"Possession calls not challengeable"??

[GoSlash27]

We won anyway, but I need clarification on that one. We blocked the field goal, which is a turnover on downs. Ryan Clark clearly recovered the ball and ran around with it before attempting a lateral to Willie Gay, who drops it. Ziggy Hood swats it out of bounds and is flagged for "illegal batting".
So the refs award a fresh set of downs to Green Bay, claiming that "nobody had possession"??? And that's NOT reviewable?? Since when is any call (or non- call) on a change of possession "not reviewable"??

^ The play in question.

Now... I can accept that they blew the call on the ground. It happens. But where did they get that "can't challenge" rule from?

[X-Terminator]

You're talking about the refs, and you're trying to make sense out of their calls? You're better off bashing your head with a hammer. It's a lot less painful.

Bottom line, the refs are awful and clearly don't understand what they see nor do they understand the rules.

[tube517]

But where did they get that "can't challenge" rule from?

From this douchebag ^^^

[GBMelBlount]

This is also a reflection of poor and inconsistent NFL rules.

If you are going to regulate the hell out of something and ruin it at least be consistent.

[stillers4me]

[Delraich]

Thing is also that Clark was down before the lateral attempt so the penalty never even happened. This year the officiating has been terrible. The replacement refs were never this bad.

[steelreserve]

simple IMO ... the ref was a dumb dickhead who blew the call, and upon reviewing it, he didn't want to admit he was a dumb dickhead who blew the call.

You know what they say about the simplest answer being the correct one.

[Steeler in Carolina]

I could be wrong, but since the ball was blocked and landed behind the line of scrimmage, Green Bay could have recovered and advanced. So, the change of possession was not automatic after the block. The refs missed the fact that Clark had possession.

[fansince'76]

I can only blame the refs to a point. The rulebook has become an absolute mess, which is exactly what you get with "Lawyerball."

[NCSteeler]

Plain and simple, you should be able to review any and every thing you want. 2 reviews a 3rd if you win the first 2. PERIOD. IDC, if it's a 50 yard PI call or possession on a TO. I've heard from casual fans that there are too many reviews already, but what they don't realize is those are usually automatic reviews. The whole officiating and rules are a total mess right now.

PI is the worst, the most unevenly called penalty in the books.

Suggestion, at the end of the year let the Head Coaches grade out the refs with game film and the bottom 10 take a paycut and be put on probation.

[katmandu]

So what exactly are "challenge-able" plays then ?

I want to see the rules on this.

If this is NOT a challenge-able play, then this is one rule that NEEDS changed in the off-season BIG TIME !

[MrPgh]

I wonder if talks of docking the Steelers a draft pick suddenly disappear after this incident.

[steelreserve]

I wonder if talks of docking the Steelers a draft pick suddenly disappear after this incident.

Not likely. Nothing but a brick wall as far as the officials or the league office are concerned. The motto for both might as well be "We fucked up horribly, and we stand by that."

[TheRuneMeister]

The refs screwed up the call on the field (everyone agrees on that), but it was the rulebook that prevented them from correcting it. Since they ruled that the ball had not changed possesion, they were boxed in by the rules.
It is an obvious hole in the rules, and I am confident that it will be changed next season. Maybe as a part of a major overhaul of the review-regulations.

[Psycho Ward 86]

anyone with knowledge of the rules know what exactly all of the things in football are that cant be reviewed? i was quite amused by the possession not being reviewable

[Edman]

Missed Field Goal on fourth Down?

We're going to give you the ball back.

[7SteelGal43]

Thing is also that Clark was down before the lateral attempt so the penalty never even happened. This year the officiating has been terrible. The replacement refs were never this bad.

I beg to differ.

[TheRuneMeister]

anyone with knowledge of the rules know what exactly all of the things in football are that cant be reviewed? i was quite amused by the possession not being reviewable

NFL Reviewable Plays.
The Replay System will cover the following play situations only:

(a) Plays governed by Sideline, Goal Line, End Zone, and End Line:
1. Scoring plays, including a runner breaking the plane of the goal line.
2. Pass complete/incomplete/intercepted at sideline, goal line, end zone, and end line. 3. Runner/receiver in or out of bounds.
4. Recovery of loose ball in or out of bounds.

(b) Passing plays:
1. Pass ruled complete/incomplete/intercepted in the field of play. 2. Touching of a forward pass by an ineligible receiver.
3. Touching of a forward pass by a defensive player.
4. Quarterback (Passer) forward pass or fumble.
5. Illegal forward pass beyond line of scrimmage.
6. Illegal forward pass after change of possession.
7. Forward or backward pass thrown from behind line of scrimmage.

(c) Other reviewable plays:
1. Runner ruled not down by defensive contact.
2. Runner ruled down by defensive contact when the recovery of a fumble by an opponent or a teammate occurs in the action that happens following the fumble.
3. Ruling of incomplete pass when the recovery of a passer’s fumble by an opponent or a teammate occurs in the action following the fumble.
4. Ruling of a loose ball out of bounds when it is recovered in the field of play by an opponent or a teammate in the action after the ball hits the ground.
Note 1: If the ruling of down by contact or incomplete pass is changed, the ball belongs to the recovering player at the spot of the recovery of the fumble, and any advance is nullified.
Note 2: If the Referee does not have indisputable visual evidence as to which player recovered the loose ball, the ruling on the field will stand.
Note 3: This does not apply to complete/incomplete passes, or the ruling of forward progress. 5. Forward progress with respect to a first down.
6. Touching of a kick.
7. A field-goal or Try attempt that crosses below or above the crossbar, inside or outside the uprights when it is lower than the top of the uprights, or touches anything.
8. Number of players on the field at the snap.
9. Illegal forward handoff.


Note: Non-reviewable plays include but are not limited to:
1. Status of the clock
2. Proper down
3. Penalty administration
4. Runner ruled down by defensive contact (not involving fumbles)
5. Forward progress not relating to first down or goal line
6. Recovery of a loose ball that does not involve a boundary line or the end zone.
7. Field-goal or Try attempts that cross above either upright without touching anything. 8. Inadvertent Whistle

[ALLD]

There should be at least one ref in the booth that reviews everything. The announcers are privy to all the information right after the play. Communication's technology has advanced far enough where we can radio to the refs or use a color lighted system to allow play to resume after something controversial has occurred.

[GoSlash27]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/o...packers-122413

Now here, Blandino insists that while the ruling itself was incorrect, it was not challengeable. I still don't get why that would be. According to da rulez (thanks RuneMeister), calls that are not challengeable would include

Recovery of a loose ball that does not involve a boundary line or the end zone.

Except that this recovery clearly *did* involve the boundary, since that's what the illegal batting call involved.

Also there's this:
http://www.steelers.com/video-and-au...9-7b11900d96ff

You can clearly see that the HL *THREW THE BLUE FLAG*!

[zulater]

Missed Field Goal on fourth Down?

We're going to give you the ball back.

I have never understood why a team attempting a field goal can recover a blocked kick down the field and retain possession? Unless the defending team makes a clear recovery and then fumbles the ball ( like Clark did on the lateral) I think the team that blocks the kick should be awarded the ball at the original line of scrimmage if they don't field the loose ball in play.

[GBMelBlount]

I have never understood why a team attempting a field goal can recover a blocked kick down the field and retain possession? Unless the defending team makes a clear recovery and then fumbles the ball ( like Clark did on the lateral) I think the team that blocks the kick should be awarded the ball at the original line of scrimmage if they don't field the loose ball in play.

100% agree. That makes absolutely no sense to me either.

[zulater]

100% agree. That makes absolutely no sense to me either.

Yeah why wouldn't it be like a partially blocked punt that goes beyond the line of scrimmage? Unless a downfield defender makes contact with the ball ( which makes the ball live at that point) the ball goes over on downs to the defenders. Downfield recovery of a blocked punt doesn't result in possession to the kicking team.

- - - Updated - - -

And in the case of the Packer game since they didn't recover the ball why on earth should they receiver possession of the ball regardless? If you want to penalize Hood either way it should have been post possession to the Steelers?

[TheRuneMeister]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/o...packers-122413

Now here, Blandino insists that while the ruling itself was incorrect, it was not challengeable. I still don't get why that would be. According to da rulez (thanks RuneMeister), calls that are not challengeable would include
Except that this recovery clearly *did* involve the boundary, since that's what the illegal batting call involved.

Also there's this:
http://www.steelers.com/video-and-au...9-7b11900d96ff

You can clearly see that the HL *THREW THE BLUE FLAG*!

No, batting the ball out-of-bounce is not the reason for the illegal batting call. That was called because the ball went forward in the field of play. Besides, even if that was the case, the proposed challenge was on the 'possesion', not the penalty. As we all know, penalties are never reviewable.

[Dwinsgames]

No, batting the ball out-of-bounce is not the reason for the illegal batting call. That was called because the ball went forward in the field of play. Besides, even if that was the case, the proposed challenge was on the 'possesion', not the penalty. As we all know, penalties are never reviewable.

the problem with that premise is the bold .....

remember they said the Steelers did not have possession so that " bat of the ball " would have been backward if it was still Packer ball ...... forward would have been towards the endzone now further away from it

[GoSlash27]

the problem with that premise is the bold .....

remember they said the Steelers did not have possession so that " bat of the ball " would have been backward if it was still Packer ball ...... forward would have been towards the endzone now further away from it

I checked on it in the rulebook. Towards the opponent's goal is "forward" even if nobody has possession.

Now... while the administration of a penalty call is not reviewable, I still don't see why the "possession" aspect is not. There were 2 rulings made during that play, both the ruling that the illegal batting had taken place *and* that the Steelers had never recovered the ball prior to it going out of bounds.
The first aspect is clearly not reviewable, but the second aspect certainly *seems* to be.

Da rulez:
"Other reviewable plays (snip) 4. Ruling of a loose ball out of bounds when it is recovered in the field of play by an opponent or a teammate in the action after the ball hits the ground."

[TheRuneMeister]

You can review whether a ball has been out of bounds before recovery, but that isn't really related to this scenario.

We can all agree that it SHOULD be reviewable, and that the refs should have seen that he had possesion. Beyond that they just followed the rules as the currently are.

[GoSlash27]

You can review whether a ball has been out of bounds before recovery, but that isn't really related to this scenario.

We can all agree that it SHOULD be reviewable, and that the refs should have seen that he had possesion. Beyond that they just followed the rules as the currently are.

No... the way I see it, that *is* this scenario. The question was whether it was recovered before it went out of bounds. I just don't see any way of looking at the rules that says it's *not* reviewable, which is my entire complaint. They blew the call, which everyone agrees on... but that happens. What I'm not getting (and believe me, I'm not being contrary merely for the sake of being contrary) is *how* the rules say you can't review it.

You're certainly correct, and Blandino agrees with you. I'm just not seeing where these rules say that. Help a brutha out?

[Godfather]

When did they decide the clock wasn't reviewable? I remember a game where the Clowns kicked a field goal after the third quarter ran out, and Cowher successfully challenged the play. Funny thing was he was livid. It was a chip shot and they just kicked another one to start the fourth quarter.

[TheRuneMeister]

No... the way I see it, that *is* this scenario. The question was whether it was recovered before it went out of bounds. I just don't see any way of looking at the rules that says it's *not* reviewable, which is my entire complaint. They blew the call, which everyone agrees on... but that happens. What I'm not getting (and believe me, I'm not being contrary merely for the sake of being contrary) is *how* the rules say you can't review it.

You're certainly correct, and Blandino agrees with you. I'm just not seeing where these rules say that. Help a brutha out?

In the scenario you are proposing(based on the rule you quoted), the challenge would be on whether the ball went out of bounds before recovery. Since the ball did not go out of bounds before the end of the play, AND even more importantly, the refs never ruled that the Steelers actually recovered the ball, there is no way that the specific rule you mentioned can make the play reviewable. The only way that play becomes reviewable is if they make possesion of a loose ball reviewable (like it is if it occurs in the endzone)