Replies

I thought the controversy was over reviewing the play after another play had taken place. Doesn't the team wanting a review have to call for it before the next play or forfeit the right? I also didn't think it was the officials call to review the play but the coaches?

A team cannot review during the last two minutes. The refs can though...

I thought the controversy was over reviewing the play after another play had taken place. Doesn't the team wanting a review have to call for it before the next play or forfeit the right? I also didn't think it was the officials call to review the play but the coaches?

Teams can challenge a play (before a subsequent play starts) except in the last two minutes of the game.

During those last two minutes, the replay officials (in the booth) can buzz the officiating crew on the field that they wish to review a play.

In the last two minutes, reviews are in the hands of the league official.

But what all the feverish bashers aren't telling you is that there was no review called prior to the next snap. This is why none of the field officials did anything to stop the next play--as far as they were concerned, it was first down. That is also why the time which ran between the placement of the ball after the catch, and the "spike," was never put back on the clock.

What actually happened after that is and will always be speculation, but one fact is a rookie referee had lost control and been rattled the whole game anyway, and a whole lot of a**-covering took place between then and this morning.

The story about the buzzer "simultaneously" going off with the snap, but all the officials on the field not being sure they "heard" it, until afterward, at which point they conferred and all suddenly agreed that indeed they all had heard it, is the story the officials told right after the game.

That is a level of BS no self-respecting freeper would ever accept in a million years if a clintonoid had said it.

As far as the actual review, if the catch had been reversed before the next play had been run--legally, as far as anyone knew, no whistle, no flag, no nothing from the officials,-- there would have been a lot of booing but that would have been it. Game over.

Most of the facts and circumstances didn't make it to the national media, so all the guessing and confusion is understandable. The peculiarly spiteful quality of the Cleveland bashing is a curiosity, considering that the fan behavior yesterday was no worse than has occurred on other occasions at other parks throughout the league over the years.

But what interests me is why so may people who weren't there, and don't know what happened, suddenly have this child-like faith in the media to give them the whole truth unedited and complete, all aspects, etc., without suspecting that they are toadying up to the NFL who pays them a billion dollars or so every year to make them look good.