Should season ticket holders protest?

[MAJBobby]

7 minutes ago, Maybe Someday said:

Is that arms out gesture that many returners have been making an official fair catch signal? They all do the same and I always just thought it was just to tell their team, not an official signal. 

 

Some rules have room for judgement others do not. This one doesn't.  Unless that's an official fair catch type signal...betcha it will be next year...that was a live ball. Sucks but it is what it is. 

it tells His blockers and Refs he is not bringing the Ball out. 

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, buffalostu2 said:

You raise a good point about NY.  The rules state that NY makes replay calls in the last two minutes, not throughout the game unless there is a challenge.  This is not college.  At a minimum Houston should have had to challenge it (if it is a play that can be challenged).

 

McDermott didn't seem to be upset about it.  Where was his challenge?

[K-9]

1 minute ago, pennstate10 said:

You mean this rule?  Which doesnt use the word "intent"?

 

"A member of the team attempting to catch a punt or kickoff may signal for a fair catch. To request a fair catch, the receiver must raise one arm fully above their head and wave it from side to side while the ball is in flight. "

 

Fing maroon

 

 

Anyone with common sense knows that the NFL just opened a huge Pandoras Box with their "common sense" over-ruling, you know, the actual RULES.

 

This is actually a big deal.

That only applies to fair catches made in the field of play, not the endzone. 

1 minute ago, MAJBobby said:

it tells His blockers and Refs he is not bringing the Ball out. 

Correct.

[pennstate10]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

 

McDermott didn't seem to be upset about it.  Where was his challenge?

 

thats a good question.

I think a mistake on McD's part.

You can bet if it happened to Bellichek, he's running out to show the refs the rule as written in the rule book.

[ToGoGo]

49 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Did the kick returner give himself up or not? Did he make a concerted effort to return the kick or not? 
 

I find your comparisons to the Jackson, Burress, and Ford plays lacking. For several reasons. 

 

Let's hear the reasons. 

[Mr. WEO]

People here pretend as though the Saints-Vikings game last year never happened.  Worst call in history.

 

No recourse.

 

Fans moved on.

 

Got reamed again (blatant push off on game winning TD).

[MAJBobby]

6 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

McDermott didn't seem to be upset about it.  Where was his challenge?

All turnovers and Scores reviewed. 

6 minutes ago, K-9 said:

That only applies to fair catches made in the field of play, not the endzone. 

Correct.

And the reason they do that is to tell the Blockers they Don not have to block. The new restraining line at the 15 is the reason. You cannot throw a block past the restraining line until the Ball has been fielded or hits the ground. 

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, MAJBobby said:

All turnovers and Scores reviewed. 

 

It wasn't a turnover and the head ref changed his ruling on the field after conferencing with all the other refs there without a NY/booth review.  Why no challenge it?

[MAJBobby]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

It wasn't a turnover and the head ref changed his ruling on the field after conferencing with all the other refs there without a NY/booth review.  Why no challenge it?

because it was the right ruling. And would have been a waste of a TO

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, MAJBobby said:

because it was the right ruling. And would have been a waste of a TO

 

The final ruling on the field , yes....I'm not disagreeing with that.  Clearly McD thought so too.  He saw it as the way the refs concluded.

[MAJBobby]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

 

The final ruling on the field , yes....I'm not disagreeing with that.  Clearly McD thought so too.  He saw it as the way the refs concluded.

agreed because he also has watched Roberts do the same thing. 
 

there are so many other Ref Issues in this game. But this one they got right. 

[judman]

I didn't like the guys coming in off the sidelines and over ruling the ref.  

[Meatloaf63]

37 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Please, by all means, list for me the three ways a KO returner has to give himself up in his own endzone. 
 

Common sense comes into play whether you like it or not. In all walks of life. Things must be beautiful in your black and white world. 

It’s black-and-white if you would bother to read the rules, you can decide not to catch the ball at all, you can kneel down, or you can slide. But no instance can you just catch the ball and throw it at the referee. Rules are black and white they’re not common sense and they’re not meant to interpretation on the fly, that just leads to trouble.It’s black-and-white if you would bother to read the rules, you can decide not to catch the ball at all, you can kneel down, or you can slide. But no instance can you just catch the ball and throw it at the referee. Rules are black and white they’re not common sense and they’re not meant to interpretation on the fly, that just leads to trouble.

1 minute ago, MAJBobby said:

agreed because he also has watched Roberts do the same thing. 
 

there are so many other Ref Issues in this game. But this one they got right. 

Please with the rulebook show us how they got it right, because clearly they got it wrong.

[MAJBobby]

5 minutes ago, Meatloaf63 said:

It’s black-and-white if you would bother to read the rules, you can decide not to catch the ball at all, you can kneel down, or you can slide. But no instance can you just catch the ball and throw it at the referee. Rules are black and white they’re not common sense and they’re not meant to interpretation on the fly, that just leads to trouble.It’s black-and-white if you would bother to read the rules, you can decide not to catch the ball at all, you can kneel down, or you can slide. But no instance can you just catch the ball and throw it at the referee. Rules are black and white they’re not common sense and they’re not meant to interpretation on the fly, that just leads to trouble.

Please with the rulebook show us how they got it right, because clearly they got it wrong.

show me in the rule book they clearly got it wrong. Make sure it addresses giving yourself up. 
 

You want to complain about Refs here are better examples to do it. 
 

Fords Block

Hit to Josh’s head in OT

Delay of game no call

Holding no call on 3rd and 18 

Edited January 7, 2020 by MAJBobby

[ProcessTruster]

1 hour ago, Warcodered said:

Guys they're not going to ***** reverse this, the game is over we lost on to 2020.

yessir.  these guys will be hungry next year.  they were never getting past KC or Ravens, or Saints or Niners this year.  but they'll have the horses next year IMO.  all good. 

 

we are tremendously fortunate to have the organization the Bills now have.  

 

get yer popcorn.  Process payin' off. 

[peterpan]

11 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

People here pretend as though the Saints-Vikings game last year never happened.  Worst call in history.

 

No recourse.

 

Fans moved on.

 

Got reamed again (blatant push off on game winning TD).

Actually, the fans sued....and the NFL changed their rules to allow for PI to be a challengable play.  

[Mr. WEO]

5 minutes ago, judman said:

I didn't like the guys coming in off the sidelines and over ruling the ref.  

 

They didn't overrule him.  He changed his call.  Only NY can overrule a call after review.

[MAJBobby]

5 minutes ago, peterpan said:

Actually, the fans sued....and the NFL changed their rules to allow for PI to be a challengable play.  

NFL didn’t change the rule because of a lawsuit that got dismissed immediately. 
 

there was outcry to have PI reviewable for YEARS. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by MAJBobby

[Mr. WEO]

2 minutes ago, peterpan said:

Actually, the fans sued....and the NFL changed their rules to allow for PI to be a challengable play.  

 

They changed the rule because of the sheer disaster it produced and UNIVERSAL outcry from every corner, not because of a lawsuit.

 

 

[K-9]

Just now, ToGoGo said:

 

Let's hear the reasons. 

Those plays all occurred within the field of play for starters. No rules interpretation dictated the Jackson play, he clearly lost possession within the field of play.  While there was nothing to stop the refs from consulting about the Ford penalty, they chose not to. 
 

The Houston return man spread his arms indicating no intent to return. That was the correct thing to do and we see it on virtually EVERY kickoff EVERY week. That was the half right aspect. His mistake was that he chose to retrieve the ball and made a half hearted toss to the ref, who let it go, as he should have. That was the half wrong aspect. Technically, you are not allowed to attempt a return after signaling a fair catch and you are assessed an unsportsmanlike like penalty when you do. But did the returner actually attempt a run back? No. INTENT was made clear PREVIOUSLY, when he spread his arms in the universal signal to NOT attempt a run back. 

[peterpan]

9 minutes ago, judman said:

I didn't like the guys coming in off the sidelines and over ruling the ref.  

That has to be against NFL policy, right?!?!

[pennstate10]

4 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Those plays all occurred within the field of play for starters. No rules interpretation dictated the Jackson play, he clearly lost possession within the field of play.  While there was nothing to stop the refs from consulting about the Ford penalty, they chose not to. 
 

The Houston return man spread his arms indicating no intent to return. That was the correct thing to do and we see it on virtually EVERY kickoff EVERY week. That was the half right aspect. His mistake was that he chose to retrieve the ball and made a half hearted toss to the ref, who let it go, as he should have. That was the half wrong aspect. Technically, you are not allowed to attempt a return after signaling a fair catch and you are assessed an unsportsmanlike like penalty when you do. But did the returner actually attempt a run back? No. INTENT was made clear PREVIOUSLY, when he spread his arms in the universal signal to NOT attempt a run back. 

"safe" sign is a signal to blockers.

 

Its NOT the same as a fair catch sign.  You can argue that it is, but there is no support for this in the rules whatsoever.

 

[MAJBobby]

Just now, pennstate10 said:

"safe" sign is a signal to blockers.

 

Its NOT the same as a fair catch sign.  You can argue that it is, but there is no support for this in the rules whatsoever.

 

when they changed KOs they did it with player safety in mind. So when they safe signal is given to the blockers to not engage at the restraining line. And then the Returner Fields the kick and Makes ZERO effort to start the return guess what he is Giving himself up. 

[K-9]

27 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

It does.  And common sense suggests abandoning the rule book and the events that transpired on the field in favor of ruling on intent is dangerous precedent.  

 

In order to "give himself up" the returner has to let the ball land in the endzone, signal fair catch, or take a knee.  He did not satisfy any of these criteria.  I don't think 3 rules is that onerous but some disagree. 

 

The officials shrank in the moment and did not have the balls to stick with the correct call.  Whether the rule is good or not is a separate discussion.

In the endzone, a returner may signal his intent not to return by spreading his arms. He satisfied that entirely. 
 

He indeed let the ball land in the endzone. His mistake was picking it up and tossing it to the ref before the play was whistled dead. But it can be argued that his signal superseded subsequent action. 
 

And let’s not trot out a slippery slope argument here. We are talking a very specific action that takes place, ON kickoffs into the ENDZONE only. 

[ToGoGo]

3 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Those plays all occurred within the field of play for starters. No rules interpretation dictated the Jackson play, he clearly lost possession within the field of play.  While there was nothing to stop the refs from consulting about the Ford penalty, they chose not to. 
 

The Houston return man spread his arms indicating no intent to return. That was the correct thing to do and we see it on virtually EVERY kickoff EVERY week. That was the half right aspect. His mistake was that he chose to retrieve the ball and made a half hearted toss to the ref, who let it go, as he should have. That was the half wrong aspect. Technically, you are not allowed to attempt a return after signaling a fair catch and you are assessed an unsportsmanlike like penalty when you do. But did the returner actually attempt a run back? No. INTENT was made clear PREVIOUSLY, when he spread his arms in the universal signal to NOT attempt a run back. 

 

You're talking to me about "half right" and "intent" in terms of the NFL rule book? If the rule book states that it's a TD, then it's a TD. 

 

It's very simple what happened. Everyone turned an objective rule into a subjective rule when it suited them. 

 

DeSean's intent was to down the ball once he crossed the goal line, but he didn't. Ford's intent was to block the tackler legally, but he didn't, sort of. Where was everyone's good heart then? No, it was "tough luck, son, got to be smarter out there". 

 

But when a wild card game was going to turn into a blow out in favor of a small market team? Now the league that rejects every pass interference review suddenly becomes a "common sense" league. And Bills fans defend this. 

 

I question how deep you've really thought this through. 

 

 

[K-9]

4 minutes ago, pennstate10 said:

"safe" sign is a signal to blockers.

 

Its NOT the same as a fair catch sign.  You can argue that it is, but there is no support for this in the rules whatsoever.

 

It’s also a signal that he has no intention of returning the kick. 
 

And I don’t have to argue it, the refs did that themselves. 

[pennstate10]

5 minutes ago, K-9 said:

In the endzone, a returner may signal his intent not to return by spreading his arms. He satisfied that entirely. 
 

He indeed let the ball land in the endzone. His mistake was picking it up and tossing it to the ref before the play was whistled dead. But it can be argued that his signal superseded subsequent action. 
 

And let’s not trot out a slippery slope argument here. We are talking a very specific action that takes place, ON kickoffs into the ENDZONE only. 

 

Sorry dude, you're simply wrong.

 

1)  A safe sign is not a fair catch sign.  Read the rules.

2)  He didnt let the ball bounce in the endzone.  By rule, that is a touchback.  He caught the F@#$##in ball.  That is the entire reason for this discussion.  Wake up.  Or go  to a Trump rally.  Your call.

Edited January 7, 2020 by pennstate10

[K-9]

3 minutes ago, ToGoGo said:

 

You're talking to me about "half right" and "intent" in terms of the NFL rule book? If the rule book states that it's a TD, then it's a TD. 

 

It's very simple what happened. Everyone turned an objective rule into a subjective rule when it suited them. 

 

DeSean's intent was to down the ball once he crossed the goal line, but he didn't. Ford's intent was to block the tackler legally, but he didn't, sort of. Where was everyone's good heart then? No, it was "tough luck, son, got to be smarter out there". 

 

But when a wild card game was going to turn into a blow out in favor of a small market team? Now the league that rejects every pass interference review suddenly becomes a "common sense" league. And Bills fans defend this. 

 

I question how deep you've really thought this through. 

 

 

Question it all you want, but there’s really not much to think through here. 
 

You can continue your “slippery slope” nightmare scenario, but I don’t think it’s warranted. 

[ToGoGo]

1 minute ago, K-9 said:

Question it all you want, but there’s really not much to think through here. 
 

You can continue your “slippery slope” nightmare scenario, but I don’t think it’s warranted. 

 

"Not much to think through" so something you probably say a lot. 

[MAJBobby]

4 minutes ago, pennstate10 said:

 

Sorry dude, you're simply wrong.

 

1)  A safe sign is not a fair catch sign.  Read the rules.

2)  He didnt let the ball bounce in the endzone.  By rule, that is a touchback.  He caught the F@#$##in ball.  That is the entire reason for this discussion.  Wake up.  Or go  to a Trump rally.  Your call.

now did he give himself up. YEP he did. He MADE ZERO attempt to even think about returning it. 

[K-9]

10 minutes ago, pennstate10 said:

"safe" sign is a signal to blockers.

 

Its NOT the same as a fair catch sign.  You can argue that it is, but there is no support for this in the rules whatsoever.

 

Its also a signal that the returner has no intention of attempting a return. 
 

Or are you suggesting that his blockers and his blockers only really know the secret message behind the spread arms? That everyone in the stands, all the refs, and the TV viewing audience, don’t know what that spread armed signal means? 
 

Common sense. 
 

 

[May Day 10]

I guarantee if he decided to tuck the ball in and suddenly runs, and the bills defenders messed up and gave up on the play it would have been a touchdown and upheld.

 

The rule seems very cut and dried.  Should have been a touchdown.  

 

With that said, the bills had 200 chances to win that game and couldnt.

 

Fan protests about officiating are lame 

 

 

[GoBills808]

2 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

now did he give himself up. YEP he did. He MADE ZERO attempt to even think about returning it. 

To give yourself up you have to kneel or slide or have some other body part hit the deck.

 

He could have fair caught it also. Or just not caught the ball in the first place. But since he did catch it he needs to give himself up and according to the rules he did not.

[K-9]

5 minutes ago, ToGoGo said:

 

"Not much to think through" so something you probably say a lot. 

With regard to a very specific play that only occurs in a very specific area, it doesn’t require much deep,though, 

 

 I’m debating with a 10 year old. Grow up. 
 

Off with you now.

Edited January 7, 2020 by K-9

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, K-9 said:

Its also a signal that the returner has no intention of attempting a return. 
 

Or are you suggesting that his blockers and his blockers only really know the secret message behind the spread arms? That everyone in the stands, all the refs, and the TV viewing audience, don’t know what that spread armed signal means? 
 

Common sense. 
 

 

You really want a common sense doctrine from the guys who couldn't figure out what a catch was for the better part of a decade?

[MAJBobby]

Just now, GoBills808 said:

To give yourself up you have to kneel or slide or have some other body part hit the deck.

 

He could have fair caught it also. Or just not caught the ball in the first place. But since he did catch it he needs to give himself up and according to the rules he did not.

mans it says that in the rules?  That you have to take a knee or have some part of you hit the deck?  Hmm guess they haven’t been Following the Rules ALL YEAR. 

[GoBills808]

Just now, MAJBobby said:

mans it says that in the rules?  That you have to take a knee or have some part of you hit the deck?  Hmm guess they haven’t been Following the Rules ALL YEAR. 

Yeh it does. I can't remember return man catching the ball and handing it to the ref w/out kneeling first and I watch a ton of NFL...maybe someone has some video to the contrary but I haven't seen it yet

[MAJBobby]

2 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Its also a signal that the returner has no intention of attempting a return. 
 

Or are you suggesting that his blockers and his blockers only really know the secret message behind the spread arms? That everyone in the stands, all the refs, and the TV viewing audience, don’t know what that spread armed signal means? 
 

Common sense. 
 

 

and the REASON they are doing it is because you cannot block at the restraining line UNTIL ball fielded. That is why EVERY returner does it to let EVERYONE know he has no intention of bringing the ball out before the collisions at the restraining line. 
 

this is an artifact of those new restraining line rules. 

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

Yeh it does. I can't remember return man catching the ball and handing it to the ref w/out kneeling first and I watch a ton of NFL...maybe someone has some video to the contrary but I haven't seen it yet

I see it every week. Even seen our own returner do it. 

[K-9]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

You really want a common sense doctrine from the guys who couldn't figure out what a catch was for the better part of a decade?

No. Although most of it is common sense, anyway. And I certainly won’t defend the worst officials in all of sports. 
 

 But I can in this one instance. 
 

Again, we are discusing a VERY specific play here, whereby the return man CLEARLY signaled he was not attempting a return. Period. 

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, MAJBobby said:

and the REASON they are doing it is because you cannot block at the restraining line UNTIL ball fielded. That is why EVERY returner does it to let EVERYONE know he has no intention of bringing the ball out before the collisions at the restraining line. 
 

this is an artifact of those new restraining line rules. 

I see it every week. Even seen our own returner do it. 

Would love to see tape, cause I haven't

 

Just now, K-9 said:

No. Although most of it is common sense, anyway. And I certainly won’t defend the worst officials in all of sports. 
 

 But I can in this one instance. 
 

Again, we are discusing a VERY specific play here, whereby the return man CLEARLY signaled he was not attempting a return. Period. 

It just seems like there's a simple set of rules in place that govern exactly the protocol to follow...and it wasn't. I mean, that's the whole reason the rules exist- so you don't have to worry about intent.