BUF-HOU Playoff Redux: 2nd Half Kickoff

[Billl]

8 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

Huh? What rule are you quoting with that asinine statement?

Item 3. Stopping Clock. A player under center is permitted to stop the game clock legally to save time if, immediately upon receiving the snap, he begins a continuous throwing motion and throws the ball directly into the ground.

 

Oh wow.  The NFL rulebook uses the work “immediately” in situations other than kneel downs, and it doesn’t mean “simultaneously”.  It very clearly means that one action proceeds another action without interruption.  In the case of stopping the clock, the QB must take the snap and then spike the ball without interruption in order to not be called for grounding.

 

In the case of kneeling down, the rule says that the play is dead if a runner kneels down and does not then “immediately” attempt to advance the ball.  Disregarding common sense and using an absurdly literal interpretation of that rule would mean that a player can advance the ball after kneeling on it as long as he does so without interruption.  Of course, common sense (which we all hate) dictates that we simply blow the play dead as soon as a runner kneels down irrespective of whether or not the player immediately attempts to advance the ball once he has knelt down.

 

Again, though...feel free to disagree all you want.  You can disagree with me, the announcers of the game, the officials at the game, the VP of officiating, and the NFL.  It doesn’t change a thing.  The game was decided on the field in keeping with the spirit of the rules.  The few times the officials have decided to use ridiculous literal interpretations of the rules, you get crap like the tuck rule and the Calvin Johnson non-TD.  This was nearly another example of the officials trying to outsmart themselves.  It didn’t happen, and common sense prevailed whether you choose to accept it or not.

[Sig1Hunter]

7 minutes ago, Billl said:

Item 3. Stopping Clock. A player under center is permitted to stop the game clock legally to save time if, immediately upon receiving the snap, he begins a continuous throwing motion and throws the ball directly into the ground.

 

Oh wow.  The NFL rulebook uses the work “immediately” in situations other than kneel downs, and it doesn’t mean “simultaneously”.  It very clearly means that one action proceeds another action without interruption.  In the case of stopping the clock, the QB must take the snap and then spike the ball without interruption in order to not be called for grounding.

 

In the case of kneeling down, the rule says that the play is dead if a runner kneels down and does not then “immediately” attempt to advance the ball.  Disregarding common sense and using an absurdly literal interpretation of that rule would mean that a player can advance the ball after kneeling on it as long as he does so without interruption.  Of course, common sense (which we all hate) dictates that we simply blow the play dead as soon as a runner kneels down irrespective of whether or not the player immediately attempts to advance the ball once he has knelt down.

 

Again, though...feel free to disagree all you want.  You can disagree with me, the announcers of the game, the officials at the game, the VP of officiating, and the NFL.  It doesn’t change a thing.  The game was decided on the field in keeping with the spirit of the rules.  The few times the officials have decided to use ridiculous literal interpretations of the rules, you get crap like the tuck rule and the Calvin Johnson non-TD.  This was nearly another example of the officials trying to outsmart themselves.  It didn’t happen, and common sense prevailed whether you choose to accept it or not.

I disagree with you, suffice it to say. And, comparing the spiking of the ball by the QB to the end zone no kneel is hilarious and apples and oranges. The QB spike has an element of time. “Immediately” is different than “and”.

 

 

 

[GoBills808]

4 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

I disagree with you, suffice it to say. And, comparing the spiking of the ball by the QB to the end zone no kneel is hilarious and apples and oranges. The QB spike has an element of time. “Immediately” is different than “and”.

 

When you kneel, you have fulfilled both the kneeling as well as the making no attempt to advance part. That's the beauty of kneeling..it miraculously fulfills both elements.

 

 

[Billl]

2 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

I disagree with you, suffice it to say. And, comparing the spiking of the ball by the QB to the end zone no kneel is hilarious and apples and oranges. The QB spike has an element of time. “Immediately” is different than “and”.

 

 

 

Both rules use the word “immediately”.  If you choose to believe that “immediately” is meant to mean “simultaneously” (it doesn’t) and that rules should be followed to the letter regardless of the application of common sense (they shouldn’t), then  QBs should be flagged for grounding every time they spike the ball due to the fact that it’s impossible to simultaneously receive a snap and spike the ball.

 

If you choose to believe that “immediately” means “without delay” in the context of the rules (it does) and still want to apply the letter of the law rather than the spirit, then a runner should be able to advance a ball after kneeling on it as long as he does so without delay after kneeling.  
 

However you choose to interpret the meaning of the word “immediately”, one of the two rules being discussed here must necessarily be consistently enforced using common sense, as QBs are allowed to spike the ball after taking the snap so long as they do so without delay, but runners are not allowed to advance the ball after kneeling on it even if they do so without delay.  Nobody seems to be confused by these two rules.  Now if some day an official decides to suddenly start enforcing the letter of the law without applying common sense during the middle of a playoff game and allows a player to kneel down then immediately get back up and run for a touchdown, I can only hope that common sense prevails and the other officials overrule that idiot.  As always, you are free to disagree.

[Augie]

I’m almost ready to re-watch that game. We had some neighbors over, grilled wings and made some decent beef on weck. I may have been a tad on the profane side, but she still talks to me. Good sign! 

 

I remember in the aftermath being most persuaded by the argument that it was an illegal forward pass in the end zone, hence a safety. It was a pretty sound argument, as I recall. 

 

This crap about “intent” and he gave himself up is silly. If a QB tries to throw a ball OB to throw it away, but the throw is a little short and a DB leaps up for a pick, do we rule it dead because the intent was to throw it away? NO, what happened actually happened. 

 

He NEVER downed the ball according to the rules. FOLLOW THE RULES. Period. 

 

I’m not whining because we lost and claiming that was the reason. We should have done dozens of other things to win, but that was a MESS. 

 

 

.

Edited March 11, 2020 by Augie

[GoBills808]

3 minutes ago, Billl said:

Both rules use the word “immediately”.  If you choose to believe that “immediately” is meant to mean “simultaneously” (it doesn’t) and that rules should be followed to the letter regardless of the application of common sense (they shouldn’t), then  QBs should be flagged for grounding every time they spike the ball due to the fact that it’s impossible to simultaneously receive a snap and spike the ball.

 

If you choose to believe that “immediately” means “without delay” in the context of the rules (it does) and still want to apply the letter of the law rather than the spirit, then a runner should be able to advance a ball after kneeling on it as long as he does so without delay after kneeling.  
 

However you choose to interpret the meaning of the word “immediately”, one of the two rules being discussed here must necessarily be consistently enforced using common sense, as QBs are allowed to spike the ball after taking the snap so long as they do so without delay, but runners are not allowed to advance the ball after kneeling on it even if they do so without delay.  Nobody seems to be confused by these two rules.  Now if some day an official decides to suddenly start enforcing the letter of the law without applying common sense during the middle of a playoff game and allows a player to kneel down then immediately get back up and run for a touchdown, I can only hope that common sense prevails and the other officials overrule that idiot.  As always, you are free to disagree.

Is this your honest interpretation of the kneeling rule? My god man

[Billl]

10 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

When you kneel, you have fulfilled both the kneeling as well as the making no attempt to advance part. That's the beauty of kneeling..it miraculously fulfills both elements.

 

 

Hmm.  Makes you wonder why they even bothered to add the part about “and not attempting to advance the ball afterwards”, then.  Seems like an odd thing to add to the perfectly written document that is the NFL rule book.

[row_33]

7 hours ago, fl az fan said:

Everyone I talked to knew he was giving himself up. Did he do it by the rules of the game, no. But the intent was obvious JMO

 Coulda handed the Bills 14 points on that play and they would have ***** it up and lost

 

[Billl]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

Is this your honest interpretation of the kneeling rule? My god man

No.  Then again, I’m an advocate for common sense application of rules.  We disagree on this point, but I accept your opinion that there is no room for common sense in officiating.

[row_33]

1 minute ago, Billl said:

No.  Then again, I’m an advocate for common sense application of rules.  We disagree on this point, but I accept your opinion that there is no room for common sense in officiating.

planning to whine about this until you croak 

[Herc11]

Regardless of the crazy arguing over the interpretation of immediately and simultaneously advancing the ball. There's really on two question to ask to determine if the play was ruled correctly.

 

1) Did the player go to the ground and/or kneel the ball?  NO

 

If you answered yes to question 1, then proceed to question 2.

 

2) Did the player immediately attempt to advance the ball? Doesn't even matter because he didn't go to the ground and/or kneel.

 

 

I'm actually surprised by how many people think the best move here was to let the refs interpret the intention of the player. Regardless of how obvious his intentions were. Refs are not mind readers and that is a VERY slippery slope to allow them to judge intention.

Edited March 11, 2020 by Herc11

[Bermuda Triangle]

7 hours ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

 

 

No need to kneel

If a ball gets to the end zone and touches the ground, it’s an automatic touchback. There’s no need for a player to pick it up and kneel, or even catch a ball if it’s headed for the end zone and they don’t intend to return it.

This is a small time saver, but the goal is to blow a play dead earlier so that unnecessary collisions don’t happen. Under the previous rules, a player could take their time gathering a ball and kneeling while the coverage team and return team blockers still careened toward each other for no reason.

that's all well and good, but the Houston returner caught the ball in the air.

7 hours ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

 

 

When a player "gives himself UP' which is what it was ruled there is intention in that so yes intention does in fact matter.  Player had no intention  to return it, there is no debate about that, all he did was field it and politely lob it to the official.

 

 

Pretty sure that the rulebook stipulates how one is to give themselves up.

7 hours ago, Mark Vader said:

I still want to know what the replacement officials were doing getting involved with this ruling.

 

To my knowledge they had no business being a part of the game unless another official was injured.

That was bizarre.  Are these Members Only refs allowed to run on the field and provide their opinions whenever they see fit?

[Bookie Man]

"Common sense prevailed." Booger is such a moron. Should have been a TD imo. But a safety at the very least. 2 pts and possession would have been almost as equally crucial. We got screwed so many times in that game. 

[Augie]

49 minutes ago, NC Book said:

"Common sense prevailed." Booger is such a moron. Should have been a TD imo. But a safety at the very least. 2 pts and possession would have been almost as equally crucial. We got screwed so many times in that game. 

 

Booger is indeed a moron. I pay very little attention to anyone’s comments, but Romo is as good as Booger is bad. I want nothing bad to happen to anyone, and I don’t want him to lose his job.....so put him in charge of doing Slippery Rock football on radio so @plenzmd1 can listen. That way we both get something. 

 

.

Edited March 11, 2020 by Augie

[Motorin']

11 hours ago, BuffaloBillies said:

I have a question for everyone who says he was "obviously" giving himself up.

 

(I know it wasn't), but what if it was a trick play by Houston... and they had another player come around and scoop up the ball he threw to the ground and ran it back (some distance or the whole way), because our KO team stopped playing.

 

If that happened, do you think they still would have called the ball dead for a touchback?

 

Rules are rules. He didn't follow protocol. Call should have stood as on field.

 

He didn't set the ball on the ground. He threw it forward. It was a forward pass. His teammates can not advance the ball as soon as it hits the ground. No one can advance an incomplete forward pass, legal or illegal. 

[Matt_In_NH]

14 hours ago, ogham26 said:

 

because its technically an illegal forward pass in the endzone I think which is why it would be considered a safety

Yes

9 hours ago, Talley56 said:

I was really hesitating about my answer, TD or touchback.  I said touchback but I recall Tim Hasselback brought up a really good point, when a QB is kneeling to run out the clock, they actually take the knee.  What would happen if they didn't and just took the snap and just tossed the ball to the ref without kneeling?  At the heart of it, if you can't take the time to actually drop down to a knee really quick then maybe you deserve to live with the consequences.

That would be Incomplete “legal” forward pass.  Unless it goes backwards then it’s a fumble.   On the kickoff it was an “illegal” forward pass and should have been a safety.   The ref started to rule this when the other guy from the sideline interrupted him.  

Edited March 11, 2020 by mattynh

[plenzmd1]

6 hours ago, Augie said:

 

Booger is indeed a moron. I pay very little attention to anyone’s comments, but Romo is as good as Booger is bad. I want nothing bad to happen to anyone, and I don’t want him to lose his job.....so put him in charge of doing Slippery Rock football on radio so @plenzmd1 can listen. That way we both get something. 

 

.

Bry, they were in the D2 Natty last year bubbo 

[BobbyC81]

16 hours ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

"Mike Pereira, the NFL’s former vice president of officiating, backed up the call being change. “Didn’t see what happened on the touchback in the end zone but even if you don’t down it, tossing the ball to the official or dropping the ball intentionally ends the play,” Pereira wrote on Twitter. “You are deemed to have given yourself up.”

 

Pretty obvious and straightforward to me.

 

Bills fans have a tough time psychologically on this one for sure.

 

 

By the way, I think such a poll here at a Buffalo Bills chatroom will come up with totally logical and unbiased responses.

 

 

 

So, why then did the ref in the end zone back away when the returner tossed the ball to him?  This was a playoff game.  You should have the better refs in this game that know the rules.

[ProcessYaDigg]

57 minutes ago, ColeB said:

 

So, why then did the ref in the end zone back away when the returner tossed the ball to him?  This was a playoff game.  You should have the better refs in this game that know the rules.

100% accurate.  If they knew the rules, that play would've went a very different way.  Instead of backing up, that ref should've just threw a flag immediately, for an illegal forward pass.  By him backing up, he sees it as a fumble, which demonstrates his lack of knowledge of the rule book.

[njbuff]

Re-watching that..........

 

At worst.........

 

it should have been an illegal forward pass in the end zone, which results in a Bills safety and 15-0 lead, with the ball.

 

But, OF COURSE, common sense tells us he meant to kneel. ?