Jauronimo Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said: Why would a player catch a ball in the field of play after a pass and give it to a ref? Because he doesn't know the rules and completely f@#$ed up. Kinda like throwing a live ball to the referee in the end zone after a kickoff. I have no idea why anybody would do that.
GoBills808 Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 21 minutes ago, apuszczalowski said: That's because it doesn't happen every week, players either give the fair catch signal before they catch it, kneel it down if they don't want to run it out after catching it, or just run away out of the endzone Nd let it hit the ground so it's dead. It's why no one has been able to provide any video of a kickoff being caught in the endzone where a player didn't do atleast on of those things before giving the ball to a ref. He obviously didn't signal or let the ref know his intent to not run the ball out on that kick or else the ref wouldnt have left the ball alone and called it a TD. If he gave an acceptable signal for a fair catch, or let the ref know that he was not planning on running it out, the ref would have blown it dead right away. Some guy on Reddit says he watched every 2019 kickoff and didn’t see it happen once. 1
Mr. WEO Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 1 hour ago, GoBills808 said: Because he thought he was down. If he thinks he's down then he probably was. If he wasn't and he gives the ball to the ref, the ref takes it. It's calling "giving yourself up". Play is over.
GoBills808 Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: If he thinks he's down then he probably was. If he wasn't and he gives the ball to the ref, the ref takes it. It's calling "giving yourself up". Play is over. Nope. That’s called giving the ball up. Giving yourself up is something else, and well defined at that.
Mr. WEO Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 36 minutes ago, apuszczalowski said: Why would a player drop the football before being completely into the end zone? I'm not part of this argument saying this cost the Bills the game or should mean the game be over turned or whatever, I'm only commenting cause it doesn't appear the rules were followed like they should have been and as someone said earlier, if referees can now make calls based on 'common sense' and intent, that opens up Pandora's box on how the games played. Referees have a hard enough time making calls based on what's written in the rule books, now they can make those rulings based on what they feel the player intended to do? Common sense says that John Brown made the catch while he was still in bounds and intended to get his feet down before going out of bounds, guess that play should have been called a catch. As also mentioned before, all those times where a player is all alone running into the endzone but dropped the ball just before actually getting in, those should all be ruled as TDs because common sense says the player would have scored and intended to drop the ball in the endzone and not before it. From the written words in the NFL rule book, the original call by the Refs appears to have been correct that the ball was live in the endzone and a TD since the player did not take a knee or give the signal for a fair catch. We have seen this happen with the victory formation near the end of a game where common sense says the team on offence is intending to just kneel and down the ball and instead roll out and run a trick play. I guess the refs should blow those plays dead because of common sense and intent? The player could have just as easily moved out of the way and let the ball hit the ground in the endzone instead of catching it if he didn't intend on running it out, the ball is now ruled automatically dead once it touches the endzone on a kick. If a player catches it, he either has to give himself up or can run it out because the ball is now live. The rules include the wording about advancing the football because a player can fall to the ground or kneel while diving forward to extend the play. This is why they want QBs to slide feet first to give themselves, otherwise they would be taught to start dropping to your knees while diving forward cause you get extra yardage and possibly a penalty for a late hit if someone tries to stop you going forward since your giving yourself up This "intent" stuff is nonsense...no matter how many times it is repeated. The returner made his intent no to come out both with the fists out signal to his team and by immediately walking a few steps and calmly handing the ball to the ref. Anyone who was watching knew he was not coming out. No argument can be made otherwise. It just can't. Your bolded examples are off point and make no sense in regard to this case. 1 minute ago, GoBills808 said: Nope. That’s called giving the ball up. Giving yourself up is something else, and well defined at that. The ref takes the ball--he doesn't do an "ole". Play is over because by getting up and handing the ref the ball, he gave himself up. 27 minutes ago, Jauronimo said: Because he doesn't know the rules and completely f@#$ed up. Kinda like throwing a live ball to the referee in the end zone after a kickoff. I have no idea why anybody would do that. Yeah but the ref doesn't run away and not take the ball, which is the point.
GoBills808 Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said: The ref takes the ball--he doesn't do an "ole". Play is over because by getting up and handing the ref the ball, he gave himself up. Did you even see the play in question lol
Mr. WEO Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 Just now, GoBills808 said: Did you even see the play in question lol Everyone saw it. It's not complex.
GoBills808 Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 Just now, Mr. WEO said: Everyone saw it. It's not complex. Then what was he ‘getting up’ from?
Mr. WEO Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 10 hours ago, GoBills808 said: But nowhere does it say tossing the ball at the ref fulfills the first obligation...you can clearly either fall to the ground, or kneel. If someone catches a pass in the field of play and then tosses the ball at the nearest ref I don't think anyone is going to say he gave himself up. 1 minute ago, GoBills808 said: Then what was he ‘getting up’ from? It's exactly what the ref would say, as he took the ball from the guy. Otherwise, why would he take a "live ball" that had not been downed yet? Because the player, whether he incorrectly assumed he was down and the play was over, gave the referee the ball and the ref ended the play. The referee didn't dodge the ball and allow the defense to pick it up and run it in for a TD.
GoBills808 Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: It's exactly what the ref would say, as he took the ball from the guy. Otherwise, why would he take a "live ball" that had not been downed yet? Because the player, whether he incorrectly assumed he was down and the play was over, gave the referee the ball and the ref ended the play. The referee didn't dodge the ball and allow the defense to pick it up and run it in for a TD. The exact opposite happened in the kickoff play, though.
Mr. WEO Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 Just now, GoBills808 said: The exact opposite happened in the kickoff play, though. Nope. Both examples, player is ending the play (and declaring his intent) by handing a "live ball" to the ref. In one case the ref uses common sense to conclude the obvious (play is over, although the ball hasn't been downed) and the other the ref runs away form the ball. Technically, in both cases, the ref can allow the live ball to drop and let the play continue, or they can take the ball, and end the play. So, your example shows how live balls are accepted by refs who then whistle the play dead.
GoBills808 Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 Just now, Mr. WEO said: Nope. Both examples, player is ending the play (and declaring his intent) by handing a "live ball" to the ref. In one case the ref uses common sense to conclude the obvious (play is over, although the ball hasn't been downed) and the other the ref runs away form the ball. Technically, in both cases, the ref can allow the live ball to drop and let the play continue, or they can take the ball, and end the play. So, your example shows how live balls are accepted by refs who then whistle the play dead. Show me one single example. Hint: don’t look too hard, it’s not out there.
row_33 Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said: Nope. Both examples, player is ending the play (and declaring his intent) by handing a "live ball" to the ref. In one case the ref uses common sense to conclude the obvious (play is over, although the ball hasn't been downed) and the other the ref runs away form the ball. Technically, in both cases, the ref can allow the live ball to drop and let the play continue, or they can take the ball, and end the play. So, your example shows how live balls are accepted by refs who then whistle the play dead. they are going to chew on this cud for the next 40 years... 1
Mr. WEO Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 1 hour ago, GoBills808 said: Show me one single example. Hint: don’t look too hard, it’s not out there. I'm responding to the hypothetical you gave me--it's one that you proposed. That is how it would go. The ref would take the ball.
Utah John Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 In the history of Bills clutch losses, most of them were a combination of them getting screwed, and them screwing up. No Goal wouldn't have been a thing for the referees and league to get wrong if the Sabre had body checked Hull instead of trying to poke check him. The Tennessee miracle throwback forward lateral wouldn't have worked if the Bills' cover team had stayed in its lanes. The Bills lost their first SB all on their own, due to partying and drinking in the week leading up to the game. The loss to the Texans was keyed up by the officials failing to enforce the clear, written rules in effect. But the Bills still got outplayed in the second half. If the score had been 20-0 who knows whether the Texans would have been able to come back.
Lurker Posted January 23, 2020 Posted January 23, 2020 On 1/6/2020 at 5:05 PM, Rocbillsfan1 said: bs I endorse this part of your post...
CodeMonkey Posted January 24, 2020 Posted January 24, 2020 (edited) On 1/6/2020 at 5:05 PM, Rocbillsfan1 said: So I’d like to talk about something other than the play on the field there are a lot of great threads discussing that and we will have all offseason to discuss. I gotta good laugh out of the thread about can the fans sue the nfl for the td call back fumble play. While the answer is yes you can it obviously isn’t going anywhere as the nfl already stated they are just an entertainment business. But can the fans do anything else? Can we band together to demand some type of explanation or clarification to what exactly happened with the refs and how we can prevent this from happening in the future? I wonder what would even suffice and what could be said to fans to make it better? I don’t have a good answer for them. I’ve thought for many years now that since goodell has taken over that the nfl has turned into the wwe and I think there are dozens of examples in the last two decades that would point to that. I think as a season ticket holder and fan that maybe it’s time we demand more from the nfl. I was upset with some of the in game calls that were made or weren’t made but usually when you get down to it there’s a lot of grey area when calling a nfl game and fans are never going to completely happy with the way a game is called. That’s to be expected but the nfl has gone completely off the rails. Experienced viewers never know when or if a penalty will be called and there never seems to be any consistently. It’s a joke. However that isn’t my main concern. What is my concern is the obvious td callback. the rules make it 100% clear what you need to do as a returner when catching the ball in the end zone. It was the one time any experienced person that knows the rules understands that guy made a bonehead play that cost his team. The refs as we know made the correct call and then something happened that I’ve never seen in my life. You had all these refs I’ve never seen in a game running onto the field calling a meeting. I’d like an answer for why were they allowed onto the field to and what initiated their decision to come onto the field. From what I’ve heard so far the refs in all black received a call from NY that there was an error of judgement made by the crew and that the call had to be overturned. Who is responsible for that and will there be any accountability for what they did? My guess and I don’t even think this is conspiracy stuff is that the nfl wanted a competitive game because it was better for their ratings. They are in the entertainment business after all and the most important thing to them is ratings and guess what, they got it but at the bills expense. That is ridiculous if you ask me and something that should be taken way more seriously then what I’m seeing in the aftermath. ESPN didnt even mention the play anywhere on the nfl page. It’s still all about jj watt and Watson. But because it could have ruined the game ratings wise the NFL, not the game crew determined that we didn’t have to follow the rules anymore but instead use common sense. That is flat out wrong. I know there will be tough tough guys stating things like just get over it or deal with it but if no one ever takes a stand it will just be more of the same. So maybe as fans there’s a way to group together not as a protest to the bills or the pegulas but in order to stand up to the nfl and say we aren’t renewing season tickets until you’ve admitted your mistakes and correct this so we never had to go through this bs again. Otherwise, just enjoy football like a slightly more entertaining sport than wwe because it couldn’t be more obvious that it is. You are partially correct in your well thought post, in that the way to "protest" is to not buy tickets ... but it would be any tickets, not just season tickets, and also not watch on TV. If ratings as well as ticket revenue drop by enough across the NFL because of your protest, the NFL will respond. The NFL is a business and has always done what's in their own best financial interest. But the NFL, as they themselves state, are an entertainment enterprise ... period. And that is 100% true. NFL games offer nothing of any inherent value except entertainment. They do what they feel is reasonable to try and keep things square during games. But expecting perfection, or anything close to it, is unreasonable and quite frankly unattainable given the nature of the game in its current form. You could even argue that the "human factor" of the officiating how it is now is more entertaining to the casual NFL fans than perfect officiating would be. At the end of the day, the NFL does not care much who wins and who loses (despite the complaints that the Bills always get the short end of the officiating stick by some here ). They care if it was entertaining enough to keep people spending their hard earned money on their product. in the future. Edited January 24, 2020 by CodeMonkey
MJS Posted January 24, 2020 Posted January 24, 2020 Why would the NFL care about that? It would hurt the Bills, not the NFL.
MJS Posted January 24, 2020 Posted January 24, 2020 On 1/6/2020 at 10:27 PM, K-9 said: 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. No, the "AND" means "in addition to". You can fall to the ground or fall to your knees and get back up and return the ball. You have to be downed by defensive player unless you are ALSO making no intention of returning the ball. For instance, if you making a diving catch for the kickoff or fall to your knees to make the catch, then get up and attempt to return the ball, that's not giving yourself up.
Recommended Posts