<\/p>\n
In the story that refuses to completely die, the NFL tried to provide a little more clarity on the operation of a ruling during the Detroit Lions\u2019 Week 6 game against the Kansas City Chiefs.<\/p>\n
The controversy in question has less to do about the call on the field and more to do with whether officials overstepped their boundaries. The Lions ran a trick play that put quarterback Jared Goff in motion and had him as a receiver on a pass from running back David Montgomery. While the play was initially ruled a touchdown, the officials gathered together and decided the play was not legal due to an illegal motion infraction. The touchdown was taken off the board.<\/p>\n
After the game, the lead official Craig Wrolstad said that the New York officiating hub\u2014dubbed \u201cArt McNally GameDay Central\u201d\u2014was not consulted on the play. Lions coach Dan Campbell, however, said he was told otherwise. Campbell said in his postgame press conference, \u201cI know it came from New York.\u201d Later that week, Campbell reiterated that claim during his weekly radio spot on 97.1 The Ticket, saying an on-field official told him the call came from New York.<\/p>\n
The problem here is that GameDay Central, while allowed to step in for certain officiating corrections, would not be allowed to step in to call illegal motion. That is something that must be determined by the on-field officials.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt was not, and I\u2019m not sure who coach Campbell was referring to, but we did not (intervene),\u201d Vincent told Mike Florio of ProFootballTalk. \u201cWe did not assist in that. We didn\u2019t have to. I am part of that. I\u2019m part of GameDay Central on every game. And, Mike, just for clarification purposes here, you heard the officials talking immediately as the play was going on\u2014prior to even the touchdown.\u201d<\/p>\n
So why did it take so long to come to the ruling? Vincent compared it to what you commonly see during intentional grounding rulings: officials needed to confer with each other in order to make sure all the aspects of illegal motion were or were not met.<\/p>\n
\u201dThey\u2019re communicating,\u201c Vincent said. \u201dAnd in this particular case, even though it was a motion\u2014an illegal shift here\u2014when you look at intentional grounding: did the ball make it back to the line of scrimmage? Was there a receiver in the vicinity? Was the quarterback still in the pocket? You can hear the officials gathering\u2014in this particular case, very similar to that. But we didn\u2019t have to get involved in this particular play.\u201c<\/p>\n
That interpretation of the events does match what Wrolstad immediately said after the game, noting that once a quarterback shifts out of the backfield, he leaves one official\u2019s point of view and enters another.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s my job to see if the quarterback stopped initially (behind center),\u201d Wrolstad said. \u201cThe down judge watches the player in motion, and we had to communicate between him, my umpire, and my line judge whether or not he initially stopped at the quarterback position and then whether he stopped after he went in motion out of my view toward the left-hand side of the field. There was a little bit of confusion in our discussion whether he had stopped initially or whether he had stopped at the end (of his motion), and what we were talking about. That\u2019s why the flag came in so late.\u201d<\/p>\n
So the NFL is sticking with their side of the story, which means one of three things:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
NFL vice president of football operations Troy Vincent offered more explanations on the Lions vs. Chiefs trick play ruling.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":36309,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-36308","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-detroit-lions"],"yoast_head":"\n