The fair catch, that wasn't.

[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.