The fair catch, that wasn't.

[mannc]

20 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

First, I think we generally agree.

 

Second, I don't know that the situation is unprecedented in the NFL.   No NFL returner ever caught the ball in the end zone held it, made no effort to advance, and then let go of the ball without taking a knee?  Never in 100 years of NFL play?   I'd guess that you're wrong about that.  I'd guess that it happened, sometime.  

 

Third, you're wrong about the first place to look is something similar.  The first place to look is the rules.   And the rules are completely clear and unambiguous on this subject.   The rules say, in some way, that play continues so long as the ball is live.   When it's a dead ball, nothing can happen, but while it's live, all kinds of things can happen.  So the first thing we know is the returner, when he caught the ball, was holding a live ball.  We know that.   The second thing we know is that one way the ball could become a dead ball was if an official blew a whistle and stopped the play.   The official in the end zone certainly did not do that; just the opposite, he was waiting to see what the returner was going to do, because although he was standing motionless in the end zone, so long as he was standing and holding the ball, he was free to try to advance it.   

 

Okay, so the returner is holding a live ball.  He is entitled to make it a dead ball.  How?  The rules say how.   Slide, take a knee.   There is essentially no other way.   One basic premise of interpreting rules is if the ruless explain how to do something, then that is the exclusive way to do it.   There aren't other ways.   So if the returner wanted to make the ball a dead ball, he had to take a knee.

 

What happened next?   He didn't slide or take a knew.   He intentionally tossed it forward.   He tossed a live ball forward.   That's a forward pass, as defined by the rules.  He didn't throw it backward, and he didn't fumble it and have it go forward.  He intentionally threw it forward.   There doesn't have to be a receiver in the area to make it a forward pass.   All he has to do is throw it forward.  So he threw a forward pass, and it is against the rules to throw a forward pass on any play except a play from scrimmage.  Can't do it on a kickoff return, can't do it on a punt return, can't do it on an interception or fumble return.   This was not a play from scrimmage.   So he threw an illegal forward pass.

 

A Buffalo Bill recovered it.  What happens when the defensive team recovers (not intercepts but "recovers") and illegal forward pass in the end zone?   There's a rule for that.   The rule says it's a safety.   

 

So for every step along the way in what happened, there is an unambiguous rule governing the step.   We don't have to look at the Clemson game, although the officials in the Clemson game reach the exact same conclusion I just set forth.  The ball was live, the returner threw an illegal forward pass, the Bills recovered in the end zone.  Safety.

 

The ONLY way that we'd reach a different result would be if there is a rule that says that the official can declare the ball dead because for some reason he thinks the play is over even though nothing in the rules says it's over.   That is, he can declare it dead because he thinks it should be dead.  That's what AlphaDawg says can happen, but there's nothing in the rules that says the official can do that.  The official can blow the whistle, ending the play, but the official closest to the ball didn't blow his whistle, clearly didn't, and I doubt any other official blew his whistle, because they generally defer to the official whose call it is.   

 

Think about this:  on a punt, ball is rolling on the field, return man has run away from the play and the ball is surrounded by members of the kicking team.   Does the official blow his whistle and declare the ball dead?   No.   Never.   It's not a dead ball if it's moving on the ground, and the official doesn't exercise his judgment that since the return man has run away, the ball his dead.   The ball is live until the other team touches it or until it stops moving.   

 

The officials have no discretion to declare the ball dead, and the official in the end zone on that play knew he had no discretion.  He was waiting for an event that would allow him to declare it dead.   Once the return man caught, the ball was live until he took a knee, ran out of bounds, scored a touchdown or was tackled.   It was a live ball, and everyone knew it except the returner.   He threw it forward.   It was an illegal forward pass.   The Bills recovered in the end zone.  It's a safety.  

Almost perfect analysis.  My only quarrel is with the bolded, which is not wrong, just irrelevant.  As soon as the illegal forward pass hit the turf in the Texan's end zone, it was a dead ball and a safety.  The Bills did not have to recover it to make it so.  I'm not sure if it matters whether the ball actually landed in the end zone or whether it's a safety simply because the illegal pass was thrown from the end zone, but this one was both thrown from and landed in the end zone.  

Edited January 7, 2020 by mannc

[Shaw66]

1 minute ago, NoSaint said:

though it then rolls over to a replay system not equipped to handle a play like this. 
 

ruled a turnover and TD you get reviewed and the turnover is overturned. But is the illegal forward pass able to be called there on review?

I don't think so.  This isn't a replay situation.   There was absolutely no debate about what happened.   It's strictly an interpretation of the rules.  

 

I've thought about whether McDermott should have challenged the ruling, claiming that it was a fumble or an illegal forward pass.   An illegal forward pass can be challenged.   The problem is that the referee likely would have ruled that the ball had been declared dead before the ball came out, and that therefore it's not reviewable.   Still it would have forced the officials to take a clear stand on their position that they declared a dead ball even though there is no rule permitting them to do it.  

[NoSaint]

3 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Dawg, I think you're wrong for a good reason that I saw someone give.  The official was standing in the end zone, looking at the returner, waiting for him to do something.   If he had taken off up field and run for a touchdown, what would have happened?   The Bills would have argued that he gave himself up because they saw him old his arms out, and the Bills would have lost that argument.   No chance in the world the refs are going to call a touchback.  As far as the official in the end zone was concern, it was a live ball.   

 

If it's a live ball, the play is responsible for his actions.  As others have pointed out, the guy running unobstructed who drops the ball before crossing the goal line is not credited with a touchdown just because everyone knew that he was about to score.   It's a live ball, and he's responsible for it.  If he drops it early, that's his problem.  

 

As someone else said, if I'm the QB in the victory formation, running out the clock, I take the snap and without taking a knee I turn and flip the ball to the ref, what does the ref do?   He steps out of the way, because it's a live ball.   

 

They're all the same thing.  The kick returner didn't have to catch the ball.  He could have let it fall into the end zone, which would have been an automatic touchback.  But once he touches it, it's a live ball until the play is over.   If he chooses to flip the ball toward the official, well, that's really stupid, but there's no rule that allows the ref to arbitrarily forgive really stupid.  

 

There is a rule that covers the illegal forward pass in the endzone.  If it is recovered by the defense, it's a safety.   There are rules that cover every aspect of that play, there was no ambiguity.   The officials on their own chose not to follow the rules.  

 

As I've said elsewhere, that referee no longer be permitted to officiate NFL games.   He demonstrated a total ignorance both of the specific rules and of the more general notion that he doesn't have any authority to ignore the rules because it thinks it's the right thing to do.  

ultimately, it gets messy if you allow this correction.

 

what if he walks up as if he’s handing it to the ref? What if he then takes off, or a defender gets there before he gets to the ref? Do you say he was clearly walking it to the ref? At what point does the whistle blow on such a play? When he looks at the ref? When he gets kinda close without running?

 

there are specific protocols for a reason. I’m not terribly offended as I do agree his intentions were clear, so there’s a small piece that says “whatever” in the back of my head... But I don’t like one bit that they made the jump to assuming those intentions and adjusting the rules to accommodate. That’s very bad.

Edited January 7, 2020 by NoSaint

[Shaw66]

12 minutes ago, mannc said:

Almost perfect analysis.  My only quarrel is with the bolded, which is not wrong, just irrelevant.  As soon as the illegal forward pass hit the turf in the Texan's end zone, it was a dead ball and a safety.  The Bills did not have to recover it to make it so.  I'm not sure if it matters whether the ball actually landed in the end zone or whether it's a safety simply because the illegal pass was thrown from the end zone, but this one was both thrown from and landed in the end zone.  

I don't know.  I read a rule yesterday, considering all of this, and the rule said the defensive team had to recover it for it to be a safety.   Maybe you're correct.  Whichever is correct, in this case it was a safety.  

[GoBills808]

3 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I don't know.  I read a rule yesterday, considering all of this, and the rule said the defensive team had to recover it for it to be a safety.   Maybe you're correct.  Whichever is correct, in this case it was a safety.  

I believe the point is that once the ball hits the ground it's considered an illegal forward pass, and thus a deadball penalty, and thus a safety due to it occurring in the endzone.

[pennstate10]

7 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I don't think so.  This isn't a replay situation.   There was absolutely no debate about what happened.   It's strictly an interpretation of the rules.  

 

I've thought about whether McDermott should have challenged the ruling, claiming that it was a fumble or an illegal forward pass.   An illegal forward pass can be challenged.   The problem is that the referee likely would have ruled that the ball had been declared dead before the ball came out, and that therefore it's not reviewable.   Still it would have forced the officials to take a clear stand on their position that they declared a dead ball even though there is no rule permitting them to do it.  

This is exactly right.

 

I said at the time that McD should challenge that.  They might say it isnt challengeable, but at least that would have made them think a bit more.  Given the NFL more time to realize that theyre opening a huge Pandoras box.

[Augie]

18 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

ultimately, it gets messy if you allow this correction.

 

what if he walks up as if he’s handing it to the ref? What if he then takes off, or a defender gets there before he gets to the ref? Do you say he was clearly walking it to the ref? At what point does the whistle blow on such a play? When he looks at the ref? When he gets kinda close without running?

 

In this case, it did NOT blow, and that’s what counts. Still a live play. Fact. At what point should it blow? When he touches his knee to the ground, which he did NOT do. 

 

I’m over it, I’m not whining. I’m moving forward, but it was a live ball. I know the TD call was messy, maybe should have been a safety with 2 points and the ball. It was an illegal forward pass in the end zone, like intentional grounding or holding in the EZ. It’s up to them to figure it out, but you can’t just say “never mind, pretend that didn’t happen”. I won’t dig too deep, because it doesn’t matter. It’s over. It DID happen, and they should have gotten it right. They blew it. Bring on free agency, then the draft. 

 

 

.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Augie

[Sig1Hunter]

11 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I believe the point is that once the ball hits the ground it's considered an illegal forward pass, and thus a deadball penalty, and thus a safety due to it occurring in the endzone.

Correct, Bills could intercept it (obviously) before it hits the ground, but once it hits the ground it’s dead and a penalty occurring in the end zone, which equals a safety and a free kick to the Bills.

[Nester]

The ruling was fine. Intent and  the signal was clear.

 

Do not be poor sports

[NoSaint]

1 minute ago, Augie said:

 

In this case, it did NOT blow, and that’s what counts. Still a live play. Fact. At what point should it blow? When he touches his knee to the ground, which he did NOT do. 

 

I’m over it, I’m not whining. I’m moving forward, but it was a live ball. I know the TD call was messy, maybe should have been a safety with 2 points and the ball. It’s up to them to figure it out, but you can’t just say “never mind, pretend that didn’t happen”. I won’t dig too deep, because it doesn’t matter. It’s over. It DID happen, and they should have gotten it right. They blew it. Bring on free agency, then the draft. 

agreed. And my point was that without that bright line act this gets too messy. I’ll sleep fine, cause whatever, I get he was trying to end the play. But it was handled wrong and that sucks.

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, Sig1Hunter said:

Correct, Bills could intercept it (obviously) before it hits the ground, but once it hits the ground it’s dead and a penalty occurring in the end zone, which equals a safety and a free kick to the Bills.

Sort of similar to how intentional grounding in the endzone is a safety

[Jauronimo]

15 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

ultimately, it gets messy if you allow this correction.

 

what if he walks up as if he’s handing it to the ref? What if he then takes off, or a defender gets there before he gets to the ref? Do you say he was clearly walking it to the ref? At what point does the whistle blow on such a play? When he looks at the ref? When he gets kinda close without running?

 

there are specific protocols for a reason. I’m not terribly offended as I do agree his intentions were clear, so there’s a small piece that says “whatever” in the back of my head... But I don’t like one bit that they made the jump to assuming those intentions and adjusting the rules to accommodate. That’s very bad.

Nailed it.  His intentions were clear.  I think we can all agree 100% on that point.  I'm surprised so few of us see eye to eye on the precedent set.

 

If the dude cannot abide (and the dude should abide since by definition, the dude abides) by 3 mother effing rules which govern returns then I think perhaps he is not worth paying millions for his handful of plays per game.   

[Augie]

21 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I don't think so.  This isn't a replay situation.   There was absolutely no debate about what happened.   It's strictly an interpretation of the rules.  

 

I've thought about whether McDermott should have challenged the ruling, claiming that it was a fumble or an illegal forward pass.   An illegal forward pass can be challenged.   The problem is that the referee likely would have ruled that the ball had been declared dead before the ball came out, and that therefore it's not reviewable.   Still it would have forced the officials to take a clear stand on their position that they declared a dead ball even though there is no rule permitting them to do it.  

 

If declared dead, why signal TD, which was the case. 

 

They F’ed up, we got screwed on a crazy play. It’s over. Time to move on. 

[Sig1Hunter]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

Sort of similar to how intentional grounding in the endzone is a safety

Yup, by rule any offensive penalty occurring in the end zone results in a safety.

[BuffaloBill963]

3 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Except you are wrong.  The returner signaled NO RETURN prior to giving the ball up.  He established there would be NO RUN BACK via signal and gestured to the ref to give him the ball.  There were no players within the immediate vicinity of him.  The refs have the ability to make the determination if the player had chosen to give themself up, which they clearly did and was accurate.  Refs have the ability to rule that a player has chosen to give themselves up versus being touched down by contact.  

 

It was absolutely the correct call to remove the TD.  Its not the first time this season a player was ruled to have "given himself up" either.

 

Except the fact refs have the ability to make that determination, and like many rules, its often a judgement call.  

 

Here is what you and others are missing...refs are allowed to make a judgement call on whether a runner has given himself up.  He signaled no return and tried to hand the ball to the ref.  Pretty clear as day that he gave himself up, and refs concurred.  Case closed.  

So you don’t even acknowledge that the ref actually shook his head NO at the Texan player—gave him a heads up that he DID NOT follow any available rule to give himself up. You are wrong and don’t have the humility within you to admit that. Pride and ego at its finest. 

[GoBills808]

Just now, Jauronimo said:

Nailed it.  His intentions were clear.  I think we can all agree 100% on that point.  I'm surprised so few of us see eye to eye on the precedent set.

 

If the dude cannot abide (and the dude should abide since by definition, the dude abides) by 3 mother effing rules which govern returns then I think perhaps he is not worth paying millions for his handful of plays per game.   

Clear intentions are a dime a dozen! Give me an obscure-intentioned MFer who knows the rules any day. He won't cost you games via stupidity.

[Augie]

3 minutes ago, Nester said:

The ruling was fine. Intent and  the signal was clear.

 

Do not be poor sports

 

No, the ruling was WRONG. The intent may have been clear, but it did not fit within the letter of the rules. They got it wrong, but I’m NOT being a poor sport. It’s over, we move on. But it doesn’t mean I can’t point out the obvious.....they got it wrong. No changing that. It happens. 

 

Now, let’s focus on free agency and the draft. 

[Sig1Hunter]

1 minute ago, BuffaloBill963 said:

So you don’t even acknowledge that the ref actually shook his head NO at the Texan player—gave him a heads up that he DID NOT follow any available rule to give himself up. You are wrong and don’t have the humility within you to admit that. Pride and ego at its finest. 

Pride and ego? Or, ignorance? The rules clearly state what the elements of giving yourself up entails. Not attempting to advance the ball is merely one of the two required elements.

[GoBills808]

Just now, Sig1Hunter said:

Pride and ego? Or, ignorance? The rules clearly state what the elements of giving yourself up entails. Not attempting to advance the ball is merely one of the two required elements.

It's very, very obvious in this case. It's not that the 'common sense' argument is so hard to comprehend, it's that the rule is so very clear.

[Shaw66]

17 minutes ago, pennstate10 said:

Yeah, we basically agree.

But please read what I wrote once more.

 

"By that, I mean a KO returner not signaling fair catch, catching a ball in the end zone, not taking a knee,  tossing the ball to the ref, followed by the kicking team recovering ball, and ref signalinig TD."  

 

I bolded the pertinent part.  this is truly unprecedented.

 

Law is the field where precedence is most commonly searched and cited.  There was a dispute about rule interpretation.  The men in black had a different interpretation than the ref on the field.  I think it does make some sense to look for precedents.

 

Still not sure it should be safety or TD.

 

Interesting, I saw a replay.  Early in the discussion, one of the striped refs walk in and just drops a flag.  Not throwing at at a foul (like coach coming off the bench) but just a drop.  Like you see them do when they watch a replay and decide there should be a grounding call.  That makes me think that they re-interpreted the play as an illegal forward pass, but then the men in black convinced them otherwise.

I hear you, but even with that clarification, I don't see how you know it hasn't happened in 100 years of NFL history.  

 

But what the official signaled is irrelevant, in all situations.   The initial signal on any play is just that, initial.   Completion, incompletion, TD signals are made all the time and overturned as the officials further discuss the play.  So what the official signaled is irrelevant to the analysis.  

 

I don't know if you're a lawyer.  I am.  The rules of statutory construction require that you look first to the statute - the rule - and you look beyond it only if the rule isn't clear.   But in this case, all the rules are clear.   Clemson, although interesting and ruled correctly, isn't necessary to the analysis, because the rules are clear.  

 

Finally, there is a rule that says that an illegal forward pass recovered by the defense in the end zone is a safety.  That's what the rule says.  I saw it somewhere, and someone else just referenced it.