Re: [patriotzip] Re: TV coverage
- The rule 'change' which allowed them to penalize teams for the double time out attempt a la Mike Vrabel was simply no change at all but the discretionary enforcement of the Unsportsmanlike Conduct rule. It was just highlighted much like the infamous "emphasis on defensive holding" penalty also a Plian run-through 'rule.'The officials are supposed to ignore the attempt to call a time-out when none exist and the officials blew that. When they did this they had the option to judge whether the Lions did it in an unsportsman-like attempt or simply an error for which they could be assessed no penalty. Once they stopped play they had effectively given the Lions a free time-out and allowed them to get the 11th man on the field as they only had 10 prior to that which is what caused them to attempt the time-out.Probably no penalty was the right call but without question the refs made a mistake which aided the Lions and I have no idea whether they could have prevented the substitution. There is no penalty for only having 10 men on the field but the advantages for the offense are obvious.As for the announcing crew - that's the price we pay for playng a bad team late in the season - we had the worst of their coverage and broadcast crews.Go Pats!Zip----- Original Message -----From: Don DiamantSent: Monday, December 04, 2006 2:07 PMSubject: RE: [patriotzip] Re: TV coverage
Why do you think we were to blame?
I personally think that they should not only have given them a delay of game penalty but substitutions should not have been permitted. Though I wonder if they can deny substitutions, Ill have to check the rule book on that.
From: patriotzip@yahoogro ups.com [mailto:patriotzip@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of rockmaul74@aol. com
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 12:21 PM
To: patriotzip@yahoogro ups.com
Subject: Re: [patriotzip] Re: TV coverage
imo it should have been defensive delay of game and since we were like on the 4 yard line, half the distance to the goal