Board 8 > NFL Week 3 Discussion Topic

(+) Yeah! (+)

I mean, I would be fine with changing the runoff from 10 seconds to 8.

Wouldn't change this.
---

looking like refs picked Green Bay in their survivor pools
---

Jakyl25 posted...

lordloki12 posted...

That is the dumbest way to end a game. You shouldnt have a clock runoff on a mandatory review.

If it was called correctly on the field, the Lions wouldn't get the 4th Down play off in 8 seconds

I suppose with replay you could hypothetically reposition everyone exactly as they were and start the clock and see <_<

They absolutely would have. They were already close to the line for the previous play and would have already had that final play called before the 3rd down snap so it would have just been the scramble back to the line for the snap. Either way you shouldnt be robbed of the opportunity to attempt the play due to a mandatory review.
---

Green Bay is not a good football team

ya go my Titans
---

lordloki12 posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

lordloki12 posted...

That is the dumbest way to end a game. You shouldnt have a clock runoff on a mandatory review.

If it was called correctly on the field, the Lions wouldn't get the 4th Down play off in 8 seconds

I suppose with replay you could hypothetically reposition everyone exactly as they were and start the clock and see <_<

They absolutely would have. They were already close to the line for the previous play and would have already had that final play called before the 3rd down snap so it would have just been the scramble back to the line for the snap. Either way you shouldnt be robbed of the opportunity to attempt the play due to a mandatory review.

Lions twitter account has this to say about getting off a play in 8 seconds: https://twitter.com/Lions/status/912074133219012608
---

Didn't see the play myself but all those photos show 11 secs on clock when his knee hit so why wasn't clock corrected on review of play? Or are the pictures wrong?

In my opinion, if the play was close enough that it needed to be reviewed, then you deserve the benefit of having a clock stoppage and being able to run another play.

blame the rules, not the refs, seems to be what I'm getting out of this?
---

Paratroopa1 posted...

In my opinion, if the play was close enough that it needed to be reviewed, then you deserve the benefit of having a clock stoppage and being able to run another play.

it's kind of unfair for the Falcons to stop him short and be punished because the refs got the call wrong, too, so it sucks either way it works
---

the auto-runoff is a pretty dumb rule though because it's arbitrary and ignores the fact that you can indeed run a play in less than 10 seconds
---

Yeah, that sounds like a bad rule to me. I'm definitely not convinced you can't line up and snap in 8, 9, 10 seconds, or whatever they should have had left when everyone is within a couple of yards of the line of scrimmage.

If there's going to be a mandatory run-off, it should be less than that, though I guess you could make it way more complicated, based on how far the furthest player is from the line of scrimmage or something, but that's maybe going too far the other way. Not sure what the best way to handle that situation is rules-wise.

How did they come up with 10 seconds anyway?

"Oh that's a nice round number."
---

I don't have a problem with the auto-runoff when it occurs in situations where the team is at fault for causing it, like a penalty. An official review is a different case but I don't know if there's really a satisfactory answer there.

You have a runoff and you get a situation like what happened here. If you don't, you're "punishing" the other team. My first impression was that it'd be better to just start the clock at the ready for play signal but if the Lions then scored the Falcons would have a legitimate gripe too.
---

theawesomestevr posted...

Yeah, that sounds like a bad rule to me. I'm definitely not convinced you can't line up and snap in 8, 9, 10 seconds, or whatever they should have had left when everyone is within a couple of yards of the line of scrimmage.

If there's going to be a mandatory run-off, it should be less than that, though I guess you could make it way more complicated, based on how far the furthest player is from the line of scrimmage or something, but that's maybe going too far the other way. Not sure what the best way to handle that situation is rules-wise.

Maybe they should review who on offense was farthest from the line of scrimmage at the time it was stopped, and time how long it takes for him to run back to the line and get set, and run that much off <_<
---

I'm guessing 10 seconds was picked because it was a nice, round number. Though the actual time needed depends on the previous play. If it was a long pass over the middle of the field it's gonna take longer to get everyone ready then it would if it was just a 1 yard draw or something.
---

Out of curiosity does the runoff still apply if the player makes out of bounds with under 10 seconds but then the play is reviewed?

Should only apply if the clock is/would be running, I think.
---

10 second run off needs to be utlized better

but so does challenging plays with < 2 mins
---

If the clock would have stopped anyway, there's no runoff, just like in instances where there's an offensive penalty under two minutes. If the Lions had a timeout left, they could've called it and negated the runoff, for instance.
---

That's what I would think but this is the NFL. Also what happens if the runoff ends the game from a review but the team on offense has a timeout in hand which they then can't use?

Edit: Answered above

when's the last time the Titans and the Jaguars were the two best teams in their division

because it kinda looks like they are

looking it up, looks like it's never happened in the days of the AFC South

you'd have to go back to the days when the AFC Central existed then
---

Yeah, 1999 I guess? Jags 14-2 with only losses to Titans twice who were 13-3

2007 is the last season they were both good at the same time I think (i.e both made playoffs but Colts were division winners)

Yeah, they both made the playoffs that year but as Wild Cards.

hard to believe only a decade ago the AFC South was good enough to take both Wild Cards

although who knows maybe the division isn't total garbage this year aside from Indy

we might be back to the NFC West being the worst division in football (but maybe the Rams are decent?)
---

LeonhartFour posted...

we might be back to the NFC West being the worst division in football

don't you dare disrespect the afc east
---

hey now the AFC East went 3-1 this week just like the AFC South

The AFC East is in contention though because I'm not sure how good the Pats are this year. Their defense is atrocious.
---

don't sleep on the afc north

bengals and browns 0-3, ravens punked by the jags, steelers choked to the literal bears
---

Yeah, that's true, too.

this has been a weird season so far
---

I'd say we are 1 key Steelers injury away from it. Or I guess suspension works too given Bell's history

this was a strange week of football
---

i entered a pick 'em league at work despite knowing absolutely nothing about football, mostly since other dudes paid my entrance fee. somehow, I tie for first this week if washington and arizona win (assuming the current leader picked dallas)

does this have any shot at happening? A tie is good for me since those two games were the tiebreakers, so just by tying i also probably win.
---

LeonhartFour posted...

this has been a weird season so far

Chiefs are the best team in the league
Lions are a top 5 team
Jags are maybe good again?
Rams look decent now that ExTha isn't a fan
Bucs future stalled now that ExTha is a fan

Washington are currently favored on in-game. Arizona I would think are probably very marginal underdogs. I'd guess by like 3 points

Both of those games are roughly tossups

Nothing the Cardinals have done the past two weeks would lead me to pick them over Dallas, even despite their awful game against Denver

but after the other games this week who knows
---

Blocksby posted...

Rams look decent now that ExTha isn't a fan
Bucs future stalled now that ExTha is a fan

fuck I wish somebody had told me about these before the season started
---

Bucs injured a lot. Ouch.
---

KommunistKoala posted...

this was a strange week of football

---

Redskins doing everything they can to let the Raiders back into this
---

after this week I have no idea who's actually good this year
---

Chiefs, Falcons, Lions, Patriots for sure

the Eagles are good so long as half their starting defense isn't injured!
---

I still believe in the Packers if some of our starters can get healthy (Mike Daniels and entire offensive line pls)

as long as we don't go against the Falcons..which is probably where the NFC championship game will be again.

but yeah Chiefs, Falcons, and Lions definitely top 3 right now. Titans have potential
---

The eagles are good until suddenly they are not. Like always

The Titans seem good. I think

it's weird we think the Falcons are good but they're literally two goal line plays away from being 1-2
---

maybe everyone is bad
---

LeonhartFour posted...

it's weird we think the Falcons are good but they're literally two goal line plays away from being 1-2

Its weird we think the Bears are bad but they were a dropped pass away from being 2-0 against Conference Championship participants!

the Bears are actually bad though =(
---

If the Bears are bad what does that make the Steelers?


Also I don't get ESPN so someone tell me if the Cowboys have anyone kneel.
---

The Bears actually don't feel like a bad team. Just have a bad passing game thanks to a weak QB and a battered receiving core. They've got a great offensive and defensive line and an explosive run game. Sure, that Bucs game was really bad, but the Falcons and Steelers aren't slouches.
---