The fair catch, that wasn't.

[mannc]

15 hours ago, Jauronimo said:

I would like to know why after all the s@$^ we have witnessed these past few years with calls being made to the letter of the law, no matter how absurdly removed from the original intent of the rule, the officials determined that this one call needed "common sense"?   The league's policy has been too effin bad for years, but for 5 minutes on Saturday there was suddenly room to contemplate the spirit of the rule.  All those catches overturned to the letter of the rule no matter how common sense they were and the NFL told them tough luck, the competition committee will look at it in the offseason.  

 

Belichick has made a living on poorly written rules.  Did anyone shut down his sheisty substitutions  vs Baltimore in the playoffs? No, the league addressed it AFTER the season.  Did the league do anything about all the pick plays he was running? 

 

That one kickoff was the exception.  Why?

If you wanted to see a stupid rule enforced to the absolute letter—and contrary to common sense and the spirit of the rule—all you had to do was wait an hour for the crackback block call on Ford, where Ford was literally face-to-face with the defender.

Edited January 8, 2020 by mannc

[reddogblitz]

8 minutes ago, mannc said:

If you wanted to see a stupid rule enforced to the absolute letter—and contrary to common sense and the spirit of the rule—all you had to do was wait an hour for the crackback block call on Ford, where Ford was literally face-to-face with the defender.

 

They also rule TDs to the letter now and over turn them often.  If a guy catches a pass as he is going to ground and is tackled they have to freeze frame it to find out EXACTLY where the football was when a knee touched.  Then spot the football on the 6 inch line.  I think that's silly.  common sense says it's a TD all day long.

[NoSaint]

16 hours ago, Rick 'r Mortis said:

Not my fault you and so many others don't watch other NFL team teams play their games.

I remember seeing it and thinking "hmm, wonder if anyone else just saw this". I haven't gone through this whole thread, but I'm thinking one of two things...

 

People didn't watch the game after watching the Bills game

 

Or...they saw the same thing play out except, the refs actually blew the whistle instead of signaling TD

I was at the game, and won’t say I was a hawk about watching EVERY kneel down but pretty consistently did and sit about 30-40 feet from half of them. Admittedly harder to see the other end.

 

all I watched were knelt or bounced in the end zone. The Vikings returner pretty consistently camped on the goal line and let them fly over his head.

[JGMcD2]

I was playing Madden yesterday on the kick off return I called a fair catch. The player waived his hand over his head and once I caught it the play ended. Another time I thought about taking the ball out but instead took a knee after catching it, the ref blew the whistle and it was a touchback. One time, I didn’t even want to catch the ball so I let the ball hit the ground and it was an automatic touchback. 
 

I’m still looking for the button where I can flip the ball to the referee without doing any of that. The only one I can find is the lateral button... I wonder what would happen if I pressed that ? 

Edited January 8, 2020 by JGMcD2

[Big Gun]

I want to know how the head official in the game made the correct call on the field as a touchdown and knew the rules, to be over ruled, not by NYC reply review but by some random extra official in black on the sideline. Who was that guy and why was he allowed to influence and have the head official overturn the original call, without video review or a challenge. Why did this guy in black, who wasn't officiating the game trump the head official, very very shady if you ask me!

[C.Biscuit97]

I really thought you had to catch it and take a knee.  But I didn’t lose sleep over this for a second.  It is kinda embarrassing to cry about such a stupid play.  There were like 20 other plays that could have been made to change the game. 

[Jauronimo]

7 minutes ago, pop gun said:

I want to know how the head official in the game made the correct call on the field as a touchdown and knew the rules, to be over ruled, not by NYC reply review but by some random extra official in black on the sideline. Who was that guy and why was he allowed to influence and have the head official overturn the original call, without video review or a challenge. Why did this guy in black, who wasn't officiating the game trump the head official, very very shady if you ask me!

Thats my main issue with it.  What transpired between the initial ruling on the field and the call being overturned was inexplicable.  I have never seen that before in all my years of watching football.  

[Jauronimo]

12 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

I really thought you had to catch it and take a knee.  But I didn’t lose sleep over this for a second.  It is kinda embarrassing to cry about such a stupid play.  There were like 20 other plays that could have been made to change the game. 

I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind.  However, I am surprised that more people simply do not care that an officiating team overturned a scoring play on the field without going to video review and their justification is that the letter of the rule does not need to be observed in this one solitary instance.  Their position is that the returner does not need to down the ball as described in the rules as long as "common sense" suggests he meant to down the ball, as judged by the official.   

 

First, I fail to see it as common sense that the returner doesn't need to observe 3 rules and take a knee or call fair catch.  Seems like a reasonable request to me.  If a punt returner doesn't call fair catch and tosses it to the ref, he gets lit up, the ball is live, and everyone talks about what a bonehead play he made.     

 

Second, if common sense is going to be the new rule I demand it be applied consistently. Instead we got letter of the law on the blind side block.  Looks like I am one of the few who thinks its a slippery slope to circumvent the rule book because "common sense". 

 

I'll wrap it up by asking which other rules people are comfortable with the officials ignoring if they determine the effect on the game is too great?

[GoBills808]

7 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind.  However, I am surprised that more people simply do not care that an officiating team overturned a scoring play on the field without going to video review and their justification is that the letter of the rule does not need to be observed in this one solitary instance.  Their position is that the returner does not need to down the ball as described in the rules as long as "common sense" suggests he meant to down the ball, as judged by the official.   

 

First, I fail to see it as common sense that the returner doesn't need to observe 3 rules and take a knee or call fair catch.  Seems like a reasonable request to me.  If a punt returner doesn't call fair catch and tosses it to the ref, he gets lit up, the ball is live, and everyone talks about what a bonehead play he made.     

 

Second, if common sense is going to be the new rule I demand it be applied consistently. Instead we got letter of the law on the blind side block.  Looks like I am one of the few who thinks its a slippery slope to circumvent the rule book because "common sense". 

 

I'll wrap it up by asking which other rules people are comfortable with the officials ignoring if they determine the effect on the game is too great?

I'm going to keep crying if you don't mind

[SinceThe70s]

2 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind.  However, I am surprised that more people simply do not care that an officiating team overturned a scoring play on the field without going to video review and their justification is that the letter of the rule does not need to be observed in this one solitary instance.  Their position is that the returner does not need to down the ball as described in the rules as long as "common sense" suggests he meant to down the ball, as judged by the official.   

 

First, I fail to see it as common sense that the returner doesn't need to observe 3 rules and take a knee or call fair catch.  Seems like a reasonable request to me.  If a punt returner doesn't call fair catch and tosses it to the ref, he gets lit up, the ball is live, and everyone talks about what a bonehead play he made.     

 

Second, if common sense is going to be the new rule I demand it be applied consistently. Instead we got letter of the law on the blind side block.  Looks like I am one of the few who thinks its a slippery slope to circumvent the rule book because "common sense". 

 

I'll wrap it up by asking which other rules people are comfortable with the officials ignoring if they determine the effect on the game is too great?

 

After they made the call I told my son's there'd be a lot of talk about it after the game, but I was over any impact it had on that particular game almost immediately. 

 

And I disagree with those who claim that the 'common sense' standard is regularly applied to kick off returns. If it has, I missed it.

 

My complaint is that applying subjectivity to a ruling where none is needed sets a bad precedent for officiating decisions going forward.   

 

 

[bbb]

3 hours ago, pop gun said:

I want to know how the head official in the game made the correct call on the field as a touchdown and knew the rules, to be over ruled, not by NYC reply review but by some random extra official in black on the sideline. Who was that guy and why was he allowed to influence and have the head official overturn the original call, without video review or a challenge. Why did this guy in black, who wasn't officiating the game trump the head official, very very shady if you ask me!

 

My thinking is that the NYC people got in the men in black's ears (there seemed to be four of these mystery men) and they came running on the field. 

 

3 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

I really thought you had to catch it and take a knee.  But I didn’t lose sleep over this for a second.  It is kinda embarrassing to cry about such a stupid play.  There were like 20 other plays that could have been made to change the game. 

 

Is anybody talking about the 20 other plays?  This is where we're talking about this one.  

[KD in CA]

1 minute ago, bbb said:

 

My thinking is that the NYC people got in the men in black's ears (there seemed to be four of these mystery men) and they came running on the field. 

 

 

It was kinda like that time they gave the Oscar to the wrong movie and everyone ran out to try to fix it.

[Dont Stop Billeiving]

On 1/5/2020 at 1:33 AM, PolishPrince said:

So how do you feel when someone is running for a break away TD and drops ball while celebrating before endzone? I mean his intent was obviously to score TD

This x 1000. He screwed up and the refs gave him the benefit of the doubt which isn't their job. 

 

Also, I kept waiting for the officiating assistants to storm the field again and overturn the blindside block on Ford or throw a flag on the illegal helmet-to-helmet hit on Josh by Cunningham but no such luck...

 

We made a lot of mistakes that cost us, but we certainly didn't get any help from the refs on this one. 

[bbb]

11 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

 

It was kinda like that time they gave the Oscar to the wrong movie and everyone ran out to try to fix it.

 

Ha - I knew I had seen something similar before!  

[Jauronimo]

43 minutes ago, bbb said:

 

My thinking is that the NYC people got in the men in black's ears (there seemed to be four of these mystery men) and they came running on the field. 

 

 

Is anybody talking about the 20 other plays?  This is where we're talking about this one.  

If NYC was in their earpieces during that process and helped them determine their ultimate ruling then we have a major problem.

[GaryPinC]

There is one other angle worth discussing.  The toss to the ref being an illegal forward pass.  Receiver used a forward motion and the ball did go forward towards the oponnents goal line, so I think it fits that description.

 

It hit the ground (wasn't intercepted) so would be a dead ball and 5 yard penalty from the spot of the foul.  Being in the end zone, there's no guidance in the rule book on enforcement from the endzone on kicks so that may be why the extra refs came on to discuss and they decided thusly.  

Though I think they could have ruled safety despite no line of scrimmage.

 

It'll be interesting if the NFL redefines a player giving up for the touchback or stipulates the penalty for illegal forward pass in the endzone on kicks.  I'm thinking the latter.  Maybe both!

[GoBills808]

Just now, Jauronimo said:

If NYC was in their earpieces during that process and helped them determine their ultimate ruling then we have a major problem.

That’s really what I’d like to hear from the league about...forget about the actual call, I want to know how they justified the procedure used immediately afterwards in changing it. 

1 minute ago, GaryPinC said:

There is one other angle worth discussing.  The toss to the ref being an illegal forward pass.  Receiver used a forward motion and the ball did go forward towards the oponnents goal line, so I think it fits that description.

 

It hit the ground (wasn't intercepted) so would be a dead ball and 5 yard penalty from the spot of the foul.  Being in the end zone, there's no guidance in the rule book on enforcement from the endzone on kicks so that may be why the extra refs came on to discuss and they decided thusly.  

Though I think they could have ruled safety despite no line of scrimmage.

 

It'll be interesting if the NFL redefines a player giving up for the touchback or stipulates the penalty for illegal forward pass in the endzone on kicks.  I'm thinking the latter.  Maybe both!

As I read the rule book they don’t make a lot of differentiation between a runner, live ball, etc...I don’t think it matters if he’s in the end zone or not. At least that’s how I’m interpreting the rule book.

[mannc]

1 minute ago, GaryPinC said:

There is one other angle worth discussing.  The toss to the ref being an illegal forward pass.  Receiver used a forward motion and the ball did go forward towards the oponnents goal line, so I think it fits that description.

 

It hit the ground (wasn't intercepted) so would be a dead ball and 5 yard penalty from the spot of the foul.  Being in the end zone, there's no guidance in the rule book on enforcement from the endzone on kicks so that may be why the extra refs came on to discuss and they decided thusly.  

Though I think they could have ruled safety despite no line of scrimmage.

 

It'll be interesting if the NFL redefines a player giving up for the touchback or stipulates the penalty for illegal forward pass in the endzone on kicks.  I'm thinking the latter.  Maybe both!

This is thoroughly discussed elsewhere in this lengthy thread.  It was an illegal forward pass and a dead ball the second it hit the turf.  Because it happened in the end zone, by rule it should have been a safety.

[GaryPinC]

9 minutes ago, mannc said:

This is thoroughly discussed elsewhere in this lengthy thread.  It was an illegal forward pass and a dead ball the second it hit the turf.  Because it happened in the end zone, by rule it should have been a safety.

Anybody have the rule # on that?  I saw it defined that way for offensive possession but not on kickoffs.

[pennstate10]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

That’s really what I’d like to hear from the league about...forget about the actual call, I want to know how they justified the procedure used immediately afterwards in changing it. 

 

I'm with you here.

 

Men in Black.

 

Questions:

 

1)  How come, in 40 yrs of watching NFL, I've never before seen or heard of these guys?

2)  Why are there 4 of them?  If they're meant as substitutes in case of emergency, are we expecting 4 guys to have heart attacks in the same game?

3)  If the NFL selects their very best refs for the games, based on season-long "grades", then it stand to reason that these "substitute refs" arent as good as the on-field refs.  So why did the head umpire (Tony Corente) defer to them?

4)  How did the network guys know who the men in black were, and their role, immediately?  Why did the parrot (old-time ref) on the network team immediately know the party-line--"it was just common sense, and common sense prevailed"?

 

Conclusions:

 

-- I dont know.  You put everything together, and the most logical explanation is someone from the NFL office told the men in black to tell Corente to change his call.  And tell the network guys that this was the party line.

 

-- I find this very disappointing.  I always thought that the officials, while often incompetent and possibly subconsciously biased, were honest.  Now I'm not so sure.  

 

-- Corente, with 20+ years of experience, and graded as a top ref,  clearly made a call based on his understanding of the rules.  And then he changes his mind in 2-3 minutes?  Something is fishy here.

 

Prediction:

 

--  The "common sense" mantra will come back to bite the NFL.

[NoSaint]

29 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

If NYC was in their earpieces during that process and helped them determine their ultimate ruling then we have a major problem.

If it came from NY, it should’ve just come in a normal review of the scoring play. The third party involvement was truly bizarre 

14 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

Anybody have the rule # on that?  I saw it defined that way for offensive possession but not on kickoffs.

ignore the idea of tossing it to the ref and imagine throwing a lateral across the field 

 

of course it’d be handled the same as an offensive lateral 

[bbb]

1 hour ago, Jauronimo said:

If NYC was in their earpieces during that process and helped them determine their ultimate ruling then we have a major problem.

 

Either way, I think it was a major problem.  Substitute refs overruling the head ref, who had the rule right, is quite a problem. 

[GoBills808]

2 minutes ago, bbb said:

 

Either way, I think it was a major problem.  Substitute refs overruling the head ref, who had the rule right, is quite a problem. 

Anything other than video review for the score is quite a problem. 

[K-9]

1 hour ago, GaryPinC said:

There is one other angle worth discussing.  The toss to the ref being an illegal forward pass.  Receiver used a forward motion and the ball did go forward towards the oponnents goal line, so I think it fits that description.

 

It hit the ground (wasn't intercepted) so would be a dead ball and 5 yard penalty from the spot of the foul.  Being in the end zone, there's no guidance in the rule book on enforcement from the endzone on kicks so that may be why the extra refs came on to discuss and they decided thusly.  

Though I think they could have ruled safety despite no line of scrimmage.

 

It'll be interesting if the NFL redefines a player giving up for the touchback or stipulates the penalty for illegal forward pass in the endzone on kicks.  I'm thinking the latter.  Maybe both!

According to Mike Pereira, who I would think has it under pretty good authority, when a player in the endzone either tosses the ball on the ground or to the ref, that act constitutes giving himself up. It’s interesting that the ref chose not to take it, though. 

[Motorin']

2 hours ago, GaryPinC said:

There is one other angle worth discussing.  The toss to the ref being an illegal forward pass.  Receiver used a forward motion and the ball did go forward towards the oponnents goal line, so I think it fits that description.

 

It hit the ground (wasn't intercepted) so would be a dead ball and 5 yard penalty from the spot of the foul.  Being in the end zone, there's no guidance in the rule book on enforcement from the endzone on kicks so that may be why the extra refs came on to discuss and they decided thusly.  

Though I think they could have ruled safety despite no line of scrimmage.

 

It'll be interesting if the NFL redefines a player giving up for the touchback or stipulates the penalty for illegal forward pass in the endzone on kicks.  I'm thinking the latter.  Maybe both!

Yes there is. 

 

An illegal forward pass results in a 5 yard penalty from the spot of the ball.

 

Any offensive penalty that would result in the ball being spoted beyond the goal line results in a safety.

 

So the correct move when a player doesn't down it and throws the ball at the ref is for the ref to throw a flag and make a safety sign. That would be the biggest dick move ever though, if you think about it.

Edited January 9, 2020 by Motorin'

[bbb]

34 minutes ago, K-9 said:

According to Mike Pereira, who I would think has it under pretty good authority, when a player in the endzone either tosses the ball on the ground or to the ref, that act constitutes giving himself up. It’s interesting that the ref chose not to take it, though. 

 

Then why isn't it in the rule book?  

[Do The Reich Thing]

Don’t know if it was posted, but Feliciano and Ferguson were tweeting how it was a bs call

[Success]

It didn't last long - but that sideline reporter getting interrupted, and then seeing the Bills celebrate in the EZ and the TV score going up to 19, was definitely the most exciting playoff moment I've experienced since the '90's.

 

[K-9]

27 minutes ago, bbb said:

 

Then why isn't it in the rule book?  

Have to ask Pereira, I guess. 

[Buffalo716]

2 hours ago, GaryPinC said:

There is one other angle worth discussing.  The toss to the ref being an illegal forward pass.  Receiver used a forward motion and the ball did go forward towards the oponnents goal line, so I think it fits that description.

 

It hit the ground (wasn't intercepted) so would be a dead ball and 5 yard penalty from the spot of the foul.  Being in the end zone, there's no guidance in the rule book on enforcement from the endzone on kicks so that may be why the extra refs came on to discuss and they decided thusly.  

Though I think they could have ruled safety despite no line of scrimmage.

 

It'll be interesting if the NFL redefines a player giving up for the touchback or stipulates the penalty for illegal forward pass in the endzone on kicks.  I'm thinking the latter.  Maybe both!

If they went forward lateral in the endzone it would still be a safety

 

Like a holding call in the endzone

[Orlando Tim]

23 hours ago, Rick 'r Mortis said:

Not my fault you and so many others don't watch other NFL team teams play their games.

 

The terrible officiating is a large reason why I do not watch other games- and this play is part of issue. The " highlights" I saw of other games was filled with blown calls and officials not knowing rule book- like the blindsided block call on Ford which was not blindsided at all. I am not blaming you for watching but it is not entertaining to me for what seems like any game with equal teams the officials are the dominant factor.

[Shaw66]

Nobody's talked about this, I don't think, but both McDermott and Beane were asked about the call during their end-of-season pressers.   

 

They stuck to the party line.   McD said they talked to the league about it, and these are matters that the league decides.   It was clear that he didn't want to talk about it, and it was easy to guess that he didn't agree with the explanation he got.   It seemed to me that he was being a good soldier.  I think the league told him "we will avoid controversy if we can; that's what's good for the league.   They made the call, the public has moved on, and we're not going to stir up a hornet's nest and we don't want you to, either.  That way it will blow over the league's image won't be tarnished."   McD didn't say any of that, but the little he said implied that he was going to be a team player about this.

 

Beane was just a little franker.   You could tell that he was pissed off about it but he wouldn't say that.  He just ended it by saying something like "I'm not going to say any more about it because I want to keep my money in my wallet."   In other words, if I tell you what I think, I'll be fined big time.   

 

It's another example of the haves and the have nots.   The league tells Jerry Jones or Robert Kraft the same thing, they tell the league they're going to say what they damn well please, and the league will just have to deal with it.   The league told the Bills to sit down and shut up.  

[Buffalo716]

1 hour ago, K-9 said:

According to Mike Pereira, who I would think has it under pretty good authority, when a player in the endzone either tosses the ball on the ground or to the ref, that act constitutes giving himself up. It’s interesting that the ref chose not to take it, though. 

That certainly is his opinion but not the actual NFL rule

 

They screwed the pooch and are trying to save face anyway.. 

 

You can fake knees and reverses so tossing a ball in the endzone had ALWAYS BEEN LIVE

 

Unless a fair catch was called

[Do The Reich Thing]

8 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Have to ask Pereira, I guess. 

A question he will never answer. Anything to protect the shield. 

[GaryPinC]

2 hours ago, NoSaint said:

If it came from NY, it should’ve just come in a normal review of the scoring play. The third party involvement was truly bizarre 

ignore the idea of tossing it to the ref and imagine throwing a lateral across the field 

 

of course it’d be handled the same as an offensive lateral 

I'm not so sure.  A couple defined areas of safties:

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/safety/

 

Exceptions:

It is not a safety:

1. If a forward pass from behind the line of scrimmage is incomplete in the end zone.

It does not specify legal or illegal and I'm not sure if it includes both.  But the rule defines a safety as either the offense commits a foul in its endzone or the ball goes dead in the endzone or the ball goes out behind the goal line.  That's it.  Hence this exception for the forward pass.

 

There's also these rules on an interception:

1. If a player of the team which intercepts, catches, or recovers the ball commits a live-ball foul in the end zone, it is a safety.
2. If a player who intercepts, catches, or recovers the ball throws a completed illegal forward pass from the end zone, the ball remains alive. If his opponent intercepts the illegal pass thrown from the end zone, the ball remains alive. If he scores, it is a touchdown.

So on a change of possession rule 2 allows an illegal completed pass out of the endzone, but it seems to me an incomplete illegal would be a dead ball in this situation since it allows the illegal completed pass.  Now how does that apply to kicks and the receiving team?

 

WRT Periera saying the player have himself up, as a soccer ref I judge intent all the time and I agree with him but this is football and the NFL likes to exhaustively define things and not judge intent.  And by rule the player did not give himself up properly.

[pennstate10]

44 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Nobody's talked about this, I don't think, but both McDermott and Beane were asked about the call during their end-of-season pressers.   

 

They stuck to the party line.   McD said they talked to the league about it, and these are matters that the league decides.   It was clear that he didn't want to talk about it, and it was easy to guess that he didn't agree with the explanation he got.   It seemed to me that he was being a good soldier.  I think the league told him "we will avoid controversy if we can; that's what's good for the league.   They made the call, the public has moved on, and we're not going to stir up a hornet's nest and we don't want you to, either.  That way it will blow over the league's image won't be tarnished."   McD didn't say any of that, but the little he said implied that he was going to be a team player about this.

 

Beane was just a little franker.   You could tell that he was pissed off about it but he wouldn't say that.  He just ended it by saying something like "I'm not going to say any more about it because I want to keep my money in my wallet."   In other words, if I tell you what I think, I'll be fined big time.   

 

It's another example of the haves and the have nots.   The league tells Jerry Jones or Robert Kraft the same thing, they tell the league they're going to say what they damn well please, and the league will just have to deal with it.   The league told the Bills to sit down and shut up.  

 

As a Bills fan, I'm not sure I like these answers by McD or Beane.

 

Based on your quote, Beane is saying he disagrees, but doesnt want to be fined.

 

As a Bills fan, I want him to go to the mat.  If he pays a 10-50-100,000 fine, I dont care.  I really dont care if Beane makes $4.0 million/yr or $3.9 million.  I'm pretty sure most Bills fans making $70K /year agree with me.   I want him to stick up for my team, as well as whats right.

 

Now, If he's concerned that this will be a negative for Bills rulings going forward, thats a different issue.  But also a problem.

[Bookie Man]

Even if it was just a safety, 2 points and possession would have been HUGE right there. Didn't houston go on to score that drive? 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

11 minutes ago, NC Book said:

Even if it was just a safety, 2 points and possession would have been HUGE right there. Didn't houston go on to score that drive? 

No. I believe they went 3 and out. In fact Watson threw what should have been an easy INT to Neal, Neal might have had a pick 6.

[Bookie Man]

11 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

No. I believe they went 3 and out. In fact Watson threw what should have been an easy INT to Neal, Neal might have had a pick 6.

Oh that's right. Soo many chances in this game.. 

[reddogblitz]

1 hour ago, bbb said:

 

Then why isn't it in the rule book?  

 

Mike Perrera is total tool. After Seattle got the royal screw job by the refs in SB XL I watched him on NFL 

Network go through all the penalties rationalizing each one,  including an illegal block by the defense.

 

Clearly he's making stuff up again.  If what he says is true, why is it not in the rule book?