  

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39215679/officials-missed-tripping-call-lions-controversial-penalty

 

Edited January 7 by Bash Riprock

[JustRules]

On 1/7/2024 at 4:41 PM, Bash Riprock said:

Perhaps...if one goes back and reads my comments, I don't excuse anyone...but when it comes to human error, I can see where both sides need to own this.  I too have watched the video's over a number of times.  The official absolutely could have seen 70 (as he saw several times earlier in the game) and assumed he was reporting again WITHOUT actually hearing his report, which has been pointed out is required.  70 has stated he never verbally reported.  If he is being honest, then there was an error on the official's part by assuming 70 did verbally report.  Do the Lion's players ultimately own the reporting...sure...no one is arguing they don't.  But that doesn't mean the official did not err as well, and I am simply pointing out this possibility.

After being on this forum for a long time, I understand the mere mention of a possible official error would lead to responses from you and Bob.  Kind of like death and taxes, it was a certainty.  

BTW, that wasn't the only error/controversial call during the game......so it indeed happens from time to time.  

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39215679/officials-missed-tripping-call-lions-controversial-penalty

 

Now the tripping call definitely looks like an error. The official was fooled somehow and had the wrong team/player doing the trip. That happens. Unfortunately nobody else saw it to take him off the call. I haven't had a chance to watch a version of the video I could slow down to see if there was some other action that could be considered tripping (I don't believe there is). This is what would actually be considered an officiating error and one big enough that it alone could keep an official from a playoff assignment.

The reason why you see officials defend other officials is because most of the time the calls fans and media think are horrible errors actually are correct or at worst tight judgement calls.

As for the actual requirements of reporting, this is possibly where the rule and philosophy may be slightly different. I've only seen articles report the requirement but not seen the actual wording of the rule. The video the NFL shared mentioned both but not sure if they were saying they both had to be done or they both are valid methods. Either way every report from the rules experts and former officials has said the signal is most commonly used. Most of the time you just see the lineman turn around in the huddle and swipe his chest and that seems sufficient. Based on the video 70 was not close enough to the R to verbalize his reporting so there is no disagreement there. But the R clearly responded to his signal considering it reporting. If that's not what 70 intended it's now on him to get that clarified. The R has no idea he's wrong and no idea 70 isn't going to line up in an eligible position at this point.

[Bash Riprock]

8 hours ago, JustRules said:

Now the tripping call definitely looks like an error. The official was fooled somehow and had the wrong team/player doing the trip. That happens. Unfortunately nobody else saw it to take him off the call. I haven't had a chance to watch a version of the video I could slow down to see if there was some other action that could be considered tripping (I don't believe there is). This is what would actually be considered an officiating error and one big enough that it alone could keep an official from a playoff assignment.

The reason why you see officials defend other officials is because most of the time the calls fans and media think are horrible errors actually are correct or at worst tight judgement calls.

As for the actual requirements of reporting, this is possibly where the rule and philosophy may be slightly different. I've only seen articles report the requirement but not seen the actual wording of the rule. The video the NFL shared mentioned both but not sure if they were saying they both had to be done or they both are valid methods. Either way every report from the rules experts and former officials has said the signal is most commonly used. Most of the time you just see the lineman turn around in the huddle and swipe his chest and that seems sufficient. Based on the video 70 was not close enough to the R to verbalize his reporting so there is no disagreement there. But the R clearly responded to his signal considering it reporting. If that's not what 70 intended it's now on him to get that clarified. The R has no idea he's wrong and no idea 70 isn't going to line up in an eligible position at this point.

At the end of the day, you are making an educated guess.  In no way shape or form did I insinuate the official deliberately did anything.  But he is human....with 70 reporting several times earlier, it is absolutely possible he heard 68 report, looked up and saw 70 running toward him and assumed it was him.  Absolutely a decent possibility.  That's all I am saying.

The article I shared with you was from NFL.com regarding the need for both verbal and visual reporting.  If that article was incorrect, I would have expected the NFL to correct it.

Edited January 11 by Bash Riprock

[Bobref]

I understand that of the 8 officials on this crew, 6 of them have been assigned to work on Wild Card weekend. If the League thought these officials made such a huge miss in that game, I doubt that would be the case.

[Coach Nowlin]

2 hours ago, Bobref said:

I understand that of the 8 officials on this crew, 6 of them have been assigned to work on Wild Card weekend. If the League thought these officials made such a huge miss in that game, I doubt that would be the case.

So assume 2 who messed up got the boot??  The WH and LJ?  

[JustRules]

1 hour ago, Coach Nowlin said:

So assume 2 who messed up got the boot??  The WH and LJ?  

It's actually 6 of 7 (NFL only has 7 officials on the field). The one not assigned this week was the LJ. That doesn't mean he won't be assigned next week though. 4 of the 6 assigned are alternates this week which means they could get another assignment later in the playoffs as well. All this really proves is Schefter's speculation of a playoff ban the crew didn't actually happen.