Other games week 12 (including Thanksgiving)

[pbmax]

When the NFL announced they would automatically review scoring plays they also announced the result if a coach threw a challenge flag anyway. I remember discussing it at the time, here or somewhere else.

I think there was also some talk about penalties for challenging other plays that are not reviewable. Coaches have been "picking up" challenge flags for years, after the refs explain that a particular play can not be challenged. This slows down the game, and some felt it was a tactic used by some coaches to disrupt momentum, give their team a breather, or just take a moment to regroup.

The NFL decided it was time for coaches to know the rules and suffer consequences when they don't. I don't have a problem with that. I think assessing a penalty for it is totally appropriate. I'm not quite sure that it makes sense to deny a team the opportunity to benefit from review for challenging an automatically reviewed scoring play. I am unable to come up with any reason for that result.

I wonder if coaches could still get an advisory opinion from the Ref before throwing the flag?

The delay of game aspect (essentially an extra timeout) is an obvious fix. But the lack of review after an automatic review play is hard to grasp. I thought perhaps it was a further attempt to reduce official timeouts, but as I said earlier I expect that teams are allowed to substitute players during an automatic review already, so nothing is gained.

Might the difficulty be a problematic one of adding a 15 yard penalty to certain challenge outcomes but that's just throwing something up against the wall? A challenge penally is a dead ball foul so it has to be enforced, but I am struggling coming up with a scenario where punishing the premature flagger is impossible.

[pbmax]

If you are talking about Romo's talent, then I agree with you.

He's not Favre. But his O line has been a mess for a couple of years now and he looks worse as it plays worse. Their previously vaunted running game is a joke (does anyone remember a team that went from being very good at running to this bad so fast?) and Witten is no longer the same Witten and he has been hurt for significant periods.

Bryant is an undeniable talent but doesn't dominate games or opponents regularly. Austin is a fine second option. I think its a leaky ship of an offense that makes him look worse and his coach and GM aren't doing him any favors.

[Cheesehead Craig]

He's not Favre. But his O line has been a mess for a couple of years now and he looks worse as it look plays worse. Their previously vaunted running game is a joke (does anyone remember a team that went from being very good at running to this bad so fast?) and Witten is no longer the same Witten and he has been hurt for significant periods.

Bryant is an undeniable talent but doesn't dominate games or opponents regularly. Austin is a fine second option. I think its a leaky ship of an offense that makes him look worse and his coach and GM aren't doing him any favors.

They showed that stat in the game where he dropped back 36 times and was hit 13 of them. Guy is getting killed behind just an atrocious OL. PB is right that Bryant is talented but lacks it in between the ears. Otherwise he has absolute junk to throw to when Austin went down.

[channtheman]

Let us not forget that it was Schvantz, in the SF game last year, who admonished the opposing coach to "know the rules."

Haha, very true. In regards to not being able to benefit from an automatic review after challenging a non-challengable play, I think the rule is dumb, BUT we can't forget that the head coach makes the choice to throw the flag. Most of these guys make a few million dollars a year. If they are so stupid they can't review the rule changes each year and contain their frustration for 5 seconds and realize it will be automatically reviewed, they deserve to get screwed.