The fair catch, that wasn't.

[Livinginthepast]

30 minutes ago, PetermansRedemption said:

It shouldn’t. It’s not a valid fair catch signal. The rules do spell out what is a valid fair catch signal. So if the waiving of the arms is what constitutes giving himself up he should have at least gotten flagged for an invalid fair catch signal IMO. 

Exactly, Maybe not a TD for us, but at least a penalty for a bogus fair catch or not being clear on giving himself up. That TD would have broken the Texans and the refs knew that, so instead of being their usually ticky tack selves, they decided for the good of the ratings they would reverse the call which was probably correct. But then strangely they decided to be ticky tack in OT with us on the blindside call. Such BS!!

Edited January 5, 2020 by Livinginthepast

[Real McClappy]

57 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Yes, the Officials Took the Game Away from the Bills

 

Yes, you have to win the game on the field, but the game is supposed to be officiated in a way that gives each team a fair chance to win.  That did not happen in the Bills 22-19 overtime loss at Houston in the wildcard playoff round of the 2019 season.

 

The Bills were leading 13-0 and kicked off to open the second half.  Houston’s kick returner caught the ball in the end zone and made no attempt to run.  The official in the end zone continued to watch him, waiting for him either to begin running or to give himself and take the touchback.  The returner did neither.  Instead, he tossed the ball on the ground in the end zone.  The Bills picked up the ball, and the official signaled touchdown. 

 

After discussion, the referee ruled that the kick returner “intended” to give himself up and that therefore the Texans were entitled to the touchback.

 

The ruling has no support whatsoever in the rules of football.  The “intentions” of a player are not relevant, and the player’s ignorance of the rules are not relevant.   If they were, the personal foul called against Cody Ford in overtime that cost the Bills a shot at a game winning field goal should have been overturned.   After all, either Ford didn’t know the rule or didn’t intend to violate it, so why should the Bills be penalized for what their player did when Houston wasn’t?

 

Here’s the relevant part of the rule:

 

Dead Ball

Article 1: Dead Ball Declared. An official shall declare the ball dead and the down ended:

(e) when a runner is out of bounds, or declares himself down by falling to the ground, or kneeling, and making no effort to advance;

 

That’s the rule.  Unless and until the runner does what the rule says, the ball is not dead.   He didn’t fall to the ground and he didn’t kneel, and the official properly waited for him.   The runner chose to drop the ball to the ground. 

 

Did the runner intend to take a touchback?   Almost certainly he did, but the rule doesn’t say the ball is dead when he drops the ball on the ground, and it doesn’t say the ball is dead when the running back intends for it to be dead. 

 

It was a live ball.  When the Bills recovered, the official properly signaled touchdown. 

 

There’s an obvious and instructive parallel.   Until recently, the rule on kickoffs had been that the ball is a free ball after the kick once it traveled ten yards.   A ball kicked all the way to the end zone could be recovered by the kicking team for a touchdown.   The recent rule change limited the kicking team to recovering the ball in the field of play, but once the ball reaches the end zone a touchback will be declared unless the return man touches it.  

 

Before the rule change, every few years we would see a kick returner who didn’t understand the rules simply let the ball come to rest in the end zone, assuming his team would get a touchback.  If the kicking team recovered it, it was a touchdown.  I do not believe there ever was such a situation in an NFL game when the officials declared no touchdown because the returner didn’t know the rule or “intended” to take the touchback.  His knowledge of the rules or his intention were irrelevant.  It was an egregious mistake by the kick returner, and it cost his team six points.

 

What did kick returners do before the rule change?  They caught the ball and took a knee.  Everyone knew that.

 

The situation in the Bills game was identical.   If the kick returner wanted to give himself up, he had to take a knee.  The official looked at him as if to say “hey, are you going to take a knee?”   He didn’t.   He dropped the ball.   That’s a fumble.  The Bills recovered.  That’s a touchdown. 

 

There was no ambiguity.   All that happened is that the officials decided it would be unfortunate to penalize an ignorant player.  When did that become a rule?

 

How about a guy wearing number 72 coming into the game and, not knowing the rule, does not tell the officials that he will line up on the end of the line.  When he catches the touchdown pass, do the officials award the touchdown because the player didn’t know he was supposed to check in or because he “intended” to?  Of course not. 

 

Ignorance of the rules does not excuse players’ actions on the field. 

 

This wasn’t a case where the official missed something.  The play was completely in the open; everyone could see what happened, and everyone could see that the player did not give himself up in accordance with the rules.  The official didn’t misunderstand what was happening; he did not whistle the ball dead because the ball wasn’t dead.  It was a live ball, lying on the field for anyone to recover.   The Bills recovered it. 

 

That referee should not be permitted to officiate another NFL game. 

 

Thanks Boss!

[SinceThe70s]

6 minutes ago, The Jokeman said:

Yeah that free 1st down hurt. You also forget the holding call on Siran that we never saw a replay for.

 

Unless I'm mistaken, Houston got called for 4 penalties: unsportsmanlike (off-setting), two false starts by Tunsil and a delay of game (intentional?) on a punt. Did I miss any?

 

No in play penalties?  I'm not a conspiracy theorist but how is that possible? Especially for a team that was getting dominated for over a half?

 

 

[dubs]

I’ve seen guys do the arms out thing all the time. Difference is that they always let the ball land in the end zone and the play is blown dead immediately. I’ve actually never seen a guy do the arms out thing then catch the ball. 
 

letter of the law - that was probably a fumble and should have been a bills TD. 
 

spirit - he clearly was giving up the play and should have been a touchback. 
 

since when does the NFL run the league by intentions and not the strict rules?  Food for thought.  

The more I think about it, the more I think the bills got totally phucked on that play too. Ugh. 

[PetermansRedemption]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

Yes, the Officials Took the Game Away from the Bills

 

Yes, you have to win the game on the field, but the game is supposed to be officiated in a way that gives each team a fair chance to win.  That did not happen in the Bills 22-19 overtime loss at Houston in the wildcard playoff round of the 2019 season.

 

The Bills were leading 13-0 and kicked off to open the second half.  Houston’s kick returner caught the ball in the end zone and made no attempt to run.  The official in the end zone continued to watch him, waiting for him either to begin running or to give himself and take the touchback.  The returner did neither.  Instead, he tossed the ball on the ground in the end zone.  The Bills picked up the ball, and the official signaled touchdown. 

 

After discussion, the referee ruled that the kick returner “intended” to give himself up and that therefore the Texans were entitled to the touchback.

 

The ruling has no support whatsoever in the rules of football.  The “intentions” of a player are not relevant, and the player’s ignorance of the rules are not relevant.   If they were, the personal foul called against Cody Ford in overtime that cost the Bills a shot at a game winning field goal should have been overturned.   After all, either Ford didn’t know the rule or didn’t intend to violate it, so why should the Bills be penalized for what their player did when Houston wasn’t?

 

Here’s the relevant part of the rule:

 

Dead Ball

Article 1: Dead Ball Declared. An official shall declare the ball dead and the down ended:

(e) when a runner is out of bounds, or declares himself down by falling to the ground, or kneeling, and making no effort to advance;

 

That’s the rule.  Unless and until the runner does what the rule says, the ball is not dead.   He didn’t fall to the ground and he didn’t kneel, and the official properly waited for him.   The runner chose to drop the ball to the ground. 

 

Did the runner intend to take a touchback?   Almost certainly he did, but the rule doesn’t say the ball is dead when he drops the ball on the ground, and it doesn’t say the ball is dead when the running back intends for it to be dead. 

 

It was a live ball.  When the Bills recovered, the official properly signaled touchdown. 

 

There’s an obvious and instructive parallel.   Until recently, the rule on kickoffs had been that the ball is a free ball after the kick once it traveled ten yards.   A ball kicked all the way to the end zone could be recovered by the kicking team for a touchdown.   The recent rule change limited the kicking team to recovering the ball in the field of play, but once the ball reaches the end zone a touchback will be declared unless the return man touches it.  

 

Before the rule change, every few years we would see a kick returner who didn’t understand the rules simply let the ball come to rest in the end zone, assuming his team would get a touchback.  If the kicking team recovered it, it was a touchdown.  I do not believe there ever was such a situation in an NFL game when the officials declared no touchdown because the returner didn’t know the rule or “intended” to take the touchback.  His knowledge of the rules or his intention were irrelevant.  It was an egregious mistake by the kick returner, and it cost his team six points.

 

What did kick returners do before the rule change?  They caught the ball and took a knee.  Everyone knew that.

 

The situation in the Bills game was identical.   If the kick returner wanted to give himself up, he had to take a knee.  The official looked at him as if to say “hey, are you going to take a knee?”   He didn’t.   He dropped the ball.   That’s a fumble.  The Bills recovered.  That’s a touchdown. 

 

There was no ambiguity.   All that happened is that the officials decided it would be unfortunate to penalize an ignorant player.  When did that become a rule?

 

How about a guy wearing number 72 coming into the game and, not knowing the rule, does not tell the officials that he will line up on the end of the line.  When he catches the touchdown pass, do the officials award the touchdown because the player didn’t know he was supposed to check in or because he “intended” to?  Of course not. 

 

Ignorance of the rules does not excuse players’ actions on the field. 

 

This wasn’t a case where the official missed something.  The play was completely in the open; everyone could see what happened, and everyone could see that the player did not give himself up in accordance with the rules.  The official didn’t misunderstand what was happening; he did not whistle the ball dead because the ball wasn’t dead.  It was a live ball, lying on the field for anyone to recover.   The Bills recovered it. 

 

That referee should not be permitted to officiate another NFL game. 

 

This, right here, needs to be pinned to the first post. I can’t find much to refute this post. Pretty much my exact understanding of the play as well. 

8 minutes ago, dubs said:

I’ve seen guys do the arms out thing all the time. Difference is that they always let the ball land in the end zone and the play is blown dead immediately. I’ve actually never seen a guy do the arms out thing then catch the ball. 
 

letter of the law - that was probably a fumble and should have been a bills TD. 
 

spirit - he clearly was giving up the play and should have been a touchback. 
 

since when does the NFL run the league by intentions and not the strict rules?  Food for thought.  

The more I think about it, the more I think the bills got totally phucked on that play too. Ugh. 

Most certainly. This game isn’t based on intentions. Blow a QB’s fumble dead because he “intended” to throw it forward for a forward pass? Blow a runners fumble dead because he “intended” to take a knee. No fumble on a punt because he “intended” to catch the ball instead of muff it. How about no hands to the face penalties because the player “intended” to put his hands to the defenders chest and not helmet. It’s just idiotic. A players intentions have nothing to do with rules. If you are giving yourself up, give yourself up. Fall to the ground, take a knee. On a kneel down is the play dead if the QB flips the ball away instead of taking a knee? His intention is clearly to run the clock. You can’t have a games rules based on players intentions. 

[BullBuchanan]

48 minutes ago, dbmu1977 said:

The old ref that made this call and a couple other crazy calls needs to retire

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

 

 

That referee should not be permitted to officiate another NFL game. 

 

 

Unless I'm mistaken the Referee called the touchdown and the league officials had him overturn it, which is their right, given it's technically a turnover. I'm assuming that's who those guys were, anyway.

[LABILLBACKER]

3 hours ago, suorangefan4 said:

 

Houston just relied on a BS blindside block rule to win.

 

Why is blocking a guy while coming back to your endzone an automatic penalty? He blocked him like any normal legal block would look facing the other way.

The Ford penalty was the worst call of the game. Terrible call. The interpretation of the rule is wrong.  Ford was square to him and he had full eye contact with Ford. Routine block. Cost us the game. 

[GoBills808]

4 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

 

 

Unless I'm mistaken the Referee called the touchdown and the league officials had him overturn it, which is their right, given it's technically a turnover. I'm assuming that's who those guys were, anyway.

Should have triggered a replay, being both a turnover and a scoring play

[fan_in_tx]

1 hour ago, KD in CA said:

Come on.

 

Stop 3d and 18 and we might be discussing next week’s game.

This should have been 3rd and 23 players were pointing to the clock which expired before the play began.

[4merper4mer]

They simply made an arbitrary decision to not enforce a rule.  That's not good.

[The Jokeman]

ESPN just had a great discussion on this. The rule clearly states a player must fal to ground or kneel AND make no effort to advance. The ref called it based on the rulebook but was superceded by off field officials who interpreted the player's action. Yet Tim Hasselbeck stated in victory formation the QB has to take a knee before passing it to a ref etc. We got hosed on this one and now I'm angrier than before.

[Reed83HOF]

 

[mannc]

3 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said:

 

Great.  I can’t wait for the apology from the league.

[The Jokeman]

1 minute ago, mannc said:

Great.  I can’t wait for the apology from the league.

We won't get that, they don't want to admit guilt on this it will swept under the carpet and tile be rewritten next year and most people will forget this ever happened.

[mannc]

2 hours ago, BillsfaninSB said:

A super bowl caliber officiating team thought it was a TD.  It should have been a TD.  The kickoff team knew right away the guy messed up. 

The ref knew right away too, because he declined to catch the ball when the returner tossed it to him.  He was watching to see if the return man signaled a fair catch, and when he didn’t see it, he treated it as a live ball, as the rule requires.  

[DCOrange]

18 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said:

 

I think it’s technically a safety rather than a TD, but yeah, the NFL just flat out chose not to enforce their rules there because they didn’t want people to complain about the officials letting Buffalo score on that. 

Edited January 5, 2020 by DCOrange

[The Jokeman]

10 minutes ago, DCOrange said:

I think it’s technically a safety rather than a TD, but yeah, the NFL just flat out chose not to enforce their rules there because they didn’t want people to complain about the officials letting Buffalo score on that. 

How is it a safety? The ball didn't go out of bounds from inside the end zone. It was a forward moving fumble like Allen's.

[DCOrange]

3 minutes ago, The Jokeman said:

How is it a safety? The ball didn't go out of bounds from inside the end zone. It was a forward moving fumble like Allen's.

An intentional forward moving fumble is an illegal forward pass and is dead the second it hits the ground so no TD. 

[Boatdrinks]

15 hours ago, RobbRiddick said:

If you need to rely on a BS call like that then you don't deserve to be there in the first place. Even at the time I thought I hope they overturn it because that's all that will be talked about after the game. Rather we won it fairly, sadly they didn't!

Rules are in the book for a reason, and attention to detail should be admired not scorned. The Bills ST players knew it was a TD and reacted to the play accordingly. If a Bill had done that on a KO it would have been called a TD for the Texans and it would be pointed out incessantly on ESPN etc. 

Edited January 5, 2020 by Boatdrinks

[sven233]

It's real simple...... 

 

By NFL rules the way they are written, this was a TD/Safety depending on if it was considered a fumble of illegal forward pass.

 

By any measure of common sense, this was a touchback.

 

I know, and most everyone knows, what the guy was doing, but, BY RULE, that should have been a TD or Safety.  Regardless of how stupid it would have been, the Bills were robbed of points.

Edited January 5, 2020 by sven233