Video: Lions get hosed by bad call and worse rule

Justin Forsett recorded the longest run in Houston Texans history in their Thanksgiving Day game against the Detroit Lions. It appeared as if Forsett was dropped after a decent gain, but the whistle was not blown and he continued running as everyone else let up. He ended up in the end zone 81-yards later. Watching live and on the initial replay it was clear that Forsett was down. Lions head coach Jim Schwartz immediately threw the red challenge flag, and by rule the Lions were hit with a penalty and it negated any normal TD review. Had Schwartz not thrown the flag, the play would have been automatically reviewed and Forsett would have been ruled down for a 7-yard gain.

We can complain about the officials missing what seemed like an obvious call, but they are encouraged by the league to swallow the whistle on close plays like that. But the rule that negated a review is horrendous. Detroit was also hit with a 15-yard penalty on the kickoff for Schwartz throwing the flag. It is considered an unsportsmanlike penalty. This is the third time this season this has happened in the league.

Ford Field hasn’t booed this loud since Matt Millen was last seen there.

H/T Throw the Flag

  • cabbage

    Just an absurd rule. I saw it happen to Mike Smith last Sunday and it happened to another coach earlier in the season. Can’t figure out why this facet was ever put into the rule book. Were they afraid a coach would just throw the challenge flag for the hell of it and “destroy” the integrity of the game?

  • cabbage

    Jim Boeheim on conference re-alignment, “Like I said, if these guys (the conference commissioners) were running the United States in colonial times, Brazil and Argentina would be states because they have something we need. It’s a great country.”

    Classic

  • cabbage

    Brutal loss for the Lions and the NFL. With everyone watching, they got it wrong.

    • http://thevictoryformation.com Dave K

      That’s a tough loss to swallow. But they had their chance to close it out in regulation and didn’t get the stop they needed. Missed fg in OT too. But yeah, that play makes it harder to accept.

  • cycledan

    Jim Boeheim on conference re-alignment, “Like I said, if these guys (the conference commissioners) were running the United States in colonial times, Brazil and Argentina would be states because they have something we need. It’s a great country.”
    Classic

    Great quote. Missed the game though. Got my bike ride in then had to help with the turkey. Sounds like a totally idiotic rule.

  • A.P.

    hope everybody had a good thanksgiving. Ate early and napped, missed the lions-texans game.

  • cabbage

    How bout them Plowboys?

    At some point Jerry has to take a step back, clean house and let real football people run that team.

  • cabbage

    J E T S

    SUCK

    SUCK

    SUCK

  • Nor Cal Jason

    Yet another missed call and def a missed replay to make it right. “The whole reason the replay rule was initiatted”. Coach has no one to blame but himself on this blunder. Rules are rules. Gotta keep your composure.

  • al

    My take is the officials got it wrong. The actual text of the relevant rules have been quoted elsewhere but in short, the rule says a review cannot be INITIATED if the team that would benefit does something that would delay the next snap (giving the replay official more time to decide).

    But in this case, the review was required by rule and therefore was automatically initiated the moment the ball carrier entered the end zone. The next snap was already being held for the review. From my reading of the quoted rules, there is no provision for stopping an already active review due to subsequent actions. The only result of the thrown challenge flag should have been the 15 yard penalty (note that the rule about incorrectly thrown challenge flags only calls for the 15 yards; the bit about making the play non-reviewable is a separate rule that in my opinion did not apply since the review was already under way by rule.

    Another way to look at it is the review was required by rule and nothing in any of the rules calls for negating that REQUIRED review. The rules only provide for prohibiting a not yet initiated review.