Week Fifteen: Detroit Lions (8-5) @ Los Angeles Rams (10-3)

[Sports_Freak]

1 hour ago, MichiganCardinal said:

The reality is if they looked at this and said "we have clear evidence that this was a fumble" then it should have been a touchback, because he doesn't recover the ball again until he's out of bounds in the end zone. But that would have been too outlandish. So call stands, give the Rams six points.

It should have either been incomplete or down where his knee hit down. The ball never got to the goalline.

[lordstanley]

Minnesota has scored 31 points in back to back weeks. 

[sagnam]

4 hours ago, Sports_Freak said:

OL depth and secondary help. And some health luck for a change. Teams that advance in the playoffs aren't always the best team, sometimes it's the healthiest team 

The defensive line is not very good. Little to no pressure and now unable to stop the run.

[Sports_Freak]

5 hours ago, sagnam said:

The defensive line is not very good. Little to no pressure and now unable to stop the run.

True. Consistent pressure on the qb would make our secondary better. Brad has some work to do...

[Hongbit]

10 hours ago, lordstanley said:

Minnesota has scored 31 points in back to back weeks. 

Christmas Day at Minnesota is massive. Many seem to be ignoring it when doing their potential playoff possibilities.   It’s all Bears and Packers and winning that Week 18 game at Chicago.    Vikes are starting to play better and they beat us in all 3 phases last time at Ford Field. 

Edited 13 hours ago by Hongbit

[MichiganCardinal]

12 hours ago, Sports_Freak said:

It should have either been incomplete or down where his knee hit down. The ball never got to the goalline.

What Blandino was getting at was that the justification they are using for calling it a touchdown is that he did not have control of the ball at the 1 when all the screenshots show him clearly down. In essence, it is a loose ball fumble at that point. So, he can't be down.

If that's the case, then he very clearly does not regain possession of the ball until he is out of bounds through the side of the end zone. Thus, the call would be a touchback.

I get them not wanting to make that call. Rams fans would lose their mind. But the solution is not to just say "well **** it, let's just keep it as a bad call, touchdown."

[RedRamage]

17 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Just absolutely unreal. On every planet but Earth this is not a TD.

So, this is part of the problem with replay in my humble opinion and why there should be specific rules around... which there actually are! But those rules needs to be enforced.

My understanding is that replay looked at it, and said there was at least some evidence that he didn't have control of the ball when he knee was down, therefore he wasn't down and the play should continue. Then he recovered control in the endzone, and therefore it's a TD.

That's not an unreasonable story, and if the story is correct than it's correct to call it a TD. BUT: What's the evidence? Did the ball move a bit? Maybe. Did he not have complete control? Maybe. But... did the ball also move because it hit the ground? Maybe! There is no clear evidence what happened regarding control of the ball and if you're going to say that the evidence maybe shows loss of control then I think there's just as much to say that the loss of control came because the ball hit the ground.

So why are you picking the maybes that fit one story but ignore the maybes that fit a different story? Shouldn't all "maybes" just be ignored? Sorta like a rule that said clear evidence has to show what's happening? What do we know for sure looking at the replay? He had his hands on the ball AND his knee was down AND the defender had contact at the 1-foot line.

He may or may not have bobbled control as he skidded into the endzone. That's not clear to me at all... certainly not anymore clear than that the ground caused the ball to move.

In the end this call doesn't bother me because 1st and goal from the 1-foot line is 99.99% of the time going to end in a TD, so I don't feel like the Lions got jobbed here. But it definitely feels like a case where the refs decided to take some questionable evidence as fact while ignoring equal evidence that could have led to calling it an incomplete pass.

[RedRamage]

24 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said:

I get them not wanting to make that call. Rams fans would lose their mind. But the solution is not to just say "well **** it, let's just keep it as a bad call, touchdown."

The solution is to just call him down at the 1. That's what the VAST majority of people think it should have been AND it probably means a TD in two or three plays anyway.

This (almost certainly) isn't a game altering call, so it seems so odd that they called it in such a strange way.

[Motown Bombers]

 

[Motown Bombers]

 

[romad1]

I'm glad some posters for these GDT are posting during the games because otherwise I'd be worried they were off somewhere strapped with TNT ready to blow up a public place. 

[Hongbit]

The no call on the deep ball to Jamo that happened right after the phantom TD in was huge.   The defender clearly hooked him just before Jamo made a dive for the ball.  That little bit of early touch was the difference from catching up with that ball.  The Rams had just scored to go up 27-24 and the Lions had to punt and the Rams scored 2 again plays later.    Different game had they got that call and moved into FG range to potentially tie and slow their momentum 

[lordstanley]

17 minutes ago, Hongbit said:

The no call on the deep ball to Jamo that happened right after the phantom TD in was huge.   The defender clearly hooked him just before Jamo made a dive for the ball.  That little bit of early touch was the difference from catching up with that ball.  The Rams had just scored to go up 27-24 and the Lions had to punt and the Rams scored 2 again plays later.    Different game had they got that call and moved into FG range to potentially tie and slow their momentum 

And up 24-20 on the drive before that, the Lions had a really nice run for a 1st down by Gibbs negated by a holding charged against some dude named Giovanni Ricci. 

[Shinzaki]

Barnes was held on the Corum TD

[Motown Bombers]

 

[MichiganCardinal]

That would be my message to the league if I'm Dan Campbell or Rod Wood. "Our defense sucks. I know we play sticky coverage and I know we are going to get some calls against us. But it needs to go both ways. We can't afford a bad holding call that kills the drive. We can't afford a missed DPI on a play that should bust it open. Both happened Sunday, multiple times."

[sagnam]

3 hours ago, Hongbit said:

The no call on the deep ball to Jamo that happened right after the phantom TD in was huge.   The defender clearly hooked him just before Jamo made a dive for the ball.  That little bit of early touch was the difference from catching up with that ball.  The Rams had just scored to go up 27-24 and the Lions had to punt and the Rams scored 2 again plays later.    Different game had they got that call and moved into FG range to potentially tie and slow their momentum 

That was wild. Absolutely interfered with his ability to make the catch. 

[sagnam]

7 hours ago, MichiganCardinal said:

What Blandino was getting at was that the justification they are using for calling it a touchdown is that he did not have control of the ball at the 1 when all the screenshots show him clearly down. In essence, it is a loose ball fumble at that point. So, he can't be down.

If that's the case, then he very clearly does not regain possession of the ball until he is out of bounds through the side of the end zone. Thus, the call would be a touchback.

I get them not wanting to make that call. Rams fans would lose their mind. But the solution is not to just say "well **** it, let's just keep it as a bad call, touchdown."

He hadn’t established possession before going to the ground so the only options were down at the 1, TD, or incompletion. Fumble out of the end zone wasn’t an option on this play.

[Sports_Freak]

7 hours ago, MichiganCardinal said:

What Blandino was getting at was that the justification they are using for calling it a touchdown is that he did not have control of the ball at the 1 when all the screenshots show him clearly down. In essence, it is a loose ball fumble at that point. So, he can't be down.

If that's the case, then he very clearly does not regain possession of the ball until he is out of bounds through the side of the end zone. Thus, the call would be a touchback.

I get them not wanting to make that call. Rams fans would lose their mind. But the solution is not to just say "well **** it, let's just keep it as a bad call, touchdown."

Into the end zone doesn't mean it's out of bounds. If he fumbled it thru the end zone, the proper call would be the touch back. There's been many fumbles into the end zone that an offensive player jumps on a fumble for a TD. I think it's only in the last 2 minutes of a half where the only player who can forward a fumble is the player who fumbled it. At least, I think so...