Was Detroit robbed last night

[dolphins4life]

CBS just said they were

[Denver2]

Yes. They were not about to spoil Jimmy Johnson’s special night.

[Dave Gray]

I was unable to watch the game.

However, from what I'm reading, yes that particular play was ruled incorrectly MAYBE, but had it been correctly ruled, it would've been a different penalty anyway because of where/how the guy was lined up.

[Spider-Dan]

No, it was 100% ref error on a trick play.  The Lions were definitely robbed.

It is common for an OL to run on from the sideline and report as eligible.  DET was using this as a smokescreen, and even notified the refs before the game about this particular play; #70 runs on the field like he's going to report (but does not speak to the ref, which he didn't) while #68 actually does report to the ref (which he did).

The ref, not listening to the DET players and simply going through the motions, went over and told the DAL defense that #70 was reporting as eligible, despite the fact that #68 reported HIMSELF as eligible and #70 was simulating (to the DAL defense) that he would be reporting.  #70 lined up in a spot that would be ineligible anyway, regardless of whether or not he reported... which is why the play was not designed to go to him.

https://twitter.com/SharpFootball/status/1741321593165320439
https://twitter.com/SharpFootball/status/1741329962890625248
https://twitter.com/MySportsUpdate/status/1741317297564688792
https://twitter.com/BenjaminSolak/status/1741329085073125779

[Dave Gray]

^ Like I said, I didn't watch, so I'll take your word for it.  Thanks for the explanation.

[Denver2]

Campbell got screwed but should have played for OT after the penalty, know when to Kenny Rogers a situation.

[masterfins]

Campbell got screwed but should have played for OT after the penalty, know when to Kenny Rogers a situation.

Nice reference!

[Pappy13]

Dan Campbell basically admitted that they were trying to fool the Cowboys with that play and ended up fooling the refs instead. They purposely sent multiple players over to the ref when only one of them was reporting as eligible. Unfortunately it confused the ref because #70 was one of the players who went over to the ref and the ref mistakenly told the Cowboys that #70 had reported when #68 actually reported.

So while it did screw the Lions, actually the Lions are partially to blame for that and you can't just let the play stand because the ref clearly made a mistake in telling the Cowboys which player reported. If only #68 reports to the ref, he probably doesn't make the mistake that he makes, but then the Cowboys would have known for sure that #68 was reporting when the whole idea was to confuse them with who was actually reporting. So the refs aren't solely to blame for this, the Lions tried to play some games and it backfired on them.

This is basically the reason that the refs stuck to their guns that the wrong guy reported. I don't think he really did, but he shouldn't have been going over to the ref as if he was reporting as he had done repeatedly during the game and he did and in fact there was a 3rd player there as well. The ref made a mistake but the Lions have to share a bit of that responsibility.

As far as Dan Campbell saying he discussed this with the refs prior to the game, I'm not buying that he told the refs that he was going to send 3 players over to report but only 1 of them, #68 is reporting to fool the Cowboys. There's no way the refs are going to agree to that type of shenanigans before the game. I'm sure that he discussed the play and said his tackle woud be reporting and technically that's what happened, but the refs got which tackle was reporting wrong on accident which is exactly what Campbell was hoping for, but from the Cowboys, not from the refs.

[Spider-Dan]

#70 never spoke to the ref.  "Going over to them" is not an excuse for the ref failing to do his job.

Campbell notified the officials that he would be bringing in a lineman from the sideline, but that the reporting lineman would be one of those already on the field, which is the unusual part.  There are no "shenanigans" in players walking near the ref while remaining completely silent; you can have the entire offense walk over if you want to, and that doesn't change which player is reporting as eligible.

It is literally the referee's job to listen to which player is reporting as eligible, instead of simply assuming who he thinks is reporting.  Campbell's notification before the game was to help the officials do their job, and they still failed spectacularly.

[Pappy13]

Campbell got screwed but should have played for OT after the penalty, know when to Kenny Rogers a situation.

I think Campbell knew exactly what he was doing. A loss didn't really hurt the Lions playoff standing, but a win helped considerably. So he was playing the odds. He didn't want to take the chance that he would lose in OT and decided to put it all on the line right there with that 2 pt conversion attempt. This is Dan Campbell's MO. When given the choice, he typically takes the aggressive approach and he did here. This isn't cards, it's football damnit.

[Pappy13]

#70 never spoke to the ref.  "Going over to them" is not an excuse for the ref failing to do his job.

Campbell notified the officials that he would be bringing in a lineman from the sideline, but that the reporting lineman would be one of those already on the field, which is the unusual part.  There are no "shenanigans" in players walking near the ref while remaining completely silent; you can have the entire offense walk over if you want to, and that doesn't change which player is reporting as eligible.

It is literally the referee's job to listen to which player is reporting as eligible, instead of simply assuming who he thinks is reporting.  Campbell's notification before the game was to help the officials do their job, and they still failed spectacularly.

At the same time you can't let the play stand. Once the ref makes the mistake and tells the Cowboys that #70 reported the play is a failure. #68 can't catch the ball at that point regardless if it's the ref's mistake or not. It would have screwed the Cowboys to let the play stand, they HAVE to call a penalty regardless and that wouldn't have happened if #70 doesn't try to trick the Cowboys which is what he was trying to do.

It's shenanigans and I don't think the Lions should have gotten away with it and I'm glad it didn't work. The Patriots are famous for doing the same thing. Skirting the rules by doing something against the spirit of the rules without it being technically against the rules. They've had to change the rule book because of plays just like this one and I'm sure they will talk about changing the rules here as well. Not sure they will change the rule, but I think they will at least talk about it to prevent this type of thing from happening again. The Lions tried to play games with the rules and it didn't work for them. I'm happy that's how it turned out because that's against the spirit of the game in my humble opinion.

[Spider-Dan]

There was no part of "the rules" that was violated, in spirit or in practice.  DET was trying to take advantage of expected laziness/sloppiness from the DAL defense, but was undone by the excessive laziness/sloppiness of the officials.

The correct response from the league is to ensure that the officials actually listen for which player is reporting, and accurately convey that information to the defense.  That's it.  No other action needs to be taken.

You are correct to point out that once the official gave the wrong information to the defense, the play could not be allowed to stand.  The die was already cast by then, and the referee error had effectively scuttled the play.

[Pappy13]

The correct response from the league is to ensure that the officials actually listen for which player is reporting, and accurately convey that information to the defense.  That's it.  No other action needs to be taken.

The spirit of the rule is the ensure the defense knows who is and is not eligible on a play. What Detroit did violates that spirit in my opinion even though it wasn't strictly against the rules.

One way to ensure there can be no mistake is for only those players reporting to actually approach the ref. No one else needs to do that. In fact if you do this the ref doesn't even need to inform the defense who is reporting, it will be obvious by who goes to the ref to report. This avoids any chance the ref tells them the wrong thing or he or the defense hears the wrong number in a very loud stadium for example.

[Spider-Dan]

The existing rule outlines a very specific way for the defense to know who is and is not eligible on a play: the referee directly tells them.  The rule makes no allowance for who happens to be near an official, or who may or may not have spoken to an official.

The system you are advocating - where the defense tries to guess who is and isn't eligible based on who speaks to the referee - has some rather obvious flaws and is significantly worse than the existing rule, which (again) is the referee tells the defense who has reported as eligible.

This avoids any chance the ref tells them the wrong thing or he or the defense hears the wrong number in a very loud stadium for example.

The referee telling the defense "the wrong thing" is an error by the official, and should be addressed by the existing mechanisms for correcting/eliminating errors by officials.
The defense "hearing the wrong number" should be addressed by the defense clarifying the number with the official.

The referee made a clear and obvious error.  Your solution to fix this error is far worse than the problem; any time a lineman speaks to a referee - say, to question a holding call on a previous play - that lineman might be reporting as eligible!  And as you frame it, if the referee directly walks over to the defense and says, "#68 is reporting as eligible," well... the referee might be wrong!  Or the defense might hear #58!

There's no need to make excuses for poor officiating.  The root cause of the problem here is clear.  DET reported #68 as eligible, and the referee told the defense a different player because the referee wasn't listening.  The solution here is clear and straightforward.

[Pappy13]

I think you misunderstood what I was suggesting. I was not suggesting the referee not tell the defense who reported, I would still have the referee tell the defense who has reported as he does today. I would simply change it such that only the person reporting approach the ref so if the ref tells the defense a number or they hear a number other than who approached the ref, they can challenge that to ensure they get the right information. The solution that I'm suggesting goes directly towards helping to eliminate potential mistakes like the one that occurred.