If this is not an indication for application of Rule 17 what is? (1 Viewer)

[Dours]

As everyone now knows, simultaneous with the uncalled PI was the uncalled helmet to helmet on a defenseless receiver. This was a blatant game-changing non-call in a championship game with the greatest of consequences. It was a call that seemingly wasn't "missed" but rather one that the officials, who were clearly watching the play, chose not to make. If this isn't an indication for application of that rule, I would be interested to know what one would look like.

 

[BreesIsMyFather]

If you zoom in closer to Rule 17, there is a small asterisk.

*except in the case for the New Orleans Saints.

 

[Madmarsha]

It'll never happen. But it also casts large doubt on Goodell's sincerity of putting safety first. You can't ensure safety in a violent sport if your stewards of the safety penalties are allowed to flout them with impunity and chipping away at the integrity.

 

[Madmarsha]

If you zoom in closer to Rule 17, there is a small asterisk.

*except in the case for the New Orleans Saints.

Dang. It's always in the fine print.

 

[vnick72]

Rule 17 is designed to allow the commissioner to correct major wrongs.

Here's the rule which I am sure you have all read: "The Commissioner has the sole authority to investigate and take appropriate disciplinary and/or corrective measures if any club action, non-participant interference, or calamity occurs in an NFL game which the Commissioner deems so extraordinarily unfair or outside the accepted tactics encountered in professional football that such action has a major effect on the result of the game."

Now, I think the key phrase is "outside the tactics encountered in professional football." Blown calls happen. Refs miss calls. So a blown call, no matter how bad in our eyes, won't rise to this level. If proof came a ref bet on the game, then maybe that. This is one of the rules used in deflategate and even then, they didn't replay games. So, can't see even with Rule 17, that a major outcome is changed.

 

[crescentcityboi]

Rule 17 is designed to allow the commissioner to correct major wrongs.

Here's the rule which I am sure you have all read: "The Commissioner has the sole authority to investigate and take appropriate disciplinary and/or corrective measures if any club action, non-participant interference, or calamity occurs in an NFL game which the Commissioner deems so extraordinarily unfair or outside the accepted tactics encountered in professional football that such action has a major effect on the result of the game."

Now, I think the key phrase is "outside the tactics encountered in professional football." Blown calls happen. Refs miss calls. So a blown call, no matter how bad in our eyes, won't rise to this level. If proof came a ref bet on the game, then maybe that. This is one of the rules used in deflategate and even then, they didn't replay games. So, can't see even with Rule 17, that a major outcome is changed.

not sure "head hunting" is an accepted tactic. or is it? huh goodell? is it?

 

[oodank]

It'll never happen. But it also casts large doubt on Goodell's sincerity of putting safety first. You can't ensure safety in a violent sport if your stewards of the safety penalties are allowed to flout them with impunity and chipping away at the integrity.

No it wont cast any more doubts that are not already there. The Saints org has a chance to stop hoping for something to happen and try to make it happen if they truly feel like they were victim to a calamitous error. The Rule is clear in the rule book but it's up to the Saints whether throw the flag or turn their heads like those refs did Sunday....

 

[onthurdays]

omg they are not going to replay the game. Hope you’re not serious

 

[mjcouvi]

If one team somehow managed to drug the other team before the game, maybe the rule would be used?

 

[DaveXA]

omg they are not going to replay the game. Hope you’re not serious

No, but if something illegal were discovered, i.e. official bet on the game or took a bribe, they certainly could use the rule to replay the game from the point of the missed penalty.

This has been done once before. Iirc, it was at the end of a Seattle-Packers game where everyone had already gone to the locker rooms and the teams were called back out on the field to redo a play.

This would be different because it's never been done for a playoff game and well after the game is done. I think this is a good case for using the rule, but the NFL should have called the officials and told them to stop play and restart from when the penalty should have been called.

I really think if the NFL had called the officials and ordered them to restart from that point, most fans would go along with that.

 

[vnick72]

The Saints can get upset, but they basically have no recourse. They aren't going to sue the league, which is about the only thing they could do. If they didn't sue the league over Bountygate, they won't do it here. When push comes to shove, the teams line up. Kraft was pissed over Deflategate, but still toed the line. Jerry Jones was pissed last season about Zeke's suspension and made lots of threats, but followed through on none. Why, they know when it comes down to it, solidarity is better. Gayle may make public statements and she may bend the ear of an owner or two, but if Kraft and Jones were put in line, she has less influence than either of those.

 

[FullMonte]

I'll give you an example.

Saints have the ball on their own 30 yard line, down by 4, with the clock running at 7 seconds remaining in the game. Brees takes the snap, and pitches to Kamara. Kamara breaks around the end, and has clear sailing to the endzone. He is running for the touchdown, and a fan runs out of the stands and pushes him out of bounds. The officials confer and rule him out of bounds, and the game over.

The fan running out onto the field is something "outside the tactics encountered in professional football. "

Or...Kamara is running for the endzone, and a hanging light falls from the ceiling, he stumbles over it and the ball comes loose and bounces out of bounds....again...something that is "outside the tactics encountered in professional football. "

 

[MSUSousaphone]

There would have to be some connection to the league desperately wanting a team to work on LA or something crazy like a ref or two living in LA or something like that. And no way would that be true.

 

[syracuse saint]

Doesn't the rule say "extremely unfair, or outside the ..."? So, I am not sure why you're only focused on the latter part of the rule. I could argue that it was extremely unfair. It was the job of the head referee to blow the whistle and meet with his crew to discuss the obvious egregious error made by the one referee. The correct protocol was not followed in the case of a personal foul that could have resulted in an ejection, but minimally a personal foul.