Should season ticket holders protest?

[Billl]

1 hour ago, GoBills808 said:

Foul on offense in the endzone is a safety 

It’s not, though.  At least that’s not the intent of the rule.  That rule in meant to refer to the team that snapped the ball.  As in a hold in the endzone or intentional grounding in the endzone because if the player with the ball went down in that situation it would be a safety.  In the end, common sense has to apply.  It’s simply not possible to write a perfect rule book, and you don’t start spontaneously enforcing something one way during the playoffs after it’s been enforced a different way all season long.

 

Sports are meant to be settled on the field for our entertainment.  There is nothing sportsmanlike nor entertaining about deciding a game via procedural interpretations of an imperfect rule book that never attempted to legislate this situation.

[wagon127]

7 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

I do not care at all how you would prefer to score or how comfortable you are winning by a TD scored by a correct interpretation of the rules.  I don't care if we play the 16 games against the 2019 Bengals if we win the super bowl.

 

I swear most of you won't be happy unless we go 19-0 winning by 30 every game and decline every penalty called in our favor.

None of what you said about me is true. Before the return man "fumbles the ball" the bills sent 3 extra guys on the field before the touchdown was scored. Correct interpretation of the rules would say "too many men on the field." Probably because everybody but the one referee thought the play was over. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by wagon127

[K-9]

58 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

I take no consolation in a rule change as soon as the super bowl is over.  I have zero doubt they will immediately shore up the kickoff rule and blindside block rule and we will still be looking for our first playoff win in 26 years.

 

Why have a rule book if its so obviously based in silliness that referees can disregard written regulations and hand down common sense rulings after 2 minutes of deliberation?  That officiating crew undermined the integrity of the game.  They went wildly off the reservation and the precedent set is irresponsible at best. 

 

I must be a moron because I'm one of the 3 crazy #######s who cares that officials now have the power to disregard rules and make calls based on what they think was supposed to happen.  Nothing can go wrong there.  Its not like officials have a problem consistently and appropriately administering the rules they actually choose to observe.  Nope, nothing to see here.

There IS no consolation.

 

If the overturned TD and blindside block penalty were the sole reasons we lost, perhaps I’d be more outraged. But there were approximately 65 other plays on both sides of the ball that had a direct bearing on the outcome as well. 
 

I just can’t agree with your take on the enormity of the that two minute discussion or the slippery slope aspect of it as well. I feel the officials had more justified cause to overturn the call on the field than they do in most other reviews. We can agree to disagree and move on. 

[Augie]

2 minutes ago, Billl said:

It’s not, though.  At least that’s not the intent of the rule.  That rule in meant to refer to the team that snapped the ball.  As in a hold in the endzone or intentional grounding in the endzone because if the player with the ball went down in that situation it would be a safety.  In the end, common sense has to apply.  It’s simply not possible to write a perfect rule book, and you don’t start spontaneously enforcing something one way during the playoffs after it’s been enforced a different way all season long.

 

Sports are meant to be settled on the field for our entertainment.  There is nothing sportsmanlike nor entertaining about deciding a game via procedural interpretations of an imperfect rule book that never attempted to legislate this situation.

 

Irrelevant. The rule is the rule. Enforce it. What does it say in black and white? That’s all that counts. 

 

I’m not whining, I’m moving on, but this is a fact: Refs should NOT call a game based upon perceived intent. 

 

I’m a “what does it say in writing” guy. That’s the only way to keep it clean. Sometimes you win, sometimes you get screwed. They got this wrong. Period. Now I’ll watch some playoffs and move on to FA. 

[Jauronimo]

1 minute ago, Billl said:

It’s not, though.  At least that’s not the intent of the rule.  That rule in meant to refer to the team that snapped the ball.  As in a hold in the endzone or intentional grounding in the endzone because if the player with the ball went down in that situation it would be a safety.  In the end, common sense has to apply.  It’s simply not possible to write a perfect rule book, and you don’t start spontaneously enforcing something one way during the playoffs after it’s been enforced a different way all season long.

 

Sports are meant to be settled on the field for our entertainment.  There is nothing sportsmanlike nor entertaining about deciding a game via procedural interpretations of an imperfect rule book that never attempted to legislate this situation.

Its common sense to know the rules of your profession especially when they are few and cut and dry.  Its common sense to understand failure to do so often results in undesirable outcomes.  Ignorance is rarely a viable defense.  

 

No one ever asked for a perfect rule book but I do expect the one we got to be observed. Especially when it 100% covers the events that transpired.

 

I'm still going to need one of you to show how often returners have committed the same offense as I have seen ZERO proof.  This idea is rather important to your point.

[loyal2dagame]

I'm a season ticket holder and this is silly.  Lawsuits?  Protests?  This society has jumped the shark. 

We are all doomed. 

[Jauronimo]

1 minute ago, K-9 said:

There IS no consolation.

 

If the overturned TD and blindside block penalty were the sole reasons we lost, perhaps I’d be more outraged. But there were approximately 65 other plays on both sides of the ball that had a direct bearing on the outcome as well. 
 

I just can’t agree with your take on the enormity of the that two minute discussion or the slippery slope aspect of it as well. I feel the officials had more justified cause to overturn the call on the field than they do in most other reviews. We can agree to disagree and move on. 

There are always 65 other plays.  No one play determines a game but that doesnt mean we get to toss out the rules.

 

2 minutes, 20 minutes, 5 seconds.  Introducing common sense which contradicts the rules as defined has no bounds.  If we can disregard what is written in favor of common sense which is previously undocumented then where does it end?  Why would this power be limited to kickoffs with outcomes that make some people uncomfortable?

[K-9]

19 minutes ago, Turk71 said:

  It was obvious to everyone that Mike Gillislie had no intention of returning the kickoff that just laid in the endzone while he stayed away from it; the td was awarded to the Jets anyway, weird huh? Were you apoplectic then?

  Curious, what was the one of two things required that the Texans returner did? I didn't see a fair catch or a kneel down, either one of which would have been all that is required.

The returner gave the safe signal indicating no intention of returning it. That’s a requirement when fielding a kickoff in the endzone under the modified kickoff rules enacted to better protect blockers. That’s the first requirement. The second is to leave the ball alone. He didn’t do that, obviously. 

 

Since the Gillislie play occurred before the modified rules were enacted, it really has no relevance to the current day issue. But yeah, I was mad about that play since Gillislie should have been more aware. 
 

 

[Meatloaf63]

13 minutes ago, Billl said:

It’s not, though.  At least that’s not the intent of the rule.  That rule in meant to refer to the team that snapped the ball.  As in a hold in the endzone or intentional grounding in the endzone because if the player with the ball went down in that situation it would be a safety.  In the end, common sense has to apply.  It’s simply not possible to write a perfect rule book, and you don’t start spontaneously enforcing something one way during the playoffs after it’s been enforced a different way all season long.

 

Sports are meant to be settled on the field for our entertainment.  There is nothing sportsmanlike nor entertaining about deciding a game via procedural interpretations of an imperfect rule book that never attempted to legislate this situation.

Wrong, the rules states you can’t make a forward pass after a change in possession. It is the intent that a forward pass after change of possession is illegal and it also states it is a safety. You can choose to ignore the rules, but the rule is black and white, He did not by the rule give himself up, no argument there, he did commit an illegal forward pass in the end zone, black and white rule there too. The only by the rule out come is a safety. The player was lazy and didn’t follow the written and accepted rules. There is no other interpretation. You don’t get to pick and choose which rules you want to follow, you have to change them in order for that.

5 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

There are always 65 other plays.  No one play determines a game but that doesnt mean we get to toss out the rules.

 

2 minutes, 20 minutes, 5 seconds.  Introducing common sense which contradicts the rules as defined has no bounds.  If we can disregard what is written in favor of common sense which is previously undocumented then where does it end?  Why would this power be limited to kickoffs with outcomes that make some people uncomfortable?

It’s amazing people can’t understand this, or what door that opens if that’s truly how the game rules are to be enforced.

[K-9]

1 minute ago, Jauronimo said:

There are always 65 other plays.  No one play determines a game but that doesnt mean we get to toss out the rules.

 

2 minutes, 20 minutes, 5 seconds.  Introducing common sense which contradicts the rules as defined has no bounds.  If we can disregard what is written in favor of common sense which is previously undocumented then where does it end?  Why would this power be limited to kickoffs with outcomes that make some people uncomfortable?

Because this power WAS only limited to the issue of a player giving the safe signal, in the endzone, on a kickoff. I just don’t share your doomsday prediction that this same kind of one and done issue will all of a sudden permeate EVERY call or non call referees make moving forward. There were FAR more egregious calls and non calls made for me to be more concerned about moving forward. But those calls are ubiquitous and made on routine plays on normal downs in the field of play and NOT the kind of rare play we saw in the endzone on Saturday. 

[Jauronimo]

7 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Because this power WAS only limited to the issue of a player giving the safe signal, in the endzone, on a kickoff. I just don’t share your doomsday prediction that this same kind of one and done issue will all of a sudden permeate EVERY call or non call referees make moving forward. There were FAR more egregious calls and non calls made for me to be more concerned about moving forward. But those calls are ubiquitous and made on routine plays on normal downs in the field of play and NOT the kind of rare play we saw in the endzone on Saturday. 

This power was only used for the first time.  First as in precedent.  So next time the rules get tossed out in favor of "common sense" I hope to see your fervent support.  Why do we even have rules if they aren't reflective of common sense?       

[K-9]

14 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

This power was only used for the first time.  First as in precedent.  So next time the rules get tossed out in favor of "common sense" I hope to see your fervent support.  Why do we even have rules if they aren't reflective of common sense?       

I think precedent played a big role in the play and that is the precedent established in every game every week this year of returners in their own endzone giving the safe signal and then nonchalantly trotting off the field. Every. Game. Every. Week. Yes, the Houston return man absolutely brain cramped as he took it for granted after the giving the safe signal. And yes, the ref who gave us the TD was correct in his call. I also think overturning that call was right per the spirit of the rules. I see no conflict there.
 

If that makes me a bad fan, so be it. 
 

That’s all I got.

 

[SinceThe70s]

55 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

Whether it makes sense or not, what’s in writing is the final word. I go back to my banking days, or contract law in college and a real estate career. Whatever it says in black and white is the deciding factor. It might be badly worded, and maybe even missed the intent, but that doesn’t matter. You can fix it for next time. THIS time, the rule is the rule. What we “meant” or what the perceived intent was could not be more irrelevant. 

 

Having said all that, it’s over. I just hope it brings greater resolve and our team takes a big step up next year after a great offseason. 

 

I go back to the tuck rule. I never understood why that rule was ever on the books in the first place and I only recall ever seeing it applied once. But I grudgingly had to admit that it was applied correctly at the time. Fortunately once Al Davis passed away they got rid of the rule.

 

I don't see any need to change this rule. Just apply it correctly.

  

I'm over any impact it had on the game, but not how it reflects on the current state of NFL officiating.They have got to get better.

[Billl]

5 minutes ago, SinceThe70s said:

 

I go back to the tuck rule. I never understood why that rule was ever on the books in the first place and I only recall ever seeing it applied once. But I grudgingly had to admit that it was applied correctly at the time. Fortunately once Al Davis passed away they got rid of the rule.

 

I don't see any need to change this rule. Just apply it correctly.

  

I'm over any impact it had on the game, but not how it reflects on the current state of NFL officiating.They have got to get better.

I disagree.  That was a terrible call.  It’s maybe the most famous example of common sense not being used.  Nobody remembers that play if it’s called a fumble.  Even Brady admits it was a fumble.

 

That said, I want you to commend the referee who called that blindside block on Cody Ford for throwing that flag.  It was a TECHNICALLY correct call that (IMO) shouldn’t have been made because it has nothing to do with the intent of the rule (which is protecting player safety by eliminating cheap shots).  That wasn’t a cheap shot, but you can’t perfectly define a cheap shot.  It shouldn’t have been called.  The official should have used common sense.  In sports, the “spirit of the rule” matters.  If you want to spend your weekends watching Robert’s Rules of Order, have at it 

 

 

 

  I’d rather watch football.

[K-9]

1 hour ago, High Football IQ said:

Not sure a protest is needed but please stop showing up to the airport every time this team wins (and especially loses) a game because it's simply played out and it's actually sad people supported this team after such a horrendous loss in the playoffs that is probably worst than the music city miracle all things considered.

So fans should only show support when their team wins. Got it. There’s a word for that.

 

High Football IQ? You’re referring to soccer, right?

[GoBills808]

13 minutes ago, Billl said:

That said, I want you to commend the referee who called that blindside block on Cody Ford for throwing that flag.  It was a TECHNICALLY correct call that (IMO) shouldn’t have been made because it has nothing to do with the intent of the rule (which is protecting player safety by eliminating cheap shots).  That wasn’t a cheap shot, but you can’t perfectly define a cheap shot.  It shouldn’t have been called.  The official should have used common sense.  In sports, the “spirit of the rule” matters.  If

Disagree. The blindside rule has ambiguity baked into it re: wording ('forcible' is the standard) and in that sense is somewhat open to interpretation. The kickoff rules don't offer similar leeway, they're very cut and dried as to what constitutes giving yourself up as a runner after you catch the kick.

[Billl]

5 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Disagree. The blindside rule has ambiguity baked into it re: wording ('forcible' is the standard) and in that sense is somewhat open to interpretation. The kickoff rules don't offer similar leeway, they're very cut and dried as to what constitutes giving yourself up as a runner after you catch the kick.

You think there’s ambiguity regarding whether Ford forced that contact?  Like maybe he wasn’t trying to block?  You’re trying to have it both ways.

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, Billl said:

You think there’s ambiguity regarding whether Ford forced that contact?  Like maybe he wasn’t trying to block?  You’re trying to have it both ways.

I interpret it as the contact needs to be forcible, not whether it was intentional. IMO the wording on the blindside blocking is ambiguous in a way that the rules governing the kickoff play aren't. But I suppose ambiguity is in the eye of the beholder lol

[Freak-O]

There should be some sort of official explanation from the NFL. The refs did not follow the rule book in a very important game and it might have changed the outcome. Some of us are angry, but we don't know the Bills would have won had it been called a TD or safety. We'll get over it. However, this must not ever happen again and that's why the NFL needs to address it. 

 

Why was Allen's fumble called a fumble? Common sense says that wasn't his intention at all! And Ford's blindside hit was also an error in judgement, common sense says he didn't want to cause a penalty costing his team the game.

 

I would also like to be the first to congratulate the 1991 Superbowl champions the Buffalo Bills, because there's no way in hell Norwood intended to miss that field goal.

[K-9]

15 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Disagree. The blindside rule has ambiguity baked into it re: wording ('forcible' is the standard) and in that sense is somewhat open to interpretation. The kickoff rules don't offer similar leeway, they're very cut and dried as to what constitutes giving yourself up as a runner after you catch the kick.

Regarding that, Mike Pereira said that even if the returner doesn’t down the ball in the endzone, the act of tossing the ball to the official or dropping the ball intentionally means he is deemed to have given himself up. Thought that was interesting as that was the explanation given by the ref on the field as well. 
 

As for the other elements of the give yourself up rule, I think some here are misreading the use of the word “and” in the list of the three criteria. It is clearly meant as “also” as the first two are OBVIOUS that there is no clear and immediate effort to advance; you are on the ground, so the third defined element would be redundant. “Making no immediate effort to advance” can be done without falling to the ground or kneeling in order to demonstrate no effort to advance as we see when a player simply catches the ball and stands there before tossing it to the ref, for instance. 
 

People can debate these words until the end of time, but it’s clear to me why the refs made the determination they did in their interpretation. 

 

Quote

 

When a runner declares himself down by:

1. falling to the ground, or kneeling, and clearly making no immediate effort to advance.