Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

This has nothing to do with intent, what we think happened, etc.  IMO, it should be viewed as interpretation of the law, ie, what does the rule book say and what happened.  If we agree to look at it through that lens, there is simply no defense for it not being 6 for the Bills.  I agree fully that it would've felt "bush league" to get that TD but the book is the book and the NFL needs to follow it to preserve the integrity of the game. 

 

Does anyone know or understand the ref wearing all black who ran onto the field was clearly responsible for changing the call?  Watched a lot of football in my life but that was a first.  Perhaps it's a playoff only type thing but it didn't pass the sniff test then or now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

I'm not contrarian when I'm pointing out why the call was reversed.  It was explained as such.  Many disagree, but regarding the returners "intent"---it was crystal clear.  That's why they reversed it. Pretty simple

If "receivers intent" was part of the rule, you would have a point.  but its not, so your point is irrelevant to whether the call was correct or not.  

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

I'm not contrarian when I'm pointing out why the call was reversed.  It was explained as such.  Many disagree, but regarding the returners "intent"---it was crystal clear.  That's why they reversed it. Pretty simple

What if a rookie WR forgets he’s now in the NFL, he catches the ball falls down untouched, he stands and flips ball to official that lets it hit the ground, no whistle. Is it a fumble or was the assumption to be his “intent” was to give himself up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chaos said:

If the runner had changed his mind and decided to run it out, and had returned it for a TD, does anyone think the TD would have been called back? 

 

You mean if he went to the ref and asked for the ball back and then ran for a TD?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

It wasn't ambiguous--within 2 seconds he tossed it to the ref.  

Within 2 seconds Hester went from taking two steps in the end zone to a full sprint. One tossed the ball to the ref, the other sprinted out of the end zone. Neither player gave himself up, the guy tossed a live ball, whether you want to acknowledge that or not. The refs aren’t there to interpret “intent,” they’re there to enforce rules.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mannc said:

What’s particularly galling here is that the official got it right and then was overruled based on an incorrect interpretation of the rule.  Totally inexcusable.

"This doesn't FEEL right, so let's just call it a touchback."

 

Feelings are not facts.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

This is a meh situation up until the refs banged us in overtime by applying the letter of the law to that Ford block. No common sense there when our chance to win was taken from us. The league is becoming a massive joke with officiating. 


well put.  I felt the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, stevewin said:

He meant to give himself up - but by rule did not.  It is unambiguously defined in the rule book what needs to be done by a player to give himself up, and he did not do that.  He did not hit the ground or take a knee - which is written in the rule as a requirement.  It could not be more clear cut.

 

Absolutely agree. But is this something that happens a lot and that gets treated as a touchback? Some rules are honoured more in the breach than in the observance. If that's the case it's hard to argue that it's a live ball. If it's not, and this event is an outlier then the call was really very wrong. 

Edited by starrymessenger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

You mean if he went to the ref and asked for the ball back and then ran for a TD?

If you can point out one another example in NFL history were "receivers intent" was part of the a rules interpretation than you have a point. If you cannot do that, than just admit you are flat out 100% wrong. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, chris heff said:

What if a rookie WR forgets he’s now in the NFL, he catches the ball falls down untouched, he stands and flips ball to official that lets it hit the ground, no whistle. Is it a fumble or was the assumption to be his “intent” was to give himself up?

 

no

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

This is a meh situation up until the refs banged us in overtime by applying the letter of the law to that Ford block. No common sense there when our chance to win was taken from us. The league is becoming a massive joke with officiating. 


This!!! I said this in another post. The bigger issue is now the referee can use “common sense” to determine “intent”. 
 

Neither of which matter in a game with clearly defined and UNIVERSALLY accepted rules.  
 

The example of the victory formation is perfect. The intent is there to take a knee, but you don’t have too and it’s a live ball until you do. 
 

Ask Greg Schiano. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chaos said:

If the runner had changed his mind and decided to run it out, and had returned it for a TD, does anyone think the TD would have been called back? 

Nope, and this point should not be brushed aside. At times a player will do something like this to catch the gunners napping and run it out when they slow down. I initially thought he may have been doing this until it was clear  it was just a gaffe on his part. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JayBaller10 said:

Within 2 seconds Hester went from taking two steps in the end zone to a full sprint. One tossed the ball to the ref, the other sprinted out of the end zone. Neither player gave himself up, the guy tossed a live ball, whether you want to acknowledge that or not. The refs aren’t there to interpret “intent,” they’re there to enforce rules.

 

 

The toss is the intent.  I'm not sure how that wasn't obvious as a signal he wasn't going to run it out.  ANd that's what the refs concluded.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 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.

But the ref knew the rule and didn’t touch the ball and looked like he even threw a marker or something at it. It should’ve been a TD and that crew should be banned from the playoffs.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

The toss is the intent.  I'm not sure how that wasn't obvious as a signal he wasn't going to run it out.  ANd that's what the refs concluded.

Hello, McFly? “INTENT” IS NOT IN THE RULES!

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 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".

What if a guy catches the ball in the end zone and fumbles it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...