The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I've heard both sides. From a Minnesota newspaper:

"... but a wild turn of events with 8:58 remaining ended their hopes of a miracle comeback.

The series began with officials ruling Moss' 23-yard sideline reception as a legal catch even though his left foot appeared to land out of bounds. As Childress watched a video replay, deciding whether to challenge, the Redskins substituted personnel and quickly lined up for another play.
But after Collins fumbled the snap, and Vikings defensive tackle Kevin Williams recovered near midfield, Washington coach Joe Gibbs challenged the call by pointing out the Vikings had 12 men on the field during the quick changeover.

Indeed, replays showed defensive tackle Spencer Johnson was one step away from the sideline at the snap as the Vikings tried to match the Redskins' personnel. Portis' 13-yard touchdown with 5:06 remaining sealed the victory.

Childress berated referee Bill Leavy, noting an NFL rule that requires officials to allow teams to match another team's substitution. According to Childress, officials should not have allowed the Redskins to snap the ball until the Vikings had a chance to complete their substitution.
"My understanding of that rule and all the memos that I've seen is that a guy should get time to match the personnel," Childress said. "It was clear what the intent was. It was a challenge-able call and they wanted to snap it quick. Most of the time when that happens there is no personnel change, but in this case there was."

Childress said the procedure was a "point of emphasis" during offseason discussions.

"It cost us a change of possession and it cost us momentum in a big football game for us," Childress said.

It didn't cost them the game. This one was lost several hours before."

Anyone watch their tape yet? Did we get away with one here?

DarthMonk

Not likely... Collins was screaming a play as he ran down the field. They were no-huddle all the way, basically going into a drill called to get the ball snapped before the opponents could decide to challenge.

I believe that Collins said that they were going with the personel they had on the field at the time, and his concern was that he call a play everyone knew. That tells me that there was no package change, because changing the players would have come with a play call from the sidelines, as well... Childress is grasping at straws.

No matter... the decision to challenge was the coaching call of the year. Whoever saw that was brilliant.

I wouldn't think we would have tried to substitute when we were rushing up to the line to snap the ball. I have it on DVR, but NBC is too busy showing the replay on Moss to show anything on the field.

Childress just blew it. I don't think the Skins would try to switch players and get a quick snap to avoid a reply. Childress just wanted something to complain about because he didn't get his flag out in time.
The funny thing is, Gibbs challenged the play and won. That means the fumbled snap didn't happen and he could still have challenged Moss catch and moved the Redskins back.

That means the fumbled snap didn't happen and he could still have challenged Moss catch and moved the Redskins back.

I was thinking as the ref reversed the call... "I sure hope Childress doesn't think this through, because... hey... get that ball snapped... "

Countertrey wrote:

That means the fumbled snap didn't happen and he could still have challenged Moss catch and moved the Redskins back.

I was thinking as the ref reversed the call... "I sure hope Childress doesn't think this through, because... hey... get that ball snapped... "

He was too busy crying when he should have been thinking.

Smart game-calling by Redskins: get off the next play so the Vikings can't challenge. NO, as CT said, how would any coach change the ackage if they wanted to run a play before the Vikings coach threw the challenge flag????? Incomprehensible!

AND, who could argue 12-men if the Vikings player still had one foot in-bounds?

For comparaion, and just for the record, did anyone compare Joe Gibbs' facial expression -- calm concentration -- against the Vikings coach?

Joe remnds me of a grand-master chess player. He's always working on the next five moves, or plays.

I don't think Childress has an argument. Let's say, as he claims that the Redskins did substitute. If that's the case, as Childress says, the refs should never have let them snap the ball.

In theory that could be some kind of penalty on the Redskins or at least, a no-play. But if so, the play never happens and the fumble never happens.

If he wants the play to count, and the fumble to count, then he has to accept the 12 man penalty as well.

He can't have his no-play and the fumble too...

1niksder wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

That means the fumbled snap didn't happen and he could still have challenged Moss catch and moved the Redskins back.

I was thinking as the ref reversed the call... "I sure hope Childress doesn't think this through, because... hey... get that ball snapped... "

He was too busy crying when he should have been thinking.

I dont think so becuase 12 men was actually a penalty, so in effect there was a play run after the moss catch, but was a penalty on the vikes, so he couldnt at that point challenge the catch... I think.

spenser wrote:

1niksder wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

That means the fumbled snap didn't happen and he could still have challenged Moss catch and moved the Redskins back.

I was thinking as the ref reversed the call... "I sure hope Childress doesn't think this through, because... hey... get that ball snapped... "

He was too busy crying when he should have been thinking.

I dont think so becuase 12 men was actually a penalty, so in effect there was a play run after the moss catch, but was a penalty on the vikes, so he couldnt at that point challenge the catch... I think.

This is also my interpretation.

DarthMonk

DarthMonk wrote:

spenser wrote:

1niksder wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

That means the fumbled snap didn't happen and he could still have challenged Moss catch and moved the Redskins back.

I was thinking as the ref reversed the call... "I sure hope Childress doesn't think this through, because... hey... get that ball snapped... "

He was too busy crying when he should have been thinking.

I dont think so becuase 12 men was actually a penalty, so in effect there was a play run after the moss catch, but was a penalty on the vikes, so he couldnt at that point challenge the catch... I think.

This is also my interpretation.

DarthMonk

There was a penalty of 5 yards but there was no play, or the Skins would have gotten the ball back with a 2nd and 5. They had 5 yards added to where Moss went out of bounds and it was 1st and 5. In other words the play never happened

John Madden got it right. By the way, I loved the way he called the game and his references to the work done by Joe after Sean Taylor's passing.

This is from ProFootballTalk.com

SUBSTITUTION RULES NO SAFE HARBOR FOR VIKES, EITHER

In our most recent post, we explained that the officiating crew in Sunday night's game between the Redskins and the Vikings correctly used replay to determine that the Minnesota defense had twelve men on the field at the commencement of a key momentum-changing play in the game. (Scroll down for more.)

But now we're getting e-mails from readers arguing that the Vikings had 12 men on the field only because they were in the process of making a substitution. Under Rule 5, Section 2, Article 10, the umpire is require to stand over the ball until the referee deems that the defense has had a reasonable time to complete its substitutions.

However, this rule applies only when the offense has been a substitution. We've watched the video, and we've concluded that there were no substitutions made by Washington. Sure, the Redskins were using a different formation. But it was the same players.

So, again, the officials got it right.

and even if the Refs didn't get the call right -- who cares, it's over baby!!!!

I never believe that a play late in the game is the ONLY reason you lose a game. We were ahead 25-0 -- maybe we can find a few plays in there that cost them the game??

How about their inability to run the ball on our defense the whole game -- wonder if that had anything to do with the outcome!

Skeletor wrote:This is from ProFootballTalk.com

SUBSTITUTION RULES NO SAFE HARBOR FOR VIKES, EITHER

In our most recent post, we explained that the officiating crew in Sunday night's game between the Redskins and the Vikings correctly used replay to determine that the Minnesota defense had twelve men on the field at the commencement of a key momentum-changing play in the game. (Scroll down for more.)

But now we're getting e-mails from readers arguing that the Vikings had 12 men on the field only because they were in the process of making a substitution. Under Rule 5, Section 2, Article 10, the umpire is require to stand over the ball until the referee deems that the defense has had a reasonable time to complete its substitutions.

However, this rule applies only when the offense has been a substitution. We've watched the video, and we've concluded that there were no substitutions made by Washington. Sure, the Redskins were using a different formation. But it was the same players.

So, again, the officials got it right.

Nice find from the Skeletor closet.

DarthMonk

DarthMonk wrote:

spenser wrote:

1niksder wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

That means the fumbled snap didn't happen and he could still have challenged Moss catch and moved the Redskins back.

I was thinking as the ref reversed the call... "I sure hope Childress doesn't think this through, because... hey... get that ball snapped... "

He was too busy crying when he should have been thinking.

I dont think so becuase 12 men was actually a penalty, so in effect there was a play run after the moss catch, but was a penalty on the vikes, so he couldnt at that point challenge the catch... I think.

This is also my interpretation.

DarthMonk

Me too but at first I thought they might be able to challenge, after thinking it through I came to a different conclusion. The 12 man penalty could only be called if the ball was snapped, which it was, therefore meaning a play was run.

Skeletor wrote:I don't think Childress has an argument. Let's say, as he claims that the Redskins did substitute. If that's the case, as Childress says, the refs should never have let them snap the ball.

In theory that could be some kind of penalty on the Redskins or at least, a no-play. But if so, the play never happens and the fumble never happens.

If he wants the play to count, and the fumble to count, then he has to accept the 12 man penalty as well.

He can't have his no-play and the fumble too...

Exactly! He can't have it both ways.

1fan4ramsey wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:

spenser wrote:

1niksder wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

That means the fumbled snap didn't happen and he could still have challenged Moss catch and moved the Redskins back.

I was thinking as the ref reversed the call... "I sure hope Childress doesn't think this through, because... hey... get that ball snapped... "

He was too busy crying when he should have been thinking.

I dont think so becuase 12 men was actually a penalty, so in effect there was a play run after the moss catch, but was a penalty on the vikes, so he couldnt at that point challenge the catch... I think.

This is also my interpretation.

DarthMonk

Me too but at first I thought they might be able to challenge, after thinking it through I came to a different conclusion. The 12 man penalty could only be called if the ball was snapped, which it was, therefore meaning a play was run.

2-11-WAS 24 (9:08) 15-T.Collins pass deep left to 89-S.Moss pushed ob at WAS 47 for 23 yards (23-C.Griffin).

At this point Childress can challenge the play by throwing out the red flag before the start of the nexy play. While thinking about it the Skins attempted to run a play

(8:59) 15-T.Collins FUMBLES (Aborted) at WAS 47, RECOVERED by MIN-93-K.Williams at WAS 47. 93-K.Williams to WAS 47 for no gain (61-C.Rabach). Washington challenged the too many players on field ruling, and the play was REVERSED. PENALTY on MIN-97-S.Johnson, Defensive 12 On-field, 5 yards, enforced at WAS 47 - No Play.

Once Gibbs won his challenge the play never happened. Childress at this point can challenge the last play which was the Moss catch.

1niksder wrote:

1fan4ramsey wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:

spenser wrote:

1niksder wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

That means the fumbled snap didn't happen and he could still have challenged Moss catch and moved the Redskins back.

I was thinking as the ref reversed the call... "I sure hope Childress doesn't think this through, because... hey... get that ball snapped... "

He was too busy crying when he should have been thinking.

I dont think so becuase 12 men was actually a penalty, so in effect there was a play run after the moss catch, but was a penalty on the vikes, so he couldnt at that point challenge the catch... I think.

This is also my interpretation.

DarthMonk

Me too but at first I thought they might be able to challenge, after thinking it through I came to a different conclusion. The 12 man penalty could only be called if the ball was snapped, which it was, therefore meaning a play was run.

2-11-WAS 24 (9:08) 15-T.Collins pass deep left to 89-S.Moss pushed ob at WAS 47 for 23 yards (23-C.Griffin).

At this point Childress can challenge the play by throwing out the red flag before the start of the nexy play. While thinking about it the Skins attempted to run a play

(8:59) 15-T.Collins FUMBLES (Aborted) at WAS 47, RECOVERED by MIN-93-K.Williams at WAS 47. 93-K.Williams to WAS 47 for no gain (61-C.Rabach). Washington challenged the too many players on field ruling, and the play was REVERSED. PENALTY on MIN-97-S.Johnson, Defensive 12 On-field, 5 yards, enforced at WAS 47 - No Play.

Once Gibbs won his challenge the play never happened. Childress at this point can challenge the last play which was the Moss catch.

Still a play, just a dead-ball foul. He's trying to have his cake and eat it too.

1niksder wrote:

1fan4ramsey wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:

spenser wrote:

1niksder wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

That means the fumbled snap didn't happen and he could still have challenged Moss catch and moved the Redskins back.

I was thinking as the ref reversed the call... "I sure hope Childress doesn't think this through, because... hey... get that ball snapped... "

He was too busy crying when he should have been thinking.

I dont think so becuase 12 men was actually a penalty, so in effect there was a play run after the moss catch, but was a penalty on the vikes, so he couldnt at that point challenge the catch... I think.

This is also my interpretation.

DarthMonk

Me too but at first I thought they might be able to challenge, after thinking it through I came to a different conclusion. The 12 man penalty could only be called if the ball was snapped, which it was, therefore meaning a play was run.

2-11-WAS 24 (9:08) 15-T.Collins pass deep left to 89-S.Moss pushed ob at WAS 47 for 23 yards (23-C.Griffin).

At this point Childress can challenge the play by throwing out the red flag before the start of the nexy play. While thinking about it the Skins attempted to run a play

(8:59) 15-T.Collins FUMBLES (Aborted) at WAS 47, RECOVERED by MIN-93-K.Williams at WAS 47. 93-K.Williams to WAS 47 for no gain (61-C.Rabach). Washington challenged the too many players on field ruling, and the play was REVERSED. PENALTY on MIN-97-S.Johnson, Defensive 12 On-field, 5 yards, enforced at WAS 47 - No Play.

Once Gibbs won his challenge the play never happened. Childress at this point can challenge the last play which was the Moss catch.

He could have. But Moss clearly got his right foot down and then dragged his left foot before going out of bonds. That my friends is a catch. It would have used up the Vikes last challenge and cost a time out.

By the way, the Vikes used the first one on the Sellers' TD? that was overturned because the the ref had X-ray vision and could see through Sellers' arm. His arm was blocking a part of the ball that could have been over the plane. Was it? I don't know. And neither did the ref that overturned the call, because there was no way of knowing. Unless you are Superman!

Sellers should have had the ball up higher! And there wouldn't have been any doubt.

I'm going to say that we didn't substitute on that play for two reasons... one, we were trying to snap the ball quickly, and the one deterrent to that would have been the Skins substituting... also, since the Skins challenged that the Vikes had 12 men on the field, I am sure the refs looked to see if the Skins had substituted... one way to possibly tell is to look at the play before, and see if you can see all the Skins players that were on the field, then to look at the players on the field when the ball was snapped, just go back and look at the replay... I don't have Tivo, or else I would try to see...

Honestly it was nice to be the beneficiary to a review. Usually the Skins are losing those reviews.

We won that is what counts most.

Brad Childress admitted Monday he was no longer certain the officials made a mistake during a critical sequence against Washington on Sunday.

By JUDD ZULGAD, Star Tribune

Last update: December 24, 2007 - 9:22 PM


http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/12806547.html

JSPB22 wrote:

1niksder wrote:Washington challenged the too many players on field ruling, and the play was REVERSED. PENALTY on MIN-97-S.Johnson, Defensive 12 On-field, 5 yards, enforced at WAS 47 - No Play.

Once Gibbs won his challenge the play never happened. Childress at this point can challenge the last play which was the Moss catch.

Still a play, just a dead-ball foul. He's trying to have his cake and eat it too.[/quote]
A dead ball foul would result in yardage being added to the end of the play, again that would have given the Skin a different down and difference than the 1st and 5. On a dead ball foul the would have gotten the 5 yards but it woul have been 1st and 10.

The NFL calls it a No-Play, you guys don't get it and neither did Childress. Gibbs got it and that's all that matters.

Quite simple really

Dead ball = move the ball forward or backwards (depending on who did what) down and distance won't change, just field postion.

In this case the result of the "non-play" was change a field position and down and distance.

Dead-ball fouls happen after a play or before the snap.

Gibbs challenge reversed the play not the call (there was no call), this is one of the few times the red flag can be used to challenge a missed called.
When the challenge was reversed it resulted in a no play. The refs missed a call that would only be a foul "if the ball is snapped".

If the refs had caught the infraction themselves it would have given Washington the ball back and it would have been 2nd and 5 once the penalty was imposed, even if the player had stayed on the field and been in on the play.

The play was reversed because the refs missed the call, meaning it never happened. Noramally this would happen say a defensive lineman jumped off-sides, or a o- linemean moves too soon. The Ref blows the whistle and stops the play BEFORE there is a outcome to the play, yardage is given (depending on the who the call is on) and the down and distance is adjusted accordingly (5 yards on the offense would mean 1st and 15, 5 yards on the would mean 1st and 5) either way it would be NO-PLAY.

1niksder wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

1niksder wrote:Washington challenged the too many players on field ruling, and the play was REVERSED. PENALTY on MIN-97-S.Johnson, Defensive 12 On-field, 5 yards, enforced at WAS 47 - No Play.
Once Gibbs won his challenge the play never happened. Childress at this point can challenge the last play which was the Moss catch.

Still a play, just a dead-ball foul. He's trying to have his cake and eat it too.

A dead ball foul would result in yardage being added to the end of the play, again that would have given the Skin a different down and difference than the 1st and 5. On a dead ball foul the would have gotten the 5 yards but it woul have been 1st and 10.

The NFL calls it a No-Play, you guys don't get it and neither did Childress. Gibbs got it and that's all that matters.

Quite simple really

Dead ball = move the ball forward or backwards (depending on who did what) down and distance won't change, just field postion.

In this case the result of the "non-play" was change a field position and down and distance.

Dead-ball fouls happen after a play or before the snap.

Gibbs challenge reversed the play not the call (there was no call), this is one of the few times the red flag can be used to challenge a missed called.
When the challenge was reversed it resulted in a no play. The refs missed a call that would only be a foul "if the ball is snapped".

If the refs had caught the infraction themselves it would have given Washington the ball back and it would have been 2nd and 5 once the penalty was imposed, even if the player had stayed on the field and been in on the play.

The play was reversed because the refs missed the call, meaning it never happened. Noramally this would happen say a defensive lineman jumped off-sides, or a o- linemean moves too soon. The Ref blows the whistle and stops the play BEFORE there is a outcome to the play, yardage is given (depending on the who the call is on) and the down and distance is adjusted accordingly (5 yards on the offense would mean 1st and 15, 5 yards on the would mean 1st and 5) either way it would be NO-PLAY.

Actually, it was 1st and 5 after the penalty for 12 men on the field, but you're right it was not a dead ball foul. It was a penalty after the play. Still Childress could not then go back and review the previous play, which was my original point.