The fair catch, that wasn't.

[dave mcbride]

1 minute ago, Jauronimo said:

Thats the longest cop out I have seen in a while.  

 

ESPN commentators and multiple other media members know that the league dropped the ball here.  Had they kept the ruling on the field it would have automatically been reviewed in NYC to get the call correct.  How and why was the back judge overruled?  Why was protocol abandoned?

 

This many pages in you're just willfully ignorant.  

LOL, Jauronimo. It's not a cop out because if it was, I'd be sheepish. I'm not. In fact, I'm absolutely convinced I'm right about this, which is why I'm bowing out. I'm not going to convince you, and you're certainly not going to convince me. Peace.

[pennstate10]

19 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Tell that to the refs who apply the PI rules.  

 

refs aren’t human, they make mistakes and overlook violations all the time. Like holding for instance. 

so I think it likely that a KO returner at some point has caught the ball and tosses it to official and official signals touchback. Although I can’t point to such a play. 
 

If, in the Bills game, the official caught the ball and signaled touchback, I don’t anyone would have said anything. 
 

BUT , in this game, the official enforced the rule. And then he lost his balls to the men in black. 
 

think of it like holding. A common rules violation often not called. But when it is called and confirmed by TV replay, I’ve never seen an official back off after men in black told him the OL didn’t intend to hold there. Never. 
 

it was poorly handled by the NFL and we haven’t heard the last of this 

[Do The Reich Thing]

22 minutes ago, pennstate10 said:

 

refs aren’t human, they make mistakes and overlook violations all the time. Like holding for instance. 

so I think it likely that a KO returner at some point has caught the ball and tosses it to official and official signals touchback. Although I can’t point to such a play. 
 

If, in the Bills game, the official caught the ball and signaled touchback, I don’t anyone would have said anything. 
 

BUT , in this game, the official enforced the rule. And then he lost his balls to the men in black. 
 

think of it like holding. A common rules violation often not called. But when it is called and confirmed by TV replay, I’ve never seen an official back off after men in black told him the OL didn’t intend to hold there. Never. 
 

it was poorly handled by the NFL and we haven’t heard the last of this 

100% agree with you, but I have seen nothing come out of this... even a complaint from the Bills since.

[4merper4mer]

3 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

Tell that to the refs who apply the PI rules.  

That is a completely different rule and, for obvious reasons, subjective.  The rule on the kickoff and how one gives himself up is objective.

Edited January 6, 2020 by 4merper4mer

[MDH]

On 1/4/2020 at 8:31 PM, peterpan said:

I'm sorry, but no he didn't.  By rule, the only way to clearly give yourself up, is by calling fair catch, or knelling.  I guess he could have laid down and curled up in a ball as well.  

 

By rule, he fumbled. 

 

By rule it was a forward pass and should have been a safety.

 

This whole "intent" thing is ridiculous. I don't care what a player's intent was, when Josh Allen throws a pick that wasn't his intent. You follow the rules of the game and don't judge what a player was intending to do.

[mannc]

3 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

The league REALLY wants teams to NOT return kicks, but they can't eliminate the play entirely the way they revised the rules in 2018. If it's fielded outside the end zone and on the field of play, so be it, but the goal is to radically reduce the return rate.

 

You seem to really want to litigate this and win on some sort of technicality, but there's a concept in law called the rule of reason, and even though it's specifically tied to antitrust law, it applies here. He had no intention of returning it, it was kicked deep in the end zone, he signaled that he wasn't going to return it, and he gave the ball to the ref. No one outside of the craziest of Buffalo fans thinks that the league screwed up here. The person who screwed up was the over-officious ref who didn't adhere to the spirit of the law. 

To illustrate my first point, there's this: "We're all concerned about the safety of the game,” said Green Bay Packers President Mark Murphy, a member of the competition committee. ... Murphy called the kickoff “by far the most dangerous play in the game.” The injury data shows, he said, that players are five times more likely to suffer a concussion on a kickoff than on a play from the line of scrimmage. According to McKay, there were 71 concussions suffered by players on kickoffs over the past three seasons. League leaders have said they will consider eliminating kickoffs from the sport if the play cannot be made safer. Murphy said he is “cautiously optimistic” about the proposed changes. Asked whether it’s possible to make the kickoff safe enough to avoid eliminating it, he said: “Time will tell. But I think so. You’ve got a lot of smart people here that coached a lot of football. I think they realize that this is a dangerous play.” But the changes must have an immediate effect, he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2018/05/02/the-nfl-is-going-to-change-its-kickoff-rules-to-try-to-keep-the-play-in-the-game/

 

 

No link, of course. It's from memory. Man, you guys are laughably litigious about this. 

Show me where the “rule of reason” is incorporated into the NFL rulebook as a whole or in this particular rule.  Does the “rule of reason” also apply to helmet to helmet tackles or technically illegal crackback blocks, as well?  if there is a rule of reason that applies generally, then every rule is subject to the referee’s opinion on any given play, right?  I guess this would also apply to play clock violations too, because who cares about a second or two during an NFL game, right? 

[dave mcbride]

11 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

That is a completely different rule and, for obvious reasons, subjective.  The rule on the kickoff and how one gives himself up is objective.

Bottom line for me: winning an athletic contest through a non-athletic event that has some hazy and recently dramatically altered "rule" attached to it that essentially constitutes a land mine for an unknowing participant is BS and unworthy of real sports competition. Think of George Brett and the pine tar rule. I truly think less of Bills fans who are intent on dying on this hill. 

Just now, mannc said:

Show me where the “rule of reason” is incorporated into the NFL rulebook as a whole or in this particular rule.  Does the “rule of reason” also apply to helmet to helmet tackles or technically illegal crackback blocks, as well?  if there is a rule of reason that applies generally, then every rule is subject to the referee’s opinion on any given play, right?  I guess this would also apply to play clock violations too, because who cares about a second or two during an NFL game, right? 

See my response above.

[mannc]

1 minute ago, dave mcbride said:

Bottom line for me: winning an athletic contest through a non-athletic event that has some hazy and recently dramatically altered "rule" attached to it that essentially constitutes a land mine for an unknowing participant is BS and unworthy of real sports competition. Think of George Brett and the pine tar rule. I truly think less of Bills fans who are intent on dying on this hill. 

See my response above.

I'm not sure which response you're referring to, but i assume you are acknowledging that the NFL rulebook does not expressly adopt this rule of reason concept that applies to US Antitrust law.  You're just saying it should.  Unless I'm missing something...

[GoBills808]

Still waiting to see some evidence of this happening. Shouldn't take this long as it reportedly occurs all the time

3 hours ago, Hsker4life said:

Link?

You'll get no link and you'll like it!

[BillsFan692]

On 1/5/2020 at 2:09 PM, MJS said:

Tre could have gotten up and returned the INT. He got right up and instead of returning it, he ran the opposite direction.

He gave himself up by downing the ball,something the punt returner did not do

[Jauronimo]

10 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Bottom line for me: winning an athletic contest through a non-athletic event that has some hazy and recently dramatically altered "rule" attached to it that essentially constitutes a land mine for an unknowing participant is BS and unworthy of real sports competition. Think of George Brett and the pine tar rule. I truly think less of Bills fans who are intent on dying on this hill. 

See my response above.

I don't know what to think of a person who still maintains that the correct ruling on the field should be based on the officials whim and your own personal level of comfort with winning or losing based on the outcome.  

[dave mcbride]

4 minutes ago, mannc said:

I'm not sure which response you're referring to, but i assume you are acknowledging that the NFL rulebook does not expressly adopt this rule of reason concept that applies to US Antitrust law.  You're just saying it should.  Unless I'm missing something...

The rule of reason is about approaching anti-trust reasonably - that is, if a natural monopoly emerges but doesn't result in restraint of trade/harm to consumers, then let it go. So yes, I do think it applies in a general sense. There are a ton of penalties that go uncalled every game because they're away from the play. And tons of ticky tack stuff doesn't get called because it's, well, ticky tack. Anyone who denies this is either a fool or a knave. Going after a returner for doing the arm sweep followed by the toss to the official on a play that was effectively and obviously dead (7-8 yards deep in the EZ) and in which intent was CLEARLY obvious is beneath sports fans (as opposed to game-y -- in the hardcore boardgaming sense -- rules obsessives always looking to lawyer their way to a better place). 

[MJS]

1 minute ago, BillsFan692 said:

He gave himself up by downing the ball,something the punt returner did not do

He didn't down the ball, though. He was on the ground do to the play. The only indication that he gave himself up was running backwards instead of forwards.

 

Anyways, I believe the returner didn't down the ball either. I just think Tre should have done more to indicate that he was giving himself up.

[GoBills808]

 

@dave mcbride-"Touchdown!"

[GoBills808]

19 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

I don't know what to think of a person who still maintains that the correct ruling on the field should be based on the officials whim and your own personal level of comfort with winning or losing based on the outcome.  

I think we need to go over the rulebook with a fine tooth comb and decide how each one makes people feel. The best way to officiate pro football games is nearly ALWAYS gauging individual fans' personal feelings about the rules.

[reddogblitz]

4 hours ago, SlimShady'sGhost said:

While by rule it should be regarded as a fumble and touchdown, he is not the first kick returner this season to fail to either kneel or call for a fair catch on a kickoff. 

 

Another Rule also says all scoring plays have to be video reviewed.  It was ruled a scoring play on the field.  they changed that rule too. 

[Jauronimo]

30 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

The rule of reason is about approaching anti-trust reasonably - that is, if a natural monopoly emerges but doesn't result in restraint of trade/harm to consumers, then let it go. So yes, I do think it applies in a general sense. There are a ton of penalties that go uncalled every game because they're away from the play. And tons of ticky tack stuff doesn't get called because it's, well, ticky tack. Anyone who denies this is either a fool or a knave. Going after a returner for doing the arm sweep followed by the toss to the official on a play that was effectively and obviously dead (7-8 yards deep in the EZ) and in which intent was CLEARLY obvious is beneath sports fans (as opposed to game-y -- in the hardcore boardgaming sense -- rules obsessives always looking to lawyer their way to a better place). 

Hes OBVIOUSLY down and gave himself up until the day someone changes their mind.   They see the coverage is dogging it down the field because the kick was 7 yards deep in the end zone, and what person in their right mind wouldn't down it 7 yards deep, and after two steps and a balk toward the ref they run it out for a big play...Only to have it called back of course because the ref assumed that the returner intended to take a knee.  Then you have controversy and we need to discuss a mechanism by which to determine when a player is indeed giving themselves up and when they are an eligible runner.

 

Wait, what?  We already have that exact f@#$ing system for that exact f@#$oing reason?!?!?! WELL I'LL BE F@#$ED!!!

Edited January 6, 2020 by Jauronimo

[GoBills808]

Everyone just needs to calm down and use some common sense...you know, like how we do with literally nothing else in society, since forever.

[RichRiderBills]

"Cooler heads shall prevail." Waves hand jedi style.

 

 

 

[T&C]

Not sure if this has been posted... skip to 5:10: