The fair catch, that wasn't.

[mannc]

20 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

First, I think we generally agree.

 

Second, I don't know that the situation is unprecedented in the NFL.   No NFL returner ever caught the ball in the end zone held it, made no effort to advance, and then let go of the ball without taking a knee?  Never in 100 years of NFL play?   I'd guess that you're wrong about that.  I'd guess that it happened, sometime.  

 

Third, you're wrong about the first place to look is something similar.  The first place to look is the rules.   And the rules are completely clear and unambiguous on this subject.   The rules say, in some way, that play continues so long as the ball is live.   When it's a dead ball, nothing can happen, but while it's live, all kinds of things can happen.  So the first thing we know is the returner, when he caught the ball, was holding a live ball.  We know that.   The second thing we know is that one way the ball could become a dead ball was if an official blew a whistle and stopped the play.   The official in the end zone certainly did not do that; just the opposite, he was waiting to see what the returner was going to do, because although he was standing motionless in the end zone, so long as he was standing and holding the ball, he was free to try to advance it.   

 

Okay, so the returner is holding a live ball.  He is entitled to make it a dead ball.  How?  The rules say how.   Slide, take a knee.   There is essentially no other way.   One basic premise of interpreting rules is if the ruless explain how to do something, then that is the exclusive way to do it.   There aren't other ways.   So if the returner wanted to make the ball a dead ball, he had to take a knee.

 

What happened next?   He didn't slide or take a knew.   He intentionally tossed it forward.   He tossed a live ball forward.   That's a forward pass, as defined by the rules.  He didn't throw it backward, and he didn't fumble it and have it go forward.  He intentionally threw it forward.   There doesn't have to be a receiver in the area to make it a forward pass.   All he has to do is throw it forward.  So he threw a forward pass, and it is against the rules to throw a forward pass on any play except a play from scrimmage.  Can't do it on a kickoff return, can't do it on a punt return, can't do it on an interception or fumble return.   This was not a play from scrimmage.   So he threw an illegal forward pass.

 

A Buffalo Bill recovered it.  What happens when the defensive team recovers (not intercepts but "recovers") and illegal forward pass in the end zone?   There's a rule for that.   The rule says it's a safety.   

 

So for every step along the way in what happened, there is an unambiguous rule governing the step.   We don't have to look at the Clemson game, although the officials in the Clemson game reach the exact same conclusion I just set forth.  The ball was live, the returner threw an illegal forward pass, the Bills recovered in the end zone.  Safety.

 

The ONLY way that we'd reach a different result would be if there is a rule that says that the official can declare the ball dead because for some reason he thinks the play is over even though nothing in the rules says it's over.   That is, he can declare it dead because he thinks it should be dead.  That's what AlphaDawg says can happen, but there's nothing in the rules that says the official can do that.  The official can blow the whistle, ending the play, but the official closest to the ball didn't blow his whistle, clearly didn't, and I doubt any other official blew his whistle, because they generally defer to the official whose call it is.   

 

Think about this:  on a punt, ball is rolling on the field, return man has run away from the play and the ball is surrounded by members of the kicking team.   Does the official blow his whistle and declare the ball dead?   No.   Never.   It's not a dead ball if it's moving on the ground, and the official doesn't exercise his judgment that since the return man has run away, the ball his dead.   The ball is live until the other team touches it or until it stops moving.   

 

The officials have no discretion to declare the ball dead, and the official in the end zone on that play knew he had no discretion.  He was waiting for an event that would allow him to declare it dead.   Once the return man caught, the ball was live until he took a knee, ran out of bounds, scored a touchdown or was tackled.   It was a live ball, and everyone knew it except the returner.   He threw it forward.   It was an illegal forward pass.   The Bills recovered in the end zone.  It's a safety.  

Almost perfect analysis.  My only quarrel is with the bolded, which is not wrong, just irrelevant.  As soon as the illegal forward pass hit the turf in the Texan's end zone, it was a dead ball and a safety.  The Bills did not have to recover it to make it so.  I'm not sure if it matters whether the ball actually landed in the end zone or whether it's a safety simply because the illegal pass was thrown from the end zone, but this one was both thrown from and landed in the end zone.  

Edited January 7, 2020 by mannc

[Shaw66]

1 minute ago, NoSaint said:

though it then rolls over to a replay system not equipped to handle a play like this. 
 

ruled a turnover and TD you get reviewed and the turnover is overturned. But is the illegal forward pass able to be called there on review?

I don't think so.  This isn't a replay situation.   There was absolutely no debate about what happened.   It's strictly an interpretation of the rules.  

 

I've thought about whether McDermott should have challenged the ruling, claiming that it was a fumble or an illegal forward pass.   An illegal forward pass can be challenged.   The problem is that the referee likely would have ruled that the ball had been declared dead before the ball came out, and that therefore it's not reviewable.   Still it would have forced the officials to take a clear stand on their position that they declared a dead ball even though there is no rule permitting them to do it.  

[NoSaint]

3 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Dawg, I think you're wrong for a good reason that I saw someone give.  The official was standing in the end zone, looking at the returner, waiting for him to do something.   If he had taken off up field and run for a touchdown, what would have happened?   The Bills would have argued that he gave himself up because they saw him old his arms out, and the Bills would have lost that argument.   No chance in the world the refs are going to call a touchback.  As far as the official in the end zone was concern, it was a live ball.   

 

If it's a live ball, the play is responsible for his actions.  As others have pointed out, the guy running unobstructed who drops the ball before crossing the goal line is not credited with a touchdown just because everyone knew that he was about to score.   It's a live ball, and he's responsible for it.  If he drops it early, that's his problem.  

 

As someone else said, if I'm the QB in the victory formation, running out the clock, I take the snap and without taking a knee I turn and flip the ball to the ref, what does the ref do?   He steps out of the way, because it's a live ball.   

 

They're all the same thing.  The kick returner didn't have to catch the ball.  He could have let it fall into the end zone, which would have been an automatic touchback.  But once he touches it, it's a live ball until the play is over.   If he chooses to flip the ball toward the official, well, that's really stupid, but there's no rule that allows the ref to arbitrarily forgive really stupid.  

 

There is a rule that covers the illegal forward pass in the endzone.  If it is recovered by the defense, it's a safety.   There are rules that cover every aspect of that play, there was no ambiguity.   The officials on their own chose not to follow the rules.  

 

As I've said elsewhere, that referee no longer be permitted to officiate NFL games.   He demonstrated a total ignorance both of the specific rules and of the more general notion that he doesn't have any authority to ignore the rules because it thinks it's the right thing to do.  

ultimately, it gets messy if you allow this correction.

 

what if he walks up as if he’s handing it to the ref? What if he then takes off, or a defender gets there before he gets to the ref? Do you say he was clearly walking it to the ref? At what point does the whistle blow on such a play? When he looks at the ref? When he gets kinda close without running?

 

there are specific protocols for a reason. I’m not terribly offended as I do agree his intentions were clear, so there’s a small piece that says “whatever” in the back of my head... But I don’t like one bit that they made the jump to assuming those intentions and adjusting the rules to accommodate. That’s very bad.

Edited January 7, 2020 by NoSaint

[Shaw66]

12 minutes ago, mannc said:

Almost perfect analysis.  My only quarrel is with the bolded, which is not wrong, just irrelevant.  As soon as the illegal forward pass hit the turf in the Texan's end zone, it was a dead ball and a safety.  The Bills did not have to recover it to make it so.  I'm not sure if it matters whether the ball actually landed in the end zone or whether it's a safety simply because the illegal pass was thrown from the end zone, but this one was both thrown from and landed in the end zone.  

I don't know.  I read a rule yesterday, considering all of this, and the rule said the defensive team had to recover it for it to be a safety.   Maybe you're correct.  Whichever is correct, in this case it was a safety.  

[GoBills808]

3 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I don't know.  I read a rule yesterday, considering all of this, and the rule said the defensive team had to recover it for it to be a safety.   Maybe you're correct.  Whichever is correct, in this case it was a safety.  

I believe the point is that once the ball hits the ground it's considered an illegal forward pass, and thus a deadball penalty, and thus a safety due to it occurring in the endzone.

[pennstate10]

7 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I don't think so.  This isn't a replay situation.   There was absolutely no debate about what happened.   It's strictly an interpretation of the rules.  

 

I've thought about whether McDermott should have challenged the ruling, claiming that it was a fumble or an illegal forward pass.   An illegal forward pass can be challenged.   The problem is that the referee likely would have ruled that the ball had been declared dead before the ball came out, and that therefore it's not reviewable.   Still it would have forced the officials to take a clear stand on their position that they declared a dead ball even though there is no rule permitting them to do it.  

This is exactly right.

 

I said at the time that McD should challenge that.  They might say it isnt challengeable, but at least that would have made them think a bit more.  Given the NFL more time to realize that theyre opening a huge Pandoras box.

[Augie]

18 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

ultimately, it gets messy if you allow this correction.

 

what if he walks up as if he’s handing it to the ref? What if he then takes off, or a defender gets there before he gets to the ref? Do you say he was clearly walking it to the ref? At what point does the whistle blow on such a play? When he looks at the ref? When he gets kinda close without running?

 

In this case, it did NOT blow, and that’s what counts. Still a live play. Fact. At what point should it blow? When he touches his knee to the ground, which he did NOT do. 

 

I’m over it, I’m not whining. I’m moving forward, but it was a live ball. I know the TD call was messy, maybe should have been a safety with 2 points and the ball. It was an illegal forward pass in the end zone, like intentional grounding or holding in the EZ. It’s up to them to figure it out, but you can’t just say “never mind, pretend that didn’t happen”. I won’t dig too deep, because it doesn’t matter. It’s over. It DID happen, and they should have gotten it right. They blew it. Bring on free agency, then the draft. 

 

 

.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Augie

[Sig1Hunter]

11 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I believe the point is that once the ball hits the ground it's considered an illegal forward pass, and thus a deadball penalty, and thus a safety due to it occurring in the endzone.

Correct, Bills could intercept it (obviously) before it hits the ground, but once it hits the ground it’s dead and a penalty occurring in the end zone, which equals a safety and a free kick to the Bills.

[Nester]

The ruling was fine. Intent and  the signal was clear.

 

Do not be poor sports

[NoSaint]

1 minute ago, Augie said:

 

In this case, it did NOT blow, and that’s what counts. Still a live play. Fact. At what point should it blow? When he touches his knee to the ground, which he did NOT do. 

 

I’m over it, I’m not whining. I’m moving forward, but it was a live ball. I know the TD call was messy, maybe should have been a safety with 2 points and the ball. It’s up to them to figure it out, but you can’t just say “never mind, pretend that didn’t happen”. I won’t dig too deep, because it doesn’t matter. It’s over. It DID happen, and they should have gotten it right. They blew it. Bring on free agency, then the draft. 

agreed. And my point was that without that bright line act this gets too messy. I’ll sleep fine, cause whatever, I get he was trying to end the play. But it was handled wrong and that sucks.

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, Sig1Hunter said:

Correct, Bills could intercept it (obviously) before it hits the ground, but once it hits the ground it’s dead and a penalty occurring in the end zone, which equals a safety and a free kick to the Bills.

Sort of similar to how intentional grounding in the endzone is a safety

[Jauronimo]

15 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

ultimately, it gets messy if you allow this correction.

 

what if he walks up as if he’s handing it to the ref? What if he then takes off, or a defender gets there before he gets to the ref? Do you say he was clearly walking it to the ref? At what point does the whistle blow on such a play? When he looks at the ref? When he gets kinda close without running?

 

there are specific protocols for a reason. I’m not terribly offended as I do agree his intentions were clear, so there’s a small piece that says “whatever” in the back of my head... But I don’t like one bit that they made the jump to assuming those intentions and adjusting the rules to accommodate. That’s very bad.

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.   

[Augie]

21 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I don't think so.  This isn't a replay situation.   There was absolutely no debate about what happened.   It's strictly an interpretation of the rules.  

 

I've thought about whether McDermott should have challenged the ruling, claiming that it was a fumble or an illegal forward pass.   An illegal forward pass can be challenged.   The problem is that the referee likely would have ruled that the ball had been declared dead before the ball came out, and that therefore it's not reviewable.   Still it would have forced the officials to take a clear stand on their position that they declared a dead ball even though there is no rule permitting them to do it.  

 

If declared dead, why signal TD, which was the case. 

 

They F’ed up, we got screwed on a crazy play. It’s over. Time to move on. 

[Sig1Hunter]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

Sort of similar to how intentional grounding in the endzone is a safety

Yup, by rule any offensive penalty occurring in the end zone results in a safety.

[BuffaloBill963]

3 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Except you are wrong.  The returner signaled NO RETURN prior to giving the ball up.  He established there would be NO RUN BACK via signal and gestured to the ref to give him the ball.  There were no players within the immediate vicinity of him.  The refs have the ability to make the determination if the player had chosen to give themself up, which they clearly did and was accurate.  Refs have the ability to rule that a player has chosen to give themselves up versus being touched down by contact.  

 

It was absolutely the correct call to remove the TD.  Its not the first time this season a player was ruled to have "given himself up" either.

 

Except the fact refs have the ability to make that determination, and like many rules, its often a judgement call.  

 

Here is what you and others are missing...refs are allowed to make a judgement call on whether a runner has given himself up.  He signaled no return and tried to hand the ball to the ref.  Pretty clear as day that he gave himself up, and refs concurred.  Case closed.  

So you don’t even acknowledge that the ref actually shook his head NO at the Texan player—gave him a heads up that he DID NOT follow any available rule to give himself up. You are wrong and don’t have the humility within you to admit that. Pride and ego at its finest. 

[GoBills808]

Just now, Jauronimo said:

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.   

Clear intentions are a dime a dozen! Give me an obscure-intentioned MFer who knows the rules any day. He won't cost you games via stupidity.

[Augie]

3 minutes ago, Nester said:

The ruling was fine. Intent and  the signal was clear.

 

Do not be poor sports

 

No, the ruling was WRONG. The intent may have been clear, but it did not fit within the letter of the rules. They got it wrong, but I’m NOT being a poor sport. It’s over, we move on. But it doesn’t mean I can’t point out the obvious.....they got it wrong. No changing that. It happens. 

 

Now, let’s focus on free agency and the draft. 

[Sig1Hunter]

1 minute ago, BuffaloBill963 said:

So you don’t even acknowledge that the ref actually shook his head NO at the Texan player—gave him a heads up that he DID NOT follow any available rule to give himself up. You are wrong and don’t have the humility within you to admit that. Pride and ego at its finest. 

Pride and ego? Or, ignorance? The rules clearly state what the elements of giving yourself up entails. Not attempting to advance the ball is merely one of the two required elements.

[GoBills808]

Just now, Sig1Hunter said:

Pride and ego? Or, ignorance? The rules clearly state what the elements of giving yourself up entails. Not attempting to advance the ball is merely one of the two required elements.

It's very, very obvious in this case. It's not that the 'common sense' argument is so hard to comprehend, it's that the rule is so very clear.

[Shaw66]

17 minutes ago, pennstate10 said:

Yeah, we basically agree.

But please read what I wrote once more.

 

"By that, I mean a KO returner not signaling fair catch, catching a ball in the end zone, not taking a knee,  tossing the ball to the ref, followed by the kicking team recovering ball, and ref signalinig TD."  

 

I bolded the pertinent part.  this is truly unprecedented.

 

Law is the field where precedence is most commonly searched and cited.  There was a dispute about rule interpretation.  The men in black had a different interpretation than the ref on the field.  I think it does make some sense to look for precedents.

 

Still not sure it should be safety or TD.

 

Interesting, I saw a replay.  Early in the discussion, one of the striped refs walk in and just drops a flag.  Not throwing at at a foul (like coach coming off the bench) but just a drop.  Like you see them do when they watch a replay and decide there should be a grounding call.  That makes me think that they re-interpreted the play as an illegal forward pass, but then the men in black convinced them otherwise.

I hear you, but even with that clarification, I don't see how you know it hasn't happened in 100 years of NFL history.  

 

But what the official signaled is irrelevant, in all situations.   The initial signal on any play is just that, initial.   Completion, incompletion, TD signals are made all the time and overturned as the officials further discuss the play.  So what the official signaled is irrelevant to the analysis.  

 

I don't know if you're a lawyer.  I am.  The rules of statutory construction require that you look first to the statute - the rule - and you look beyond it only if the rule isn't clear.   But in this case, all the rules are clear.   Clemson, although interesting and ruled correctly, isn't necessary to the analysis, because the rules are clear.  

 

Finally, there is a rule that says that an illegal forward pass recovered by the defense in the end zone is a safety.  That's what the rule says.  I saw it somewhere, and someone else just referenced it.  

[BuffaloBill963]

3 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

Pride and ego? Or, ignorance? The rules clearly state what the elements of giving yourself up entails. Not attempting to advance the ball is merely one of the two required elements.

He knows he’s wrong 

[Shaw66]

21 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I believe the point is that once the ball hits the ground it's considered an illegal forward pass, and thus a deadball penalty, and thus a safety due to it occurring in the endzone.

Well, we're really splitting hairs here, but it's an illegal forward pass as soon as it leaves his hand.  As I said, it may be true that once it falls incomplete in the end zone it's a safety.  

[BuffaloRebound]

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

I hear you, but even with that clarification, I don't see how you know it hasn't happened in 100 years of NFL history.  

 

But what the official signaled is irrelevant, in all situations.   The initial signal on any play is just that, initial.   Completion, incompletion, TD signals are made all the time and overturned as the officials further discuss the play.  So what the official signaled is irrelevant to the analysis.  

 

I don't know if you're a lawyer.  I am.  The rules of statutory construction require that you look first to the statute - the rule - and you look beyond it only if the rule isn't clear.   But in this case, all the rules are clear.   Clemson, although interesting and ruled correctly, isn't necessary to the analysis, because the rules are clear.  

 

Finally, there is a rule that says that an illegal forward pass recovered by the defense in the end zone is a safety.  That's what the rule says.  I saw it somewhere, and someone else just referenced it.  

 

Not so sure that what the official signaled was irrelevant.  What other official was close enough to over-rule what the official in the end zone saw?  He was staring right at the returner the entire time and was 5 yards away.  The next closest official was at least 20 yards away and may not have been even watching the returner.  

They were interpreting what the closest ref saw.  It should’ve went to replay with the call of touchdown  being reviewed.  

[Shaw66]

32 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

ultimately, it gets messy if you allow this correction.

 

what if he walks up as if he’s handing it to the ref? What if he then takes off, or a defender gets there before he gets to the ref? Do you say he was clearly walking it to the ref? At what point does the whistle blow on such a play? When he looks at the ref? When he gets kinda close without running?

 

there are specific protocols for a reason. I’m not terribly offended as I do agree his intentions were clear, so there’s a small piece that says “whatever” in the back of my head... But I don’t like one bit that they made the jump to assuming those intentions and adjusting the rules to accommodate. That’s very bad.

That's how I feel.  I'm really pissed about the call as a Bills fan.   But like you, I find it very bad that the refs thought they could make rulings based on what they thought was the player's intention.  That opens the door to all kinds of things.   As I said somewhere, if they're going to rule on the kickoff that way, then they should have ruled that Cody Ford didn't intend to violate the blindside block rule.  

[GoBills808]

Just now, Shaw66 said:

That's how I feel.  I'm really pissed about the call as a Bills fan.   But like you, I find it very bad that the refs thought they could make rulings based on what they thought was the player's intention.  That opens the door to all kinds of things.   As I said somewhere, if they're going to rule on the kickoff that way, then they should have ruled that Cody Ford didn't intend to violate the blindside block rule.  

Heck, John Brown didn't intend to hop out of bounds before getting two feet down!

[Shaw66]

19 minutes ago, Nester said:

The ruling was fine. Intent and  the signal was clear.

 

Do not be poor sports

It isn't a question of being poor sports.  It's a question of enforcing the rules as they are written.  

[Augie]

I’m sure our team learned from this overall game experience and will be better prepared next year as a result. I’ll take that, as it’s all I can do. Nothing is going to change here. It sucked, but it wasn’t the only problem. 

[Bermuda Triangle]

3 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Not a TD.  Nothing anyone can say to me will change that stance.  All good.  

 

We lost, but not because of this play IMO.  We lost because of other terrible gaffes by the refs, especially in OT.  Im done discussing this non issue.  Go Bills.

 

 

I know what the safe signal is.  I also know its VERY CLEAR that the player was not returning the kick, and therefore was determined to give himself up.  Case closed.  Move on.  

 

Refs did screw us later in the game multiple times.  Complain about that and I am all on board.  Complaining about this weak play is silly to me.

You’re wrong. Couldn’t be more wrong, actually.

[Shaw66]

20 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

If declared dead, why signal TD, which was the case. 

 

They F’ed up, we got screwed on a crazy play. It’s over. Time to move on. 

No, you misunderstand.  Yes, as called, the ball was live.  The official knew it was a live ball, and he let the play run out, and the Bills recovered.   But after discussion, the officials ruled that it was a dead ball before he tossed it forward.   That's what the official ruling was, after discussion.  So that means the illegal forward pass didn't happen, as the ball was dead before he threw it.  That, of course, is nonsense, because the the officials had no authority to declare a dead ball.  

[Alphadawg7]

11 minutes ago, BuffaloBill963 said:

So you don’t even acknowledge that the ref actually shook his head NO at the Texan player—gave him a heads up that he DID NOT follow any available rule to give himself up. You are wrong and don’t have the humility within you to admit that. Pride and ego at its finest. 

 

Lol, I already said I was done discussing it.  Has nothing to do with pride or ego, refs made a judgement call (one I have seen them make before) that the player had given himself up.  Case closed in my book.  Waived off his team and handed the ball to the ref.  Pretty obvious he gave himself up.  He wasn't under threat, made no motion to advance the ball.  Gave it up.  

 

Refs make initial mistakes all the time like when they throw a flag then pick it up.  Or dont throw a flag when there was a blatant penalty, of which missed PI is not challengeable because it happened in big games.  The fact the initial ref didnt immediately blow it dead doesnt matter.  The refs met and discussed it and determined he had done enough to give himself up.

 

I will say I am sure this exact situation hasn't happened before.  So, refs made the call on the field based on how they interpreted their ability to do so.  Having no clear intention of advancing the ball is one of the ways to give yourself up in the rule, the controversy people are hanging on is one word "and".  Personally, I don't think it matters, he gave himself up clearly in a way that IS identified in the rule.  Just because he didn't do 2 of those things makes no difference to me when it was that blatantly obvious.  

 

This play doesn't bother me at all.  The missed helmet to helmet on Josh, the missed delay of game on Watson, the free first down to Hopkins who was more than a yard short, and the make believe call on Ford in OT were all way more unforgivable and total gaffes.  

 

 

[Shaw66]

14 minutes ago, BuffaloRebound said:

 

Not so sure that what the official signaled was irrelevant.  What other official was close enough to over-rule what the official in the end zone saw?  He was staring right at the returner the entire time and was 5 yards away.  The next closest official was at least 20 yards away and may not have been even watching the returner.  

They were interpreting what the closest ref saw.  It should’ve went to replay with the call of touchdown  being reviewed.  

It's not a replay situation.  It's a situation where the officials discuss what happened on the field and what the appropriate ruling was.   It isn't a question of another official overruling the guy in the end zone.  .  It's a question of the officials discussing whether the returner could be deemed to have given himself up and the ball declared dead before the ball was tossed.  So they talked it over and decided that the original ruling on the field was incorrect.  

[Augie]

4 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

No, you misunderstand.  Yes, as called, the ball was live.  The official knew it was a live ball, and he let the play run out, and the Bills recovered.   But after discussion, the officials ruled that it was a dead ball before he tossed it forward.   That's what the official ruling was, after discussion.  So that means the illegal forward pass didn't happen, as the ball was dead before he threw it.  That, of course, is nonsense, because the the officials had no authority to declare a dead ball.  

 

It remains......they F’ed up. He didn’t kneel, it was a live ball until he tossed it forward. Then it became a safety in my mind. They cannot decide his intent. The rules are in black and white. 

[Shaw66]

11 minutes ago, Augie said:

I’m sure our team learned from this overall game experience and will be better prepared next year as a result. I’ll take that, as it’s all I can do. Nothing is going to change here. It sucked, but it wasn’t the only problem. 

Absolutely.  

1 minute ago, Augie said:

 

It remains......they F’ed up. He didn’t kneel, it was a live ball until he tossed it forward. Then it became a safety in my mind. They cannot decide his intent. The rules are in black and white. 

Again, absolutely.  

 

Still, it really hurts to lose a playoff game because the officials were incompetent.  

[Jauronimo]

20 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Lol, I already said I was done discussing it.  Has nothing to do with pride or ego, refs made a judgement call (one I have seen them make before) that the player had given himself up.  Case closed in my book.  Waived off his team and handed the ball to the ref.  Pretty obvious he gave himself up.  He wasn't under threat, made no motion to advance the ball.  Gave it up.  

 

Refs make initial mistakes all the time like when they throw a flag then pick it up.  Or dont throw a flag when there was a blatant penalty, of which missed PI is not challengeable because it happened in big games.  The fact the initial ref didnt immediately blow it dead doesnt matter.  The refs met and discussed it and determined he had done enough to give himself up.

 

I will say I am sure this exact situation hasn't happened before.  So, refs made the call on the field based on how they interpreted their ability to do so.  Having no clear intention of advancing the ball is one of the ways to give yourself up in the rule, the controversy people are hanging on is one word "and".  Personally, I don't think it matters, he gave himself up clearly in a way that IS identified in the rule.  Just because he didn't do 2 of those things makes no difference to me when it was that blatantly obvious.  

 

This play doesn't bother me at all.  The missed helmet to helmet on Josh, the missed delay of game on Watson, the free first down to Hopkins who was more than a yard short, and the make believe call on Ford in OT were all way more unforgivable and total gaffes.  

 

 

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?

Edited January 7, 2020 by Jauronimo

[Scott7975]

1 hour ago, NoSaint said:

ultimately, it gets messy if you allow this correction.

 

what if he walks up as if he’s handing it to the ref? What if he then takes off, or a defender gets there before he gets to the ref? Do you say he was clearly walking it to the ref? At what point does the whistle blow on such a play? When he looks at the ref? When he gets kinda close without running?

 

there are specific protocols for a reason. I’m not terribly offended as I do agree his intentions were clear, so there’s a small piece that says “whatever” in the back of my head... But I don’t like one bit that they made the jump to assuming those intentions and adjusting the rules to accommodate. That’s very bad.

 

I agree with this and this is exactly why the rule is clearly defined.  This is why they have to take a knee or "go to the ground."  Because a player can fake an intention and do something else or simply change his mind.  A good example I can think of something I seen this season. 

 

I actually commented on how poor taste it was to do something like this and I wouldn't expect it from an otherwise great coach in Harbaugh(pretty sure I remember it was the Ravens anyhow.)  There was a "victory formation" kneel down.  They snapped the ball and the defense is playing light because they expect them to simply kneel and go into halftime.  Instead they tried to fool and run a play.

 

That's exactly why there is a rule that you have to take a knee.  If the defense was unprepared and they scored a TD... they aren't going to turn around and say "the intent was a kneel."  You can't.  You can't begin to make judgement calls based on perceived intent.  Because regardless of what intent looks like it may not be the intent or the intent might change.  When they start making judgement calls (which they just did the other day,) then an entire new can of worms is open.

[JGMcD2]

5 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

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?

Thank you. You are so spot on with this response. 
 

Anyone who is dismissing the way the rule is written is ridiculous. You can’t just omit words when you find it convenient to fit your narrative, which is pretty much what the NFL did, AND fans are buying it!!! 
 

Instead of people actually agreeing the league screwed up and demanding change we just buy into their crap time and time again. The league continues to insult fans intelligence. It’s honestly despicable. There is microscope on everything today... this billion dollar industry called the NFL does a HORRIBLE job when it comes to attention to detail with their literature. Fans keep buying jerseys, hats and t-shirts so it doesn’t matter though. 
 

If this were brought to a court of law, the word and would count. Instead we’re in Candy Land where everyone just gets to pick and choose what they want. 
 

The word AND is there for a reason... because the second part of that sentence confirms the guy is giving himself up. It’s not that complicated. 

[Alphadawg7]

2 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

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?

 

You do realize that most rules the are enforced are done so with the judgement of the referee right?  You do know that every single possible scenario that could play out on the field isn't going to have an exact definition in the rule book right? 

 

End of day, if the league has an issue with the ruling (which they so far they don't) they will address it and the rule to avoid this decision in future instances.  At this point, all governing entities have supported the ruling by the refs.  

 

Let it go man, I don't care.   

 

And to answer your question, every law I was operating under when I had my dispensary was up to "interpretation"  based on who was doing the interpretation at that time.  There were no black and white laws protecting me, I was at risk based on who was standing in front of me.  A judge, cop, city official that was for legal cannabis, I was all good under the so called "law"...in front of one them who was against legal cannabis, not good.  Fortunately for me, I was loved by the city, local cops, etc and never had an issue for all I did for my local community.

 

But, after being in operation for almost 5 years, Los Angeles passed an ordinance through a city vote that made me officially illegal in the city limits of Los Angeles unless you had been open before a certain date in 2007, which I had not.  Hence why I sold it and started building a television network for the industry instead.  

[pennstate10]

48 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I hear you, but even with that clarification, I don't see how you know it hasn't happened in 100 years of NFL history.  

 

But what the official signaled is irrelevant, in all situations.   The initial signal on any play is just that, initial.   Completion, incompletion, TD signals are made all the time and overturned as the officials further discuss the play.  So what the official signaled is irrelevant to the analysis.  

 

I don't know if you're a lawyer.  I am.  The rules of statutory construction require that you look first to the statute - the rule - and you look beyond it only if the rule isn't clear.   But in this case, all the rules are clear.   Clemson, although interesting and ruled correctly, isn't necessary to the analysis, because the rules are clear.  

 

Finally, there is a rule that says that an illegal forward pass recovered by the defense in the end zone is a safety.  That's what the rule says.  I saw it somewhere, and someone else just referenced it.  

 

I think you missed my point.

The ref signaled TD.  I've never seen a returner catch the ball, toss it to official, have official refuse to catch ball, have ball drop to ground, and kicking team recover, and have ref signal TD.  You really have seen all of these components previously?  Really? Can you cite a single example?

 

Again, the key is the ref signaling TD.  If the ref didnt signal TD, we wouldnt be having this discussion.

 

But once the TD is signaled, the ref is stating he's enforcing the rules.  To now reverse that based on a whim is the problem.

 

In terms of statutory construction, I think the rules are abundantly clear.  But other people, on this board, and in the NFL men in black office, would seem to think otherwise.  Thus the search for precedents.

[Sig1Hunter]

30 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Having no clear intention of advancing the ball is one of the ways to give yourself up in the rule, the controversy people are hanging on is one word "and".  Personally, I don't think it matters, he gave himself up clearly in a way that IS identified in the rule.  Just because he didn't do 2 of those things makes no difference to me when it was that blatantly obvious.

 

 

What does “and” mean? 
 

Say you have the winning Powerball ticket, 500 million dollars was all yours. All you have to do is provide your winning ticket AND proof of purchase. But you don’t have your proof of purchase. Are you entitled to the winnings?

[Jauronimo]

Just now, Alphadawg7 said:

 

You do realize that most rules the are enforced are done so with the judgement of the referee right?  You do know that every single possible scenario that could play out on the field isn't going to have an exact definition in the rule book right? 

 

End of day, if the league has an issue with the ruling (which they so far they don't) they will address it and the rule to avoid this decision in future instances.  At this point, all governing entities have supported the ruling by the refs.  

 

Let it go man, I don't care.   

 

And to answer your question, every law I was operating under when I had my dispensary was up to "interpretation"  based on who was doing the interpretation at that time.  There were no black and white laws protecting me, I was at risk based on who was standing in front of me.  A judge, cop, city official that was for legal cannabis, I was all good under the so called "law"...in front of one them who was against legal cannabis, not good.  Fortunately for me, I was loved by the city, local cops, etc and never had an issue for all I did for my local community.

 

But, after being in operation for almost 5 years, Los Angeles passed an ordinance through a city vote that made me officially illegal in the city limits of Los Angeles unless you had been open before a certain date in 2007, which I had not.  Hence why I sold it and started building a television network for the industry instead.  

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.