The Jones Fumble/McCarthy Red Flag Call

[Just Me]

I agree with Eli's and CalVike's respective posts...

[Mothman]

I wasn't upset about the call Carey made because I still believed the Vikes were going to win the game and I thought Jones scored. That said, the irony here is that in his effort to get the call right, Carey got the call wrong so I understand and agree with the complaint that the rules weren't applied consistently. I don't see that as sour grapes and I don't think there was any pro-Packer bias behind Carey's decision but by rule, the result of that play should have been a first down for the Vikings at the 35 yard line.

Regarding what constitutes the right or wrong call: in the end, the right call is the call that takes everything that happened under consideration. That includes what happened on the field with the players, the coach, the challenge flag, etc. Once McCarthy threw that flag, the play was no longer just about where the ball was when Jones' knee hit the ground and whether he had possession or not. It was also about McCarthy's actions. In the end, even though Jones scored, the officials didn't apply all of the rules to the play.

Hopefully, they'll make an official change to this rule asap so this never comes up again.

[Knoxx]

I would like to see the rule changed to the 15 yard penalty and also the loss of that challenge flag. That way we won't see that silly red flag being thrown on every turnover and TD by emotional nut cases like Harbaugh (sp)

[mansquatch]

To OP: Excellent Post.

This rule is complicated to say the least. As I read it, the intent is to penalize a team for trying to get a review when they cannot or to commit a foul to get more time to decide whether or not to throw the flag. To me, it makes sense to make the play non-reviewable to dis-incent the action. I also get the aspects of this particular play in that Carey went the route of trying to ultimately get the call on the field correct, which in terms of just the play, he did. However, IMO, Moth brings up a great point in that Carey got the call wrong in the context of the rule book.

This is the pickle I see the NFL in with regards to replay. Consider the Jarius Wright catch on Ponder’s errant throw. We benefited from the fact that McCarthy couldn’t challenge and thus the officials blew a call to our benefit. That to me makes this rule a bit of a double edged sword. If there is no penalty for errant challenges then what is the point of the replay system? Can McCarthy toss the flag with no penalty? In that respect, I can see the rule as having value in that it creates a harsh consequence for tossing the flag in error. It is a question of where you want the onus, on the officials or the coach on the side line. I’m not sure having it on the coach is such a bad thing. The onus on all other calls is that it is on the player to know and follow the rule or they are going to get penalized. Why should the onus not be on the head coach for errant use of the challenge flag? It seems to me the argument in the Jim Schwartz case was that it ended up changing the outcome of the game. I agree that it did, but how is that different from say a tackle committing holding on a big TD pass or a DE is offsides on a pick six? The end result is your team doesn’t score. I do not see how the coach breaking the challenge flag rule is any different than these examples.

The reality of the NFL is that officials blow calls every game. Replay is a direct result of this fact. Whatever the rules end up being all we can really ask is that they apply them consistently. I do not think they did in the game on this call, but I also think that Carey did this because he has likely been instructed to “re-interpret” this rule due to the Thanksgiving mess, probably also anticipating that the league will change the rule in the offseason. I just hope that in changing it they do not invite other un-intended consequences.

[Sinatra]

The OP is clearly confused.

A personal foul or penalty doesn't necessarily prevent a review. Rather, if a penalty is committed that delays the ensuing snap, then it voids that team's ability to have the play reviewed. McCarthy's errant flag didn't "delay" anything, since the challenge had already been initiated by the booth. In Schwartz's case, the challenge had not yet been initiated by the booth, and therefore his throwing of the flag is considered a "delaying" tactic since it prevents the ensuing play from happenong on time.

Frankly, this rule has found applicability in ways the original drafters certainly never intended. This rule was given life because certain coaches had found a little loophole. If they wanted to challenge a play, but needed more time to consider it before throwing the flag, they would have one of their players delay the game -- say, by kicking the ball so that the official had to reset it. This was a clear exploit. The NFL didn't want coaches telling their players to go commit pre-snap penalties so that they could have more time to mull over the decision of whether to challenge. So this rule was created. If you commit a pre-snap delaying penalty, you void your opportunity to have the play reviewed.

Unfortunately, the rule doesn't differentiate between coaches challenges and booth challenges, so Schwartz was ensnared by the rule in a way that I doubt it was intended. Because the booth review hadn't been initiated yet, and because throwing a flag on an automatically reviewable play is a penalty, his throwing the flag was deemed a pre-snap penalty, and therefore any ensuing ability to have the play review was voided -- including a review from the booth. In McCarthy's case, the penalty was incurred (i.e., the throwing of the flag) AFTER the booth had already initiated a the review.

There's a clear distinction here, and the rule was applied "correctly." The problem is, this rule shouldn't apply at all to booth reviews. The logic behind the rule doesn't apply to booth reviews, so an exception needs to be written into the rule -- and I'm sure the competition committee will do so this offseason.

[Just Me]

A personal foul or penalty doesn't necessarily prevent a review. Rather, if a penalty is committed that delays the ensuing snap, then it voids that team's ability to have the play reviewed. McCarthy's errant flag didn't "delay" anything, since the challenge had already been initiated by the booth. In Schwartz's case, the challenge had not yet been initiated by the booth, and therefore his throwing of the flag is considered a "delaying" tactic since it prevents the ensuing play from happenong on time.

I don't know if the OP is confused, but I now am. How does the throwing of the flag 'prevent' the ensuing play from happening on time in a situation where a booth review is going to automatically? How can it be deemd a "pre-snap" penalty when the challenge was initiated after the snap? (It is 'pre-snap' in regards the subsequent play, but he didn't throw it when the play was over, he threw it during the play. He actually threw it before the player scored(?) Technically, at the time he threw it, there was no "automatic review" required. If an 'automatic review' is required, how can it delay the game? I think the Vikings game was called correctly, if for no other reason than the referees were trying to enforce the 'spirit' of the rule. I think they royally screwed it up in the Thanksgiving game.

Frankly, this rule has found applicability in ways the original drafters certainly never intended. This rule was given life because certain coaches had found a little loophole. If they wanted to challenge a play, but needed more time to consider it before throwing the flag, they would have one of their players delay the game -- say, by kicking the ball so that the official had to reset it. This was a clear exploit. The NFL didn't want coaches telling their players to go commit pre-snap penalties so that they could have more time to mull over the decision of whether to challenge. So this rule was created. If you commit a pre-snap delaying penalty, you void your opportunity to have the play reviewed.

I get that and have no problem with a rule to prevent it.

Unfortunately, the rule doesn't differentiate between coaches challenges and booth challenges, so Schwartz was ensnared by the rule in a way that I doubt it was intended. Because the booth review hadn't been initiated yet, and because throwing a flag on an automatically reviewable play is a penalty, his throwing the flag was deemed a pre-snap penalty, and therefore any ensuing ability to have the play review was voided -- including a review from the booth. In McCarthy's case, the penalty was incurred (i.e., the throwing of the flag) AFTER the booth had already initiated a the review.

There's a clear distinction here, and the rule was applied "correctly." The problem is, this rule shouldn't apply at all to booth reviews. The logic behind the rule doesn't apply to booth reviews, so an exception needs to be written into the rule -- and I'm sure the competition committee will do so this offseason.

I'm not saying that the Refs got it wrong in the MN vs GB game. In fact, I think it was silly to even penalizeeither team 15 yards in those instances. Frankly, I'd comnplain to the league that if the referees make the correct call(s) in the first place there is no penalty that occurs, regardless. I still don't understand why you think the OPs very detailed summary is wrong...

[NextQuestion]

Watch out for Carey. He's a total Packers homer and never calls that many penalties on GB.

[Raptorman]

The OP is clearly confused.

A personal foul or penalty doesn't necessarily prevent a review. Rather, if a penalty is committed that delays the ensuing snap, then it voids that team's ability to have the play reviewed. McCarthy's errant flag didn't "delay" anything, since the challenge had already been initiated by the booth. In Schwartz's case, the challenge had not yet been initiated by the booth, and therefore his throwing of the flag is considered a "delaying" tactic since it prevents the ensuing play from happenong on time.

Frankly, this rule has found applicability in ways the original drafters certainly never intended. This rule was given life because certain coaches had found a little loophole. If they wanted to challenge a play, but needed more time to consider it before throwing the flag, they would have one of their players delay the game -- say, by kicking the ball so that the official had to reset it. This was a clear exploit. The NFL didn't want coaches telling their players to go commit pre-snap penalties so that they could have more time to mull over the decision of whether to challenge. So this rule was created. If you commit a pre-snap delaying penalty, you void your opportunity to have the play reviewed.

Unfortunately, the rule doesn't differentiate between coaches challenges and booth challenges, so Schwartz was ensnared by the rule in a way that I doubt it was intended. Because the booth review hadn't been initiated yet, and because throwing a flag on an automatically reviewable play is a penalty, his throwing the flag was deemed a pre-snap penalty, and therefore any ensuing ability to have the play review was voided -- including a review from the booth. In McCarthy's case, the penalty was incurred (i.e., the throwing of the flag) AFTER the booth had already initiated a the review.

There's a clear distinction here, and the rule was applied "correctly." The problem is, this rule shouldn't apply at all to booth reviews. The logic behind the rule doesn't apply to booth reviews, so an exception needs to be written into the rule -- and I'm sure the competition committee will do so this offseason.

How could Schwartz's flag have delayed the next play? It was a TD and was going to be reviewed anyway. Same as McCarthy's flag, it was a turnover and was going to be reviewed. They only difference is when the flag was thrown. Schwartz actually threw his before the play was over. So I have no idea how they can claim it's a delaying tactic in his case. As to the rule itself, it makes no distinction as to when the flag is thrown and it's impact on not reviewing the call. That is the problem with the rule in this case.

[John_Viveiros]

How could Schwartz's flag have delayed the next play? It was a TD and was going to be reviewed anyway. Same as McCarthy's flag, it was a turnover and was going to be reviewed. They only difference is when the flag was thrown. Schwartz actually threw his before the play was over. So I have no idea how they can claim it's a delaying tactic in his case. As to the rule itself, it makes no distinction as to when the flag is thrown and it's impact on not reviewing the call. That is the problem with the rule in this case.

My thought was that a coach throwing a red flag across the field on a play that was already being reviewed was like a big middle finger to the officiating squad, and thus was worthy of a flag. Or you could say that the coach was just being stupid, almost as stupid as sending 12 men into the huddle (when no harm is really done by the 12th man, as long as he leaves and the defense has an opportunity to match the 11 remaining men). The invalidating of the replay is just the teeth of the penalty - you know the rules, or else you get burned, badly.

[Sinatra]

How could Schwartz's flag have delayed the next play? It was a TD and was going to be reviewed anyway.

I don't know if the OP is confused, but I now am. How does the throwing of the flag 'prevent' the ensuing play from happening on time in a situation where a booth review is going to automatically?

This is where you're both mistaken. Every touchdown is reviewed in the booth, but not every touchdown is reviewed on the field. That's a distinction. The booth reviews it and, if they decide there's something there that deserves additional scrutiny, then buzzes the official on the field to go review it.

In Schwartz's case, the booth had not yet buzzed the official on the field. In McCarthy's case, he had. That's why Schwartz's could not be reviewed, but McCarthy's could.

To your question: In theory, if the booth has reviewed it and decided the play was clean, and therefore elects not to buzz the official on the field, then if the coach were to throw his challenge flag, it would indeed delay the game.

The fact is, the rule was applied correctly in both cases as it's currently written. It's just a stupid rule and should not apply to booth reviews. This is a case where officials are sticking to the letter of the rule, instead of considering it's spirit. But I'm not going to fault the officials for that -- they're not really given the leeway to consider "intent" of rules.

[Just Me]

This is where you're both mistaken. Every touchdown is reviewed in the booth, but not every touchdown is reviewed on the field. That's a distinction. The booth reviews it and, if they decide there's something there that deserves additional scrutiny, then buzzes the official on the field to go review it.

In Schwartz's case, the booth had not yet buzzed the official on the field. In McCarthy's case, he had. That's why Schwartz's could not be reviewed, but McCarthy's could.

To your question: In theory, if the booth has reviewed it and decided the play was clean, and therefore elects not to buzz the official on the field, then if the coach were to throw his challenge flag, it would indeed delay the game.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be obtuse (sometimes it just comes naturally to me ) but this seems confusing. Let me say what I think you are trying to convey and you can correct me:

1) Every scoring play is reviewed in the booth (not necessarily on the field)
2) If the booth deems the play is worthy of further review, they buzz the field and have the official on the field review it (?)
3) (Implied) If the scoring review by the booth does not deem it worthy of review, then the coach cannot challenge it (?)

What if there is a mistake made by the booth official? I recall a Vikings game where the booth actually made an incorrect ruling and the other team challenged the call. I remember making the joke: "After Further, Further review" but I can't recall the game. I'm still not sure it's a 'clean cut' as you are asserting, but I'm really trying to understand...

Edit - I found it here. It was the Vikings/Bears game in Chicago...

[Sinatra]

What if there is a mistake made by the booth official?

Then you're SOL. Coaches can no longer challenge turnovers or scoring plays. Period.

I'm still not sure it's a 'clean cut' as you are asserting, but I'm really trying to understand...

It is, trust me. NFL rules are generally much simpler and straightforward than people think. The rule was created to prevent teams from delaying the game, so as to buy more time to decide whether they want to challenge or not. If the booth has already triggered a review, then obviously you can't delay the game -- it's already being 'delayed' by the review. However, if the booth HASN'T yet triggered the review then, in theory, you're delaying the game by throwing a flag on a play that you can't challenge. Yes, it may be that the booth would have ended up buzzing it for review anyway, but they hadn't yet, so you've delayed the game.

The "delaying" aspect is what voids the ability to review. If the booth has already buzzed for a review, then there's nothing to delay. If the booth hasn't buzzed then, ostensibly, you're delaying the game. The rule doesn't delineate whether the booth WOULD have review it -- it only discusses whether you're delaying the game at that moment. And if the booth hasn't yet buzzed, then you're delaying the game.

Again, I don't think this rule was written with booth reviews in mind, and I think it'll be changed this offseason -- because currently, it's a totally crap rule.

[Just Me]

Then you're SOL. Coaches can no longer challenge turnovers or scoring plays. Period.

Then how did they do it in Chicago (during our first meeting with the Bears)? See Gameday Thread

[Sinatra]

Then how did they do it in Chicago (during our first meeting with the Bears)? See Gameday Thread

I read the page you linked, and the pages before and after, but I wasn't able to put together a whole picture of what happened. Can you recap? I'm genuinely curious.

[Just Me]

I read the page you linked, and the pages before and after, but I wasn't able to put together a whole picture of what happened. Can you recap? I'm genuinely curious.

I'm not sure how it actually came about but there were two reviews of a play. My recollection was that the booth conducted a review on the scoring play and then a challenge ensued. IIRC the challange dealt with a different part of the play (still pertaining to the same play, however) and then the upheld touchdown became no touchdown. (I don't recall it specifically, but I might try to review my old recording of that game to get/give an accurate picture.) Give me a day or two and I'll post the circumstances here, unless someone else beats me to it...

Edit - I was able to go forward a few pages in the thread and refresh my memory. See the post from soflavike on this page. It was a fumble recovery that the Vikings returned for a Touchdown. The booth reviewed and upheld. Then Chicago challenged the "fumble" part of the play and after first being upheld by the booth, it was then overturned and ruled down - no fumble. It was all part of the same play...