John Fox react to Officials overturn 2nd half kickoff from Bills TD to touchback

[Michael1962]

I did not see this posted, if I missed it please delete.  Another reason to be grumpy.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bJ7s40eey8&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR3FGh-OuiC_1abYGuf5ze4VYtrXsgZ3rbdSrC22MLf_YNCJH_LobQSRV6w

[SomeDudeAtHome]

Agreed 100%. There will be a rule change because of this just like the "no goal" rule change. 

[stevewin]

15 minutes ago, Michael1962 said:

I did not see this posted, if I missed it please delete.  Another reason to be grumpy.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bJ7s40eey8&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR3FGh-OuiC_1abYGuf5ze4VYtrXsgZ3rbdSrC22MLf_YNCJH_LobQSRV6w

This was actually an excellent discussion.  Didn't realize rule was written "AND".  I was fine with the call at the time, but this doesn't make me feel better. Hasselbeck has perfect analogy with victory formation - you can't just hand the ball over when the rule says you must be down.  

 

They try to play devil's advocate and say Bills still lost the game, but there is zero percent chance they lose if that is called a TD.  The shame really is the ref got it right to begin, then caved to everyone saying "Oh my God everyone knows what he meant to do"  As they mention - it's real dicey territory when officials don't follow the rule as written and decide to alter calls based on what they consider intent.  In this case it may have been obvious, but what about other situations that may not be so clear cut.  That's why the rules are there.

Edited January 5, 2020 by stevewin

[sodbuster]

6 minutes ago, SomeDudeAtHome said:

Agreed 100%. There will be a rule change because of this just like the "no goal" rule change. 

I don't understand why there should be a rule change. It's clearly spelled out, and putting your knee in the dirt is incredibly simple. 

 

If anything, this is a result of officiating becoming incredibly lazy and sloppy during the regular season, and that they need to tighten it up.

Edited January 5, 2020 by sodbuster

[HOUSE]

Players should not need to bend their knee all the way to the turf unless the league is willing to pay more money

[Ethan in Cleveland]

No rule change. They will just reinforce that if the returner catches the ball, he will need to take a knee or take the ball out of the endzone. 

[klos63]

These guys are correct.  The returner didn't know the rule and he screwed up. By rule, it should have been a TD for us. 

[Sandhill Mike]

1 minute ago, sodbuster said:

I don't understamd why there should be a rule change. It's clearly spelled out, and putting your knee in the dirt is incredibly simple. 

 

I agree that they shouldn't change/update the rule... but they will.  By changing the rule, they will justify the way they handled the play in the game.

[SCBills]

I didn’t care too much, at the time, that they went with “intent” but that clip got me all kinds of fired up.  
 

We 100% got robbed.  It’s literally insane how that unfolded. 
 

Edited January 5, 2020 by SCBills

[Boatdrinks]

Again, if Roberts does this the TD stands and the frantic conference never happens. 

[GunnerBill]

I am with the pundits. It is not a ref's job to interpret a player's intent. 

[stevewin]

7 minutes ago, HOUSE said:

Players should not need to bend their knee all the way to the turf unless the league is willing to pay more money

[Mr. WEO]

The Victory formation analogy is faulty.  The ball is in the field of play.  The QB has to down it to end the play.  For a touchback (as opposed to a Center snap to the QB) the ball can just hit the ground--no one needs to "down it".

[sven233]

The "fake spike" comparison was spot on.  Also, who knows if it would have been a trick play?  Give the safe signal, walk it slowly out of the endzone, and take off and run it back for a TD.

 

Fact is, the "safe" signal is NOT a legal NFL signal and the Bills were ROBBED of that TD and probably the game.  Common sense should play no part in what happened on that play.

Edited January 5, 2020 by sven233

[Motorin']

7 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

No rule change. They will just reinforce that if the returner catches the ball, he will need to take a knee or take the ball out of the endzone. 

I mean, they changed the rule a few years ago that if the kickoff lands in the endzone it's not a live ball and an automatic touxhback. I guess the only reason guys are catching it when they intend to take a knee is for practice catching?

 

 

[TC in St. Louis]

The guy screwed up.  When you screw up, you need to pay the price for that.  Touchdown.  

 

I get that they didn't want to determine the outcome of the game by giving us the touchdown.  But that's what should have happened.  I felt a little sad for the guy when we had the points, that I'd rather we earn them by playing football.  But now that we lost the game, I'm pretty pissed they whiffed on this call.

[Meatloaf63]

3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

The Victory formation analogy is faulty.  The ball is in the field of play.  The QB has to down it to end the play.  For a touchback (as opposed to a Center snap to the QB) the ball can just hit the ground--no one needs to "down it".

But it was touched and that initiates the sequence.

[Motorin']

2 minutes ago, sven233 said:

The "fake spike" comparison was spot on.  Also, who knows if it would have been a trick play?  Give the safe signal, walk it slowly out of the endzone, and take off and run it back for a TD.

 

Fact is, the "safe" signal is NOT a legal NFL signal and the Bills were ROBBED of that TD and the game.  Common sense should play no part in what happened on that play.

The only argument you could make was that by throwing it to the ref it was an act of "giving himself up." 

 

Up until that point it could have been a trick play. But throwing it to the ref and walking away from the ball is a pretty clear indication that wasn't faking it.

[Big Turk]

My question? Why did he even catch the ball to begin with? Players just move away a lot of times now and let it bounce in the end zone. Seems there is no good reason to even touch the ball as a returner if you are not planning to bring it out.

[Blank Stare]

Agree with them completely. A refs job is to enforce the rules. Not intent. At worst, they should have let the play stand as called and let NY review it as they do all scoring plays. Let it play out Much like they did on Josh’s first fumble call where his knee was down. 
 

I also wonder why McD didn’t challenge it after they wiped the score. I’m not going to roast him for it because everyone (including the officials) was confused. Also, not sure they would’ve given us the points anyway. 

Edited January 5, 2020 by TheProcess

[LABILLBACKER]

19 minutes ago, stevewin said:

This was actually an excellent discussion.  Didn't realize rule was written "AND".  I was fine with the call at the time, but this doesn't make me feel better. Hasselbeck has perfect analogy with victory formation - you can't just hand the ball over when the rule says you must be down.  

 

They try to play devil's advocate and say Bills still lost the game, but there is zero percent chance they lose if that is called a TD.  The shame really is the ref got it right to begin, then caved to everyone saying "Oh my God everyone knows what he meant to do"  As they mention - it's real dicey territory when officials don't follow the rule as written and decide to alter calls based on what they consider intent.  In this case it may have been obvious, but what about other situations that may not be so clear cut.  That's why the rules are there.

Just like how poorly the blindside rule is written. What's the point of having rules if we don't follow them.

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, Meatloaf63 said:

But it was touched and that initiates the sequence.

 

But in victory, the QB doesn't have the option of letting the snap hit the ground.

[Dafan]

10 minutes ago, klos63 said:

These guys are correct.  The returner didn't know the rule and he screwed up. By rule, it should have been a TD for us. 

Actually if you think about it, it should have been a safety.  He tossed the ball forward which makes it an illegal pass in the endzone.  Penalty in the endzone results in a safety.  This is what I thought the refs were talking about...not overturning the whole TD.

[Motorin']

1 minute ago, Meatloaf63 said:

But it was touched and that initiates the sequence.

Yeah, the rule stipulates that a kick off is dead if the ball lands in the end zone -- unless it is touched.

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, matter2003 said:

My question? Why did he even catch the ball to begin with? Players just move away a lot of times now and let it bounce in the end zone. Seems there is no good reason to even touch the ball as a returner if you are not planning to bring it out.

 

They do it all the time, usually followed by kneeling

[klos63]

1 minute ago, Motorin' said:

The only argument you could make was that by throwing it to the ref it was an act of "giving himself up." 

 

Up until that point it could have been a trick play. But throwing it to the ref and walking away from the ball is a pretty clear indication that wasn't faking it.

Is there a specific action or actions that constitute 'giving yourself up' in the rule book?

1 minute ago, Dafan said:

Actually if you think about it, it should have been a safety.  He tossed the ball forward which makes it an illegal pass in the endzone.  Penalty in the endzone results in a safety.  This is what I thought the refs were talking about...not overturning the whole TD.

Good point.

[Motorin']

Just now, Dafan said:

Actually if you think about it, it should have been a safety.  He tossed the ball forward which makes it an illegal pass in the endzone.  Penalty in the endzone results in a safety.  This is what I thought the refs were talking about...not overturning the whole TD.

I don't think so, because on a kickoff there's no line of scrimmage. So its not an illegal forward pass, it's an illegal forward lateral.

 

If a running back down field initiates an illegal forward lateral, I believe it would be the defenses ball if they recover. Just may not be able to advance it.

[Ethan in Cleveland]

2 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

I mean, they changed the rule a few years ago that if the kickoff lands in the endzone it's not a live ball and an automatic touxhback. I guess the only reason guys are catching it when they intend to take a knee is for practice catching?

 

 

Agree it makes no sense to catch it, if there is no intent to return it. But guys bring it out from deep in the endzone so you can't fault the refs for keeping the play alive.   It was clear he was not returning the ball.  They will issue a clarification on what the returner must do to avoid this happening again.

[LSHMEAB]

This is the "spirit of the rule" nonsense they pull in hoops, especially NCAA hoops regarding OOB plays where one player bangs it harder, but it appears to touch the other player LAST. There's no such thing as "spirit" as it pertains to rules. They're just rules.

 

I gather the official will sometimes blow the whistle in situations like the one in question here, and he didn't. 

 

It would have been a "cheap" TD, but it should have been a "cheap" TD.

[Big Turk]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

They do it all the time, usually followed by kneeling

 

They also move away from the ball and let it bounce all the time too. 

 

As a coach where you are trying to eliminate any possibility of needless mistakes that could happen why would you want a guy trying to catch a ball that is an automatic touchback anyway unless he is trying to return it?

 

What happened yesterday could happen or it could bounce off of him and into the field of play, or through the end zone. I don't know the rules on that but I would assume it would be a live ball or a safety on the last two.

 

 

[Stranded in Boston]

Indeed, I checked the wording of the touchback rule after the game, and JF is dead right: if the the returner catches the ball he must either lie down or take a knee for a touchback. The rule book says nothing about extending your arms for a touchback. Of course, nobody would argue with the "common sense" interpretation that the return man "intended" a touchback (and maybe they'll update the touchback rules in response to this incident). But if the officials can apply common sense to interpret intent as they wish, shouldn't they likewise exercise common sense in interpreting Cody Ford's wholly benign "crack-back" block in OT? The crack-back rule was intended to prevent injurious blindside hits on defensive players; Ford barely knocked the guy off stride. Sorry, but if the officials insist on following the exact letter of the rule against Ford, they must follow the exact letter of the touchback rule as well. The rule is not ambiguous. 

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, matter2003 said:

 

They also move away from the ball and let it bounce all the time too. 

 

As a coach where you are trying to eliminate any possibility of needless mistakes that could happen why would you want a guy trying to catch a ball that is an automatic touchback anyway unless he is trying to return it?

 

What happened yesterday could happen or it could bounce off of him and into the field of play, or through the end zone. I don't know the rules on that but I would assume it would be a live ball or a safety on the last two.

 

 

 

True but someone does it every game.  Catch and kneel.

[Motorin']

3 minutes ago, klos63 said:

Is there a specific action or actions that constitute 'giving yourself up' in the rule book?

Good point.

In the kick off section, his actions do not coint as ending the play and it's a live ball. Not an illegal forward pass, but an illegal forward lateral which can be recovered.

 

But the question is if there is another additional section specifically on "giving yourself up" that would allow them to interpret passing the ball to the ref as giving himself up.

 

Otherwise it's just like creating a tuck rule out of thin air to justify a totally wrong call on the field.

[Nitro]

This ruling that was overturned will go down as another Bills slight by NFL officials.  The NFL did a CYA on national TV and made the head ref fall on the sword for them.  

[Kmart128]

11 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

The Victory formation analogy is faulty.  The ball is in the field of play.  The QB has to down it to end the play.  For a touchback (as opposed to a Center snap to the QB) the ball can just hit the ground--no one needs to "down it".

Well us that is correct... but once you catch the ball you have to down it. For it to be ruled a TB 4 things need to happen

 

1. Ball lands in endzome on ground

2. Player catches ball and downs it

3. 4 ball goes out of bounds beyond goaline

4. Ball hit goal post 

 

None of those things happened so by rule it is impossible for it to be called a TB. 

 

Its either a fumble and td or a forward pass and a safety

[MJS]

All great points. Should have been a TD.

 

At the time I was fine with them overturning it just because it was such a wacky thing and I felt like maybe there was some kind of rule about "giving yourself up" to support it, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

This reminds me of when players drop the ball before they enter the end zone. Clearly those players meant to drop it AFTER they crossed the goal line, but their intent doesn't matter. It's a live ball.

[stevewin]

6 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

The only argument you could make was that by throwing it to the ref it was an act of "giving himself up." 

That's the whole point - "giving himself up" is defined in the rules as "falling to the ground, or kneeling, and clearly making no immediate effort to advance"  

 

Ie. - falling to the ground or kneeling is required by rule to "give yourself up".  Throwing ball to the ref, or yelling "I'm giving myself up" - or waving a sign that says same does not satisfy the rule

[MJS]

17 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

The Victory formation analogy is faulty.  The ball is in the field of play.  The QB has to down it to end the play.  For a touchback (as opposed to a Center snap to the QB) the ball can just hit the ground--no one needs to "down it".

Actually that's a new rule change. The ball used to be live when it hit the end zone and the returner would have to chase it down and down it himself. They changed the rule so that the play could be called dead sooner so the other guys sprinting and blocking down field wouldn't get hurt needlessly.

 

Everything else is the same. When the returner catches the ball, it is live.

3 minutes ago, stevewin said:

That's the whole point - "giving himself up" is defined in the rules as "falling to the ground, or kneeling, and clearly making no immediate effort to advance"  

 

Ie. - falling to the ground or kneeling is required by rule to "give yourself up".  Throwing ball to the ref, or yelling "I'm giving myself up" - or waving a sign that says same does not satisfy the rule

Yes, and those were the rules I didn't understand until watching the video.

[Stranded in Boston]

The other thing that's odd is that the back judge in the end zone clearly was aware of the wording of the touchback rule: he did not blow his whistle or signal, and he jumped aside when the returner flipped the ball to him. If the back judge knew the explicit rule, why the hell did he let himself be overruled by the sideline officials, who evidently did NOT know the wording of the rule?

 

[sven233]

17 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

The only argument you could make was that by throwing it to the ref it was an act of "giving himself up." 

 

Up until that point it could have been a trick play. But throwing it to the ref and walking away from the ball is a pretty clear indication that wasn't faking it.

 

Maybe......  But, BY RULE, that is not giving yourself up.