Jauronimo

Nah, man. Ricky is a rogue. An outsider. Why else would he be making these outrageous jokes?!?! https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2020/01/golden-globes-ricky-gervais-doublethink-hollywood/604486/

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.

I don't think you're a bad fan. In fact, very far from it. Like the complete opposite. Until the officials can actually enforce the rules we have accuracy then I am not not comfortable with the spirit of the rule subject to adjudication a la minute when the NFL has made painfully literal interpretations a hallmark of the fan experience for at least the last decade. If the spirit of a rule is going to be observed then any fair person would like the spirit of all rules to be enforced with common sense consistently and that did not happen on Saturday. No such allowance was given on Ford's block. The blind side rule was meant to take vicious hits on unsuspecting players out of the game. Instead of spirit we got by the book, 15 yards, and moved out of field goal range. I would say consideration of spirit of the rule and intent is an anomaly. The video review process was meant to overturn bad calls on a standard of "any guy in a bar" could tell that was a bad call. The norm has been making rulings based on fractions of an inch, blades of grass, and nano-seconds of control. But now on a one off call the refs want to talk about common sense and I am supposed to just buy it no questions asked?????

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?

Pass interference requires significant judgement. A waving of the arms, a kneel, or a ball hitting the turf do not. So I ask for the 20th time what part of giving himself up was open to interpretation or should be?? Does a missed field goal require judgement or do we call it based on what happened regardless of intent? Hate to break it to you but NO ONE intends to F@#% UP in the grandest of fashions YET they still manage and its not the role of the officials to protect them from it. Milano clearly intended to sack Watson. Didn't seem to matter. Roberts clearly called a fair catch. Worked like a mother*****ing charm, no interpretation of intent required. You can twist and turn some more. You can hide behind the fact that no one cares because EVERY bad call is publicly acknowledged by the league (ESPN's commentators had a lot to say about it, btw). You can repeat the same stuff while avoiding any of the pertinent rules. You can be "done" with this thread for the umpteenth time and still demand the last word. You can put on a bold face and dismiss my points again with a haughty laugh in place of any argument but we both know.

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?

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.

You sure about that, Clark?

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.

You should go back to making racist comments in the comments section of the Buffalo News. You're not ready to troll these boards, kid.

I thought you let it go 4 pages ago and you really should have (begin your post with "dog14787 was right!" if you read past the "and"). I don't know how, aside from stubbornly willful ignorance, you still do not see that this scenario was 100% covered by rules which are as simple as can be. Many rules are open to judgement but where you see room for interpretation in this rule I can only imagine. I have asked about 5 times already and you've dodged, but I will try once more: Where and when did Carter give himself up according to the rules? What article and section are you "interpreting" to suggest he met one of the criteria? The league rarely has an interest in PUBLICLY addressing the egregious missteps of their officials unless the outcry from fans demands it. Protect the shield at all costs.

Roberts didn't do it because he knows the 3 effing rules which he needs to know.

How the f@#$ did you open a dispensary only adhering to legal statute that preceded the word "and"? Serious question. Since when can the second half of a sentence be disregarded? Is that common sense as well?

Common sense suggests the Texans should be called for zero penalties during live ball in 72 minutes of football.

No, they are saying multiple kick returners have acted like Carter this year with impunity. As in caught the ball but failed to signal for a fair catch, failed to take a knee, and then tossed the ball to the referee.....now heres the important part.....the referee then INAPPROPRIATELY caught the ball and INCORRECTLY blew the play dead in all of those instances. THAT is the difference. The very BEST defense I have seen of the travesty we are discussing is that it has been called INCORRECTLY all year and therefore the referee was more correct in being consistently with a piss poor application of established rules. And for reasons inexplicable to me, that resonates with a lot of football fans.

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.

bump bump bump CBS Sports says it has happened multiple times this year. I have no reason to doubt it. Still doesn't matter much to me since I'm not interested in how many times it was called incorrectly before Saturday. I'm more interested in what happened on Saturday between the time a semi-correct call was made on the field at the time of the play and everything that happened afterward which abandoned established protocol and gave referees the power to interject "common sense" which apparently is contrary to known rules. Makes you think about the constitution of the competition committee and their relationship with the officials. Seems contentious at best.

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.

For the record, I agree with Ye Ole 500%. Had the return man been ruled down initially, its doubtful I would have noticed. But I think its a travesty that the official made the call on the field of a live ball and abandoned the ruling under the pressure of the situation and then deemed it as "gave himself up". I respect K-9 and Alphadawg and their contributions to this fine board which dwarf my own, but I respectfully disagree with their opinions on this matter which may have been lost in my last post.

It does. And common sense suggests abandoning the rule book and the events that transpired on the field in favor of ruling on intent is dangerous precedent. In order to "give himself up" the returner has to let the ball land in the endzone, signal fair catch, or take a knee. He did not satisfy any of these criteria. I don't think 3 rules is that onerous but some disagree. The officials shrank in the moment and did not have the balls to stick with the correct call. Whether the rule is good or not is a separate discussion.

I can't wait to officiate a game. I'm hoping next year, New England v Buffalo. Brady 5 step drop, clean pocket, all day to pass and he gives himself up, loss of 8 on the play. Neal free release, he gets behind the secondary, its caught, theres nothing but daylight AND he gives himself up 40 yards shy of the endzone. Bills punting, Edelman back to return, hes breaks a tackle hes free, hes going to score and NOOOO its been called back, he gave himself up at the spot of the catch. Allen on the QB keeper, and theres a gust of wind, the BALL IS OUT, the ball is out, and New England says they have the ball!!! The officials are huddling and it turns out Allen gave himself up nano-seconds before the fumble. Wow, great judgement by the officials. Top notch common sense. New England down by 1, 2 seconds on the clock and they're attempting the game winning field goal and OH the holder gave himself up, turnover on downs. Buffalo Wins!!

When you come into a thread with no knowledge of relevant rules, understanding of the events, declare it a non-issue, and tell us all that we're crazy idiots for even discussing the topic your odds of a swift rebuke increase dramatically. Sometime down the road when a huge return gets called back because a ref circumvented the rule book in favor of "common sense" to determine a runner gave himself prior to the return I expect to see an equally fervent stand on your part in defense of a refs right to arbitrary bull####. There are rules for a reason. I don't see how anyone who follows the game wouldn't be alarmed by the precedent just set.

Here is what 50 people are all trying to explain to you. The "Safe" signal is not recognized as "giving himself up". He still could have taken off and returned that ball for 6 at any moment. And the CORRECT ruling on the field in that event would have been a touchdown. The officiating crew simply folded under the pressure of making such a meaningful call in a playoff game. Likely because similarly sloppy BS was let go during the year but the reasons are irrelevant. They abandoned the rule book and review protocol and opened up a pandora's box of "common sense". But you and others can sleep soundly knowing we don't have the pressure of playing next Sunday due to "technicalities" like a literal interpretation of the rule book.

Except, the no return sign is only a signal to his own players and not recognized by any NFL rules as "giving yourself up". There is no judgement on whether the return man met any of the criteria to give himself up, which has been explained to you about a dozen times. The refs have no power to suggest a player meant to call a fair catch, or meant to take a knee, or meant to not field the kick off at all. None. Zero. Zilch. Refs are required to make judgement on things that actually happened in the field of play. Instead, they ruled a player meant to give himself up DESPITE the glaringly obvious fact that Carter took none of the actions which constitute giving oneself up per NFL rules. Carter did NOT signal a fair catch, he did NOT take a knee, and he did NOT decide to let the ball land in the end zone. Yet the referee determined he "gave himself up" all the same and thats good enough for you. What is there to argue? You are embarrassing yourself, but something tells me you're only getting started.

Which is what I alluded to earlier. Trying to leave some breadcrumbs for alphadawg but he'd rather eat his own excrement today.