Jump to content

Should season ticket holders protest?


Recommended Posts

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.

 

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

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

 

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

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by pennstate10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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

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 by K-9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...