Football question:

[KNWVIKING 2.0]

Maybe more of a rant than a question.

Anyone see last nights Packers/Bears game ?

If you did you saw the Bears try a bone headed fake punt that backfired on them. Lovie Smith then threw the challenge flag because he said the Pack had 12 players on the field.

This makes no sense to me. 12 men on the field is a penalty the refs are supposed to catch, no different than a holding call or pass interference. Refs miss many infractions during the game. They can't see everything.
Why is it though that the coach can challenge this one infraction - 12 men on field - and not all missed calls ? Why can't they make them review a Holding penalty that wasn't called ?

I don't understand why the rules committee would allow this to happen. What was their logic for allowing 12 men to be reviewed ?

[Stitch]

No idea, other than they were very emabarrased they missed such an obvious infraction.

Go Eagles!

[RoccoP72]

The 12 men on the field is technically a formation violation. The penalty of 12 men on the field though can ONLY be called if all 12 men are on the field after the snap. Brian Cushing (the 12th man in question) got off in well enough time and probably why the refs did not throw a flag. Violations that occur prior to the snap can be challenged. Just like 12 men on the defensive side, if the offense has an illegal formation the defensive team could technically throw the flag after the snap if nothing was called before. The NFL has attempted to speed the pace of the game a bit and if all penalties can be challenged during the course of a play it would just take too long. A penalty of illegal formation on the offense, 12 men in the huddle or 12 men on the defense are VERY easy plays to review and don't really require a judgment call on the ref's part, just simply seeing if it there were indeed 12 guys on the field when the ball was snapped or if there were too many offense players on the line of scrimmage for example. If you watched a replay of every NFL down, 95% of those plays have some sort of violation being either holding or illegal use of the hands. At some point they just have to draw the line. The real head scratcher was that Lovie challenged the 12 men on the field when his team had something like 4th & 11. EVEN if Lovie won that challenge, it's only a 5 yard penalty and it would be 4th & 6. What are you gonna do fake punt again or go for it on their own 25 yard line?!? I do agree with you Viking to an extent on expanding challenging penalties but not holding. The perfect example of why some penalties should be challenged was the play during the Bear's drive at the end that resulted in their field goal to take the lead. Al Harris was called for illegal contact (making contact with the receiver after 5 yards) on Devin Hester I believe. First off, Hester was behind the line of scrimmage and so was the left guard (so technically the Bears had an illegal formation). So when Hester pretty much ran into the shoulder of Harris and Harris let him go by, it WAS 5 yards from scrimmage but since Hester was illegally a 1/2 yard behind the line to begin with it looked like 5 & 1/2 and not to mention that the contact was nothing to throw a flag to begin with. Those kind of penalties change a game, if no flag was thrown there the Bears would of had 4th down and punted, instead they catch a break and took the lead with 2 minutes remaining. I could go on and on about how bad the Bears organization is, living in Chicago and having to listen to this crap over & over, good thing I'm a Cowboys fan. :D

[KNWVIKING 2.0]

I know why the refs didn't throw the flag, as you said, there were only 11 men on the field.

But I disagree that " Violations that occur prior to the snap can be challenged". An illegal formation is only illegal when the ball is snapped. Prior to the snap, the offense can always do something to correct the situation - call an audible, take a timeout.

I absolutely agree about the blown call on Harris.

Honestly, I don't want them to review potential holding calls or illegal contact & similar judgement calls. I don't want them being able to challenge any potential penalty.

My confusion/frustration is simply that they allow 12 men and possibly other formation infractions to be challenged. In my mind, a penalty is a penalty.

[RoccoP72]

But I disagree that " Violations that occur prior to the snap can be challenged". An illegal formation is only illegal when the ball is snapped. Prior to the snap, the offense can always do something to correct the situation - call an audible, take a timeout.

My wording was a little off because the 12 men penalty can also only be called after the snap. What I refer to prior to the snap is as soon as it is snapped. Depending on what side a penalty like that is called on, it is a 'free play' but those penalties can be looked at as soon as that ball crosses the centers legs and no one on the field is really moving yet making it very easy to spot whether or not the foul was committed. I agree with the thought that a penalty is a penalty, but that can also carry over to baseball where they now can review whether a home run was fair or foul or if it went over the yellow line. Using that mindset some would say that baseball should review all close plays because home runs are not the only thing that cause the outcome of a game. But baseball, just like football want to quicken up there games and not slow them down, but something still needs to be done to make sure that games are decided on the plays on the field and not bad calls by the umpires or refs.

[KNWVIKING 2.0]

But baseball, just like football want to quicken up there games and not slow them down,

Biggest delays in baseball are pitching changes. TV networks want shorter games. IMO, someday MLB - to apease the TV execs - will place a limit on pitching changes.