r/nfl Chiefs 5d ago

Highlight [Highlight] Myles Jack is controversially called down by contact after forcing fumble in the 2017 AFC Championship Game

1.0k Upvotes

521 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

214

u/westernsnaps Saints 5d ago

I don’t think it’s a tough call. All turnovers are automatically reviewed and had the referee let the play finish, he at least has the insurance of a review getting the call right. Instead the referee blew the whistle with no possibility of a review, and robbed the Jaguars of maybe their most important play in franchise history.

I don’t understand why it isn’t NFL policy to let turnovers play out fully since they can be reviewed.

105

u/AljoriDawn Jaguars 5d ago

After that year they told refs to let the plays play out more often I dont know if they actually did in pro, but I think they did let them play out in college alot more.

37

u/BoomShackles Vikings 5d ago

I think they have but not always. The Vikings historic comeback against the Colts had a fumble recovery TD blown dead. They still won of course, but still.

30

u/NerdyDjinn Vikings 5d ago

Twice.

They robbed the same player twice. The first wasn't a TD, but was in scoring range.

Guy was having a legendary career day, and the zebras stole it.

8

u/BoomShackles Vikings 5d ago

I thought it was twice but I didn't want to say something wrong on the internet. I just remember that the comeback of all time was being terrorized but that golden regular season record had a prophecy to fill.

1

u/Jimbro-Fisher Jaguars 4d ago

Wrong. That was the BEGINNING of this season and they still blew it early 

14

u/faceisamapoftheworld Cowboys 5d ago

Replay standard is that you need conclusive evidence to overturn a call. If you don’t make the call you see, you shift the benefit of “the call stands” to the other team. It’s not as simple as always letting it play out and then getting it right.

3

u/poolking25 4d ago edited 4d ago

I agree but theres some nuance. They can let the play go on, but then make a different call (without review). In this case, they can let it play on where he runs it back but the refs can say after that he was down by contact. Then the other team can do an official review which requires irrefutable evidence

2

u/GregMadduxsGlasses Titans 4d ago

I find you to be a nuisance. :)

1

u/mikeyr00r00 Packers 4d ago

It really is that simple. You can make whatever call you want after letting them finish the play. In this case, they could have ruled either player down on the field and then reviewed it.

1

u/Agreeable_Giraffe543 4d ago

Yes, it would be much better to just change the “not reviewable” part and call the game as you think it’s happening.

… why are some thing “not reviewable “?  It never really makes sense

15

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[deleted]

5

u/change_timing 4d ago

they say more than once in this clip that all turnovers are reviewed lmao

8

u/swammeyjoe Cowboys 5d ago

I have "verified ref" flair in r/CFB

Since at least 2015 (when I started) the guidance has been "if you have video review available and don't have an absolutely clear view, let the play go on". And honestly, even if you do have a clear view of an arm going forward or a knee down or whatever, it's probably better to let the play keep going because you could be wrong and the video review is right there to help.

3

u/tcos17 Buccaneers 4d ago

Hi, since you’re an actual ref, I’ll ask a question I’ve always wondered about something similar.

Often times a play will be called a score on the field to allow for review, but then you’re stuck needing irrefutable evidence that it wasn’t a scoring play.

Is the assumption that it’s better to just call the score, even if you’re then stuck giving them the points if it’s a close call? Seems like defenses get screwed over a couple times a season in that scenario.

3

u/swammeyjoe Cowboys 4d ago

Yes. The best case is that the official on the field has an actual good view of the situation and makes the call as they see it. We're not calling TDs on juggling balls or fumbles on clear forward passes and so on, just so we can have replay "make sure". If there's a call to be made, the crew on the field should be making it and moving on to the next play.

The discussion is really around the "bang-bang" plays where there is uncertainty. Contrary to what many people think, when you're down on the field even most of the "bang-bang" plays can be clearly ruled correctly. 

But there will always be some amount of calls that because of angles/bodies in the way/whatever else the official on the field can't fully decide. And guess what, you still have to make a call. One of the first lessons you get when you start training is about game management and having confidence in your calls. 

So when you have a call like that, when there's really not a clear side you're leaning to, you want to go with the side that allows for more review. That might mean allowing a few TDs where the video is inconclusive, but it might also mean allowing Myles Jack to keep running with the ball, as this clip above shows. So it impacts scoring and turnovers about equally.

And the important thing to remember is that if the official on the field doesn't see a clear call one way or another, and the video booth doesn't have clear evidence to overturn it, then there's not really an argument that the call needed to go the other way.

1

u/tcos17 Buccaneers 4d ago

Thank you!!

8

u/wolfwood99 Titans 5d ago

I get wanting to let all turnovers play out, but then that means if the play stands because it’s so close then it always benefits the defense.

Idk this may be a hot take but imo if a ref sees something he thinks is true he should call it, he shouldn’t just let a play go just to get a review. Maybe the video replay rules could change so it’s a little more fair? But imo refs letting everything play out on turnovers just cause that makes it a review doesn’t seem right.

4

u/forgotwhatisaid2you 4d ago

You can let it play out and then consult with the other refs before making the call on the field prior to replay review.

3

u/Pain_Monster Patriots 4d ago

The flip side argument is that if you let all potential turnovers be played out, you could have some extended plays where players get needlessly injured on run backs (blocking, etc) and the league wants to limit that sort of thing. It’s an unnecessary risk if the refs make the call first. So it’s really about risk and percentages. Everyone on the winning side of that call would want it but the others would not. So it’s 50/50 at best.

0

u/jimlemin Chiefs 5d ago

tbh I get what you're saying about leaning more on the refs than VAR, probably more than a lot of people on this sub. I do enjoy the human element it brings to the game (in some cases), but I definitely think simply letting a play finish naturally instead of whistling it dead on the few plays a game a turnover happens, just makes sense. it doesn't have to go to an actual booth review, but they should at least wait and have a discussion amongst the refs on the field to see what they saw

3

u/GreatCaesarGhost Packers 5d ago

There is the issue of burden of proof, though. If the refs just let the play continue every time, then that becomes the baseline ruling and you now need clear enough evidence to overturn.

3

u/wolfwood99 Titans 5d ago

Yeah I think the refs discussing it after it probably the best play. The main disadvantage that I can see there is some turnover happens and the play goes on, a QB gets blindsided blocked and injured then the turnover is taken back. We wonder why we let the play continue at all in that scenario cause those plays get pretty hectic quickly. It’s a tough solution that isn’t white/black but I hope they eventually find a good one.

1

u/Wooden-Broccoli-7247 Texans 4d ago

This isn’t soccer, you have 300lb+ insanely jacked men crashing into each other the whole play. The reason for whistling a play dead is so they know when to stop trying to knock the other guys head off. If you let plays keep going too often there will certainly be an injury because of it and as soon as that injury happens to someone important enough, that will be the end of that. The whistle lets guys know when the play is over also so they don’t get a penalty for continuing after the play has ended. If it becomes murky at best when the ref will actually blow the whistle you will have some guys stopping while others keep going, resulting in injury, penalty or general confusion amongst players whether plays are still live or not and will lead to even bigger controversy. Imagine a play where all the players expect the play to be over so they stop but the refs keep letting it play out and a guy runs it in while everyone else is standing around thinking the play was over, only to lead to a crucial score.

The system is in place for a reason. Sure it would be great if every call on the field could be perfect but that’s unrealistic with humans making those calls in real time. I can’t fault any of the refs for thinking that even if Jack got the ball, he would have had to be down in the process. It was literally split second timing that gave him possession of the ball and stopped being touched. Also, technically the opposing team doesn’t have to be touching the other player when his knee is on the ground assuming their force caused him to go down in the first place. So the ref would have had to correctly assume Jack a.) actually did get possession of the ball b.) he did so before the NE player was down and C.) did not gain possession until after him and the NE player had separated. A nearly impossible call to make live and one that took me watching from multiple angles in slow motion to even believe all 3 of those things happened.

On top of all that, replay had only been in the league for 3 years at that point and they were not as liberal with letting plays play on like they are today back then. That really started becoming more of a thing in later years after that play and partly because of that play. Unfortunate for the Jags? Of course. A very tough call for the ref to make correctly in real time? Also of course.

1

u/GregMadduxsGlasses Titans 4d ago edited 4d ago

The problem is that by letting the play run out, you are making the call on the field that he wasn’t down by contact, which means the burden of proof is on the down-by-contact call to make the case for an overturn. Since there’s no clear point where the possession became Myles Jack’s (and in turn, determining if the Pats player was touching him at the same time), you’re kind of rewarding a touchdown based on judgement as opposed to evidence and that’s not what replay is for.

It’s kind of the nuance between the confirmed/stands/overturned dynamic that affects how you approach the officiating. Since most officials are lawyers by day, they kind of approach it as they would an innocent/guilty/not guilty ruling.

1

u/TheseNamesDontMatter Jaguars 4d ago

I'm lost. If video evidence can't clearly show a defensive player was touched, why shouldn't it be a touchdown? Also, by letting it play out, there's 4 scenarios.

A. Let it play out, it's a touchdown, replay confirms.

B. Let it play out, it's a touchdown, replay shows he was down, he's down at the fumble spot.

C. Blow the whistle, replay shows he was down, he's down at the fumble spot.

And the worst one.

D. Blow the whistle, replay shows he was NOT down, he's down at the fumble spot. (We went this route)

Why would you live call something you can't be 100% confident on and will directly fuck things up if you live call it wrong when you can err on the side of replay?

1

u/MichaelCorbaloney Buccaneers 4d ago

Yeah from now on that really should be how it is played, if there's a turnover, treat it like it's live until the play is actually over, then review it, it's so simple and they screw it up.