The fair catch, that wasn't.

[4merper4mer]

26 minutes ago, 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.  

Oh, pot.  That explains it.

[Alphadawg7]

8 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

 

 

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?

 

1 minute ago, Jauronimo said:

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.

 

Is holding CLEARLY defined in the rule book?  How about Pass Interference?  How about what is the definition of a completed pass?  How bout forward motion?  There are lots of CLEARLY DEFINED rules that the refs are left with making judgement calls on every single week.  This one, the player CLEARLY intended to give himself up, and the refs made the call that they felt he had clearly done so.  

 

Funny how the NFL Competition committee isn't coming out and saying it was a mistake or ruled incorrectly, nor is the NFLRA.  I haven't seen anyone within the governing body of the NFL suggest it was ruled incorrectly or that it was an issue.  Not the owners, not the NFLPA, no one.  Yet in past clear ref mistakes, they were all over it like the infamous PI play with last years Saints game that led to new challenge rules to counter that issue.  Not even the analysts whose only job is to cover the rules and officiating have said it was wrong. 

 

So you can rant and rave all your frustration out on me all you want, but end of the day, no one who enforces, makes, or plays by these rules is making the same case as of now.  And like them, I don't have an issue with the judgement call of the refs that he had clearly given himself up.

 

PS:  Stop trying to convince me, we don't agree, its fine.  Rant and rave all you want, but you need to get over the fact I don't see it the same way.  

 

 

[Jauronimo]

10 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

 

Is holding CLEARLY defined in the rule book?  How about Pass Interference?  How about what is the definition of a completed pass?  How bout forward motion?  There are lots of CLEARLY DEFINED rules that the refs are left with making judgement calls on every single week.  This one, the player CLEARLY intended to give himself up, and the refs made the call that they felt he had clearly done so.  

 

Funny how the NFL Competition committee isn't coming out and saying it was a mistake or ruled incorrectly, nor is the NFLRA.  I haven't seen anyone within the governing body of the NFL suggest it was ruled incorrectly or that it was an issue.  Not the owners, not the NFLPA, no one.  Yet in past clear ref mistakes, they were all over it like the infamous PI play with last years Saints game that led to new challenge rules to counter that issue.  Not even the analysts whose only job is to cover the rules and officiating have said it was wrong. 

 

So you can rant and rave all your frustration out on me all you want, but end of the day, no one who enforces, makes, or plays by these rules is making the same case as of now.  And like them, I don't have an issue with the judgement call of the refs that he had clearly given himself up.

 

PS:  Stop trying to convince me, we don't agree, its fine.  Rant and rave all you want, but you need to get over the fact I don't see it the same way.  

 

 

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. 

[Alphadawg7]

2 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

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. 

 

You are the one who keeps messaging me and asking me questions despite telling you to move on, I dont care anymore and I have said my piece.  I have just given you the respect of answering your questions.  Yet you claim I am after the last word?  Geezus dude.  Go outside or something man and get some fresh air.  Its totally fine you feel differently about it, stop obsessing over the fact that I (and others) dont.

[SinceThe70s]

 

2 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

 

Is holding CLEARLY defined in the rule book?  How about Pass Interference?  How about what is the definition of a completed pass?  How bout forward motion?  There are lots of CLEARLY DEFINED rules that the refs are left with making judgement calls on every single week.  This one, the player CLEARLY intended to give himself up, and the refs made the call that they felt he had clearly done so.  

 

Funny how the NFL Competition committee isn't coming out and saying it was a mistake or ruled incorrectly, nor is the NFLRA.  I haven't seen anyone within the governing body of the NFL suggest it was ruled incorrectly or that it was an issue.  Not the owners, not the NFLPA, no one.  Yet in past clear ref mistakes, they were all over it like the infamous PI play with last years Saints game that led to new challenge rules to counter that issue.  Not even the analysts whose only job is to cover the rules and officiating have said it was wrong. 

 

So you can rant and rave all your frustration out on me all you want, but end of the day, no one who enforces, makes, or plays by these rules is making the same case as of now.  And like them, I don't have an issue with the judgement call of the refs that he had clearly given himself up.

 

PS:  Stop trying to convince me, we don't agree, its fine.  Rant and rave all you want, but you need to get over the fact I don't see it the same way.  

 

 

 

Holding may not be clearly defined and what constitutes a legal catch has definitely been a problem. But I'm not sure what's ambiguous about:

 

ARTICLE 2. FAIR-CATCH SIGNAL

Item 1. Valid Fair-Catch Signal. A fair-catch signal is valid if it is made while the kick is in flight by a player who fully extends one arm above his helmet and waves it from side to side. A receiver is permitted to legally raise his hand(s) to his helmet to shield his eyes from the sun, but is not permitted to raise them above his helmet except to signal for a fair catch.

 

The ref correctly determined that no fair catch signal was made as did the Bills coverage team. Had the Bills coverage team left the field the returner would have been free to run it back for a TD and we'd all be talking about how dumb they were because it was a live ball. 

 

Since it was a live ball and the returner decided  (after catching the kickoff) not to return it , the next potential area of ambiguity is the dead ball. As pointed out earlier, the relevant part of the rule book appears to be:

 

 

ARTICLE 1. DEAD BALL DECLARED

An official shall declare the ball dead and the down ended:

when a runner declares himself down by:

1. falling to the ground, or kneeling, and clearly making no immediate effort to advance.
2. sliding. When a runner slides, the ball is dead the instant he touches the ground with anything other than his hands or his feet. 

 

Nobody in their right mind is arguing what the returners intent was. Problem is, intent was irrelevant. He didn't fall to the ground, he didn't kneel and he actually walked forward with the ball.

 

I'm not sure how significant the blown call was. Probably should have been a safety. The entire game would have changed maybe for the better, maybe for the worse.

 

What bothers me is in a year when the quality of NFL officiating appears to be at an all time low and in an era where the NFL is trying to take the subjectivity out of the calls a ref has to make (i.e. - the 5 vs. 15 yard facemask distinction) they applied a subjective standard to a rule that had no wiggle room for subjectivity.  It's another shining example of how poor the current state of NFL officiating is right now.

[BuffaloBillsGospel]

14 hours ago, ArtVandalay said:

He didn't follow the rule... Wave, kneel, or just let the ball land untouched. He screwed up, had a brain fart. That's on him. Not the refs to fix.

 

It was our tuck rule, and the NFL tore up the rule book and blew it. It's a joke.

 

The call we should really be pissed about is that terrible crack back block. This crucial of a game you absolutely cannot call that a penalty, it was a terrible call but the non kneel down would have been a bush league TD, it's my opinion and you obviously have yours. To me that should already have been in the rulebook.

[Motorin']

32 minutes ago, BuffaloBillsGospel said:

 

The call we should really be pissed about is that terrible crack back block. This crucial of a game you absolutely cannot call that a penalty, it was a terrible call but the non kneel down would have been a bush league TD, it's my opinion and you obviously have yours. To me that should already have been in the rulebook.

That, and the helmet to helmet 2 plays earlier. 

 

And the no holding on a half dozen plays I saw Jordan Phillips or Jerry Hughes get tackled.

 

And also, how the hell is it possible intentional grounding when 3 defenders have moving Allen back 5 yards and have him vertical falling on his ass. That's an in the grasp sack if one ever existed. 

[bbb]

1 hour ago, BuffaloBillsGospel said:

 

The call we should really be pissed about is that terrible crack back block. This crucial of a game you absolutely cannot call that a penalty, it was a terrible call but the non kneel down would have been a bush league TD, it's my opinion and you obviously have yours. To me that should already have been in the rulebook.

 

What would have changed if the crackback wasn't called?  Do you think McD would have gone for a 55 yard field goal?  

[mannc]

3 hours ago, bbb said:

 

What would have changed if the crackback wasn't called?  Do you think McD would have gone for a 55 yard field goal?  

I don’t remember what the situation would have been if it had not been called, but I think the Bills would have had better options than that.  Correct me if I’m wrong...

Edited January 7, 2020 by mannc

[Shaw66]

5 hours ago, bbb said:

 

What would have changed if the crackback wasn't called?  Do you think McD would have gone for a 55 yard field goal?  

Absolutely. When you have a shot at the win in overtime you take it. No question we would have kicked it. 

[Patrick Duffy]

6 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Absolutely. When you have a shot at the win in overtime you take it. No question we would have kicked it. 

Yup, because he was kicking 54 and 55 yarders during warm ups, so I also believe they would have attempted it.

[ArtVandalay]

7 hours ago, BuffaloBillsGospel said:

 

The call we should really be pissed about is that terrible crack back block. This crucial of a game you absolutely cannot call that a penalty, it was a terrible call but the non kneel down would have been a bush league TD, it's my opinion and you obviously have yours. To me that should already have been in the rulebook.

The Texan returner screwed up and had a brain fart. Making mistakes cost you playoff games. If the Texans recovered Allen's lateral mistake do we get the ball back? No. 

 

Don't reward or take away punishment of dumb mistakes.

[SoCal Deek]

I watched the replay of the game on NFLN last night and was once again SHOCKED when those extra refs came out into the middle of the field to reverse the call. I’m not one for conspiracy theories but boy did that look REALLY suspicious!!!

[pennstate10]

I’m interested to see if this topic comes up in McD press conference today. McD seems like an honest and introspective guy. Wouldn’t surprise me if he says if he had it to do again, he would have challenged the call, or demanded a clear explanation. 

[The Jokeman]

4 minutes ago, pennstate10 said:

I’m interested to see if this topic comes up in McD press conference today. McD seems like an honest and introspective guy. Wouldn’t surprise me if he says if he had it to do again, he would have challenged the call, or demanded a clear explanation. 

How could he challenge it? The on the field ref felt the player didn't give himself up on the play whereas the men in black did who overrode the ref on the field's call. I'm pretty sure they're the ones that typically make calls on instant replays yet up until now don't think most fans, including me, know about them. 

[row_33]

The worst thing I saw live was the Lions clearly tackling a Texans runner at the 25 and he got up and ran the rest of the 75 yards with no whistles

 

Schwartz threw his flag on the field to review, and the rules stated that a coach doing that ruined the chance to review a play, so a runner clearly tackled and seen by at least 70,000 people in the stadium was awarded a TD.

 

 

 

[Scott7975]

21 minutes ago, row_33 said:

The worst thing I saw live was the Lions clearly tackling a Texans runner at the 25 and he got up and ran the rest of the 75 yards with no whistles

 

Schwartz threw his flag on the field to review, and the rules stated that a coach doing that ruined the chance to review a play, so a runner clearly tackled and seen by at least 70,000 people in the stadium was awarded a TD.

 

 

 

 

I didn't see it.  How does throwing a challenge flag ruin the chance to review a play?

[SoCal Deek]

Did anyone see the Saints game? They had a pick six (or something) that was called back but during the return Teddy Bridgewater came off the sideline and followed the guy into the end zone! It was never called and the announcers didn’t say anything. I have NEVER seen anything like it. Bridgewater wasn’t in the game but he was all way out on the field running into the end zone with no helmet on!

[bbb]

6 hours ago, mannc said:

I don’t remember what the situation would have been if it had not been called, but I think the Bills would have had better options than that.  Correct me if I’m wrong...

 

It would have been 4th and long.  Going for it was hardly an option in OT when the other team just needs a FG.  

 

5 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Absolutely. When you have a shot at the win in overtime you take it. No question we would have kicked it. 

 

I think there's a lot of question - you miss that - and I think he would have - and the Falcons need what 20 yards or whatever to win the game.  

[row_33]

10 minutes ago, bbb said:

 

It would have been 4th and long.  Going for it was hardly an option in OT when the other team just needs a FG.  

 

 

I think there's a lot of question - you miss that - and I think he would have - and the Falcons need what 20 yards or whatever to win the game.  

 

no second guesses on not going for the FG, in this case, EVER....