Should season ticket holders protest?

[Billl]

2 minutes ago, Meatloaf63 said:

Actually there is, and it’s a safety....

“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. If a player who intercepts, catches, or recovers the ball throws a completed illegal forward pass from the end zone, the ball remains alive.“

 

What is the number of that rule?  If a player intercepts a pass in the endzone, his teammate pushes someone in the back, and the intercepting player doesn’t leave the endzone, I don’t believe it would be a safety.  Never seen it happen, though.  I’d like to see the rest of the verbiage from your quote.

[Jauronimo]

2 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Bump

 

bump bump bump

 

CBS Sports says it has happened multiple times this year.  I have no reason to doubt it.  Still doesn't matter much to me since I'm not interested in how many times it was called incorrectly before Saturday.  I'm more interested in what happened on Saturday between the time a semi-correct call was made on the field at the time of the play and everything that happened afterward which abandoned established protocol and gave referees the power to interject "common sense" which apparently is contrary to known rules. 

 

Makes you think about the constitution of the competition committee and their relationship with the officials.  Seems contentious at best.  

[K-9]

2 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Bump

 

No sense waiting, it’s futile. What happened Saturday was unprecedented. And it will never happen again. Look for the safe signal in the endzone to be adopted as a new dead ball rule. 

Just now, Jauronimo said:

bump bump bump

 

CBS Sports says it has happened multiple times this year.  I have no reason to doubt it.  Still doesn't matter much to me since I'm not interested in how many times it was called incorrectly before Saturday.  I'm more interested in what happened on Saturday between the time a semi-correct call was made on the field at the time of the play and everything that happened afterward which abandoned established protocol and gave referees the power to interject "common sense" which apparently is contrary to known rules. 

 

Makes you think about the constitution of the competition committee and their relationship with the officials.  Seems contentious at best.  

Wait, what? CBS is saying that multiple touchdowns by kickoff coverage teams have been scored in the same fashion we saw Saturday?

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, Jauronimo said:

bump bump bump

 

CBS Sports says it has happened multiple times this year.  I have no reason to doubt it.  Still doesn't matter much to me since I'm not interested in how many times it was called incorrectly before Saturday.  I'm more interested in what happened on Saturday between the time a semi-correct call was made on the field at the time of the play and everything that happened afterward which abandoned established protocol and gave referees the power to interject "common sense" which apparently is contrary to known rules. 

 

Makes you think about the constitution of the competition committee and their relationship with the officials.  Seems contentious at best.  

I honestly cannot think of another time. Maybe there have been and I just missed them. As you say, what followed immediately after is the real issue. 

3 minutes ago, K-9 said:

No sense waiting, it’s futile. What happened Saturday was unprecedented. And it will never happen again. Look for the safe signal in the endzone to be adopted as a new dead ball rule. 

I doubt it. Too similar to the poison call on punt return

[Meatloaf63]

 

 

12 minutes ago, Billl said:

What is the number of that rule?  If a player intercepts a pass in the endzone, his teammate pushes someone in the back, and the intercepting player doesn’t leave the endzone, I don’t believe it would be a safety.  Never seen it happen, though.  I’d like to see the rest of the verbiage from your quote.

Section “8” The forward pass A.R 8.5 An illegal forward pass in end zone result is a safety, previously it is stated that a forward pass can not be made after a change in possession. 

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Meatloaf63

[Jauronimo]

1 minute ago, K-9 said:

No sense waiting, it’s futile. What happened Saturday was unprecedented. And it will never happen again. Look for the safe signal in the endzone to be adopted as a new dead ball rule. 

I take no consolation in a rule change as soon as the super bowl is over.  I have zero doubt they will immediately shore up the kickoff rule and blindside block rule and we will still be looking for our first playoff win in 26 years.

 

Why have a rule book if its so obviously based in silliness that referees can disregard written regulations and hand down common sense rulings after 2 minutes of deliberation?  That officiating crew undermined the integrity of the game.  They went wildly off the reservation and the precedent set is irresponsible at best. 

 

I must be a moron because I'm one of the 3 crazy #######s who cares that officials now have the power to disregard rules and make calls based on what they think was supposed to happen.  Nothing can go wrong there.  Its not like officials have a problem consistently and appropriately administering the rules they actually choose to observe.  Nope, nothing to see here.

[Meatloaf63]

In the end we know nothing changes from this discussion. But the question I really would like to see answered is why did the NFL officials on the sideline that rushed into the field, tell the crew to reverse a correct call? That’s really a big deal and what’s being glossed over by all the common sense people.  Those who say the NFL doesn’t have its own agenda I’m sure will have all the excuses for this action, but it’s pretty bold, if all of the sports news people and executives would call them out, I would like to see Rodger have to answer for this. Of course it will never happen, it’s already swept under the rug and we are on to the next round...

[GoBills808]

2 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

I take no consolation in a rule change as soon as the super bowl is over.  I have zero doubt they will immediately shore up the kickoff rule and blindside block rule and we will still be looking for our first playoff win in 26 years.

 

Why have a rule book if its so obviously based in silliness that referees can disregard written regulations and hand down common sense rulings after 2 minutes of deliberation?  That officiating crew undermined the integrity of the game.  They went wildly off the reservation and the precedent set is irresponsible at best. 

 

I must be a moron because I'm one of the 3 crazy #######s who cares that officials now have the power to disregard rules and make calls based on what they think was supposed to happen.  Nothing can go wrong there.  Its not like officials have a problem consistently and appropriately administering the rules they actually choose to observe.  Nope, nothing to see here.

 

 

'Let's rule this a touchdown, as common sense clearly indicates his intent to cross the goal line with the ball'

[Jauronimo]

18 minutes ago, K-9 said:

No sense waiting, it’s futile. What happened Saturday was unprecedented. And it will never happen again. Look for the safe signal in the endzone to be adopted as a new dead ball rule. 

Wait, what? CBS is saying that multiple touchdowns by kickoff coverage teams have been scored in the same fashion we saw Saturday?

No, they are saying multiple kick returners have acted like Carter this year with impunity.  As in caught the ball but failed to signal for a fair catch, failed to take a knee, and then tossed the ball to the referee.....now heres the important part.....the referee then INAPPROPRIATELY caught the ball and INCORRECTLY blew the play dead in all of those instances.  THAT is the difference.  

 

The very BEST defense I have seen of the travesty we are discussing is that it has been called INCORRECTLY all year and therefore the referee was more correct in being consistently with a piss poor application of established rules.  And for reasons inexplicable to me, that resonates with a lot of football fans.  

Edited January 7, 2020 by Jauronimo

[wagon127]

Theres no such thing as a free lunch, or a free td. This touchdown everybody is upset about is about as cheap of a touchdown as they come. Im not upset about this touchdown. Play football, and win the game that way. The guy was just handing the ball to the ref.

[Nextmanup]

What can the fans do?  Stop watching garbage NFL football! 

 

The problem is most are addicted to it and we are willing to put up with all the garbage because it's a very entertaining sport.

 

Eventually you have to come to accept that the NFL is garbage, but it is what it is and we have to pretty much accept it for what it is.

 

If you aren't prepared to do that, stop watching!

 

 

[Meatloaf63]

1 minute ago, wagon127 said:

Theres no such thing as a free lunch, or a free td. This touchdown everybody is upset about is about as cheap of a touchdown as they come. Im not upset about this touchdown. Play football, and win the game that way. The guy was just handing the ball to the ref.

What other rules would you like to ignore?  Having a team moved out of field goal position on a blind side block that wasn’t a blind side block In reality  is that ok? Ignoring the play clock that allows a drive continue for the game winning points is that ok? Just want to know where your line is???

[Buffalo Boy]

3 hours ago, K-9 said:

So, common sense has no place in rules interpretation? Can’t disagree more. The returner gave himself up and that was obvious, regardless of the technicality involved.

 

NFL refs get so much wrong during the course of a season and it’s by far the worst officiated sport in the world, but every once in a while they get it right. 

Not following the rules as written is getting “ it right”?

It’s the rule!!!!!  ZERO grey area. 
Players do stupid, inexplicable stuff and their team pays for it.

[Ethan in Cleveland]

Good god, let it go. If that was Roberts that did that there is no way you would be fine with the refs awarding a TD to Texans.

So sick and tired of the officiating comments on this board. Half of the posters don't even know the rules or how they are applied. 

I thought the fix was in for the Patriots? They didn't make it out of the first round. Who does the NFL want to win now? Please declare it before the games this weekend.

 

[Jauronimo]

2 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

Good god, let it go. If that was Roberts that did that there is no way you would be fine with the refs awarding a TD to Texans.

So sick and tired of the officiating comments on this board. Half of the posters don't even know the rules or how they are applied. 

I thought the fix was in for the Patriots? They didn't make it out of the first round. Who does the NFL want to win now? Please declare it before the games this weekend.

 

Roberts didn't do it because he knows the 3 effing rules which he needs to know.  

[Turk71]

4 hours ago, K-9 said:

Because common sense needed to prevail in that situation. Yes, the Houston player only did one of the two acts required to indicate his intentions and yes, technically the ref made the right call initially. But the returner made NO attempt to catch and return the ball. It was CLEAR what his intention was, which is why common sense needed to prevail. They got it right through consultation. 
 

My barometer has always been, how would I feel if they called it against my team. And I would have been apoplectic if that call were made against us. 

  It was obvious to everyone that Mike Gillislie had no intention of returning the kickoff that just laid in the endzone while he stayed away from it; the td was awarded to the Jets anyway, weird huh? Were you apoplectic then?

  Curious, what was the one of two things required that the Texans returner did? I didn't see a fair catch or a kneel down, either one of which would have been all that is required.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Turk71

[Jauronimo]

Just now, High Football IQ said:

Not sure a protest is needed but please stop showing up to the airport every time this team wins (and especially loses) a game because it's simply played out and it's actually sad people supported this team after such a horrendous loss in the playoffs that is probably worst than the music city miracle all things considered.

You should go back to making racist comments in the comments section of the Buffalo News.  You're not ready to troll these boards, kid.

[wagon127]

41 minutes ago, Meatloaf63 said:

What other rules would you like to ignore?  Having a team moved out of field goal position on a blind side block that wasn’t a blind side block In reality  is that ok? Ignoring the play clock that allows a drive continue for the game winning points is that ok? Just want to know where your line is???

Those are actual football things that the refs screwed up. Bills defense saw the play clock at zero, and lost a step. The blind side block, took a tough fought gain away from the bills. The entire sequence of the 2nd half kickoff is entirely stupid, id prefer my team score real touchdowns. 

[Augie]

51 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

I take no consolation in a rule change as soon as the super bowl is over.  I have zero doubt they will immediately shore up the kickoff rule and blindside block rule and we will still be looking for our first playoff win in 26 years.

 

Why have a rule book if its so obviously based in silliness that referees can disregard written regulations and hand down common sense rulings after 2 minutes of deliberation?  That officiating crew undermined the integrity of the game.  They went wildly off the reservation and the precedent set is irresponsible at best. 

 

I must be a moron because I'm one of the 3 crazy #######s who cares that officials now have the power to disregard rules and make calls based on what they think was supposed to happen.  Nothing can go wrong there.  Its not like officials have a problem consistently and appropriately administering the rules they actually choose to observe.  Nope, nothing to see here.

 

Whether it makes sense or not, what’s in writing is the final word. I go back to my banking days, or contract law in college and a real estate career. Whatever it says in black and white is the deciding factor. It might be badly worded, and maybe even missed the intent, but that doesn’t matter. You can fix it for next time. THIS time, the rule is the rule. What we “meant” or what the perceived intent was could not be more irrelevant. 

 

Having said all that, it’s over. I just hope it brings greater resolve and our team takes a big step up next year after a great offseason. 

[Jauronimo]

1 minute ago, wagon127 said:

Those are actual football things that the refs screwed up. Bills defense saw the play clock at zero, and lost a step. The blind side block, took a tough fought gain away from the bills. The entire sequence of the 2nd half kickoff is entirely stupid, id prefer my team score real touchdowns. 

I do not care at all how you would prefer to score or how comfortable you are winning by a TD scored by a correct interpretation of the rules.  I don't care if we play the 16 games against the 2019 Bengals if we win the super bowl.

 

I swear most of you won't be happy unless we go 19-0 winning by 30 every game and decline every penalty called in our favor.

[Billl]

1 hour ago, GoBills808 said:

Foul on offense in the endzone is a safety 

It’s not, though.  At least that’s not the intent of the rule.  That rule in meant to refer to the team that snapped the ball.  As in a hold in the endzone or intentional grounding in the endzone because if the player with the ball went down in that situation it would be a safety.  In the end, common sense has to apply.  It’s simply not possible to write a perfect rule book, and you don’t start spontaneously enforcing something one way during the playoffs after it’s been enforced a different way all season long.

 

Sports are meant to be settled on the field for our entertainment.  There is nothing sportsmanlike nor entertaining about deciding a game via procedural interpretations of an imperfect rule book that never attempted to legislate this situation.

[wagon127]

7 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

I do not care at all how you would prefer to score or how comfortable you are winning by a TD scored by a correct interpretation of the rules.  I don't care if we play the 16 games against the 2019 Bengals if we win the super bowl.

 

I swear most of you won't be happy unless we go 19-0 winning by 30 every game and decline every penalty called in our favor.

None of what you said about me is true. Before the return man "fumbles the ball" the bills sent 3 extra guys on the field before the touchdown was scored. Correct interpretation of the rules would say "too many men on the field." Probably because everybody but the one referee thought the play was over. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by wagon127

[K-9]

58 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

I take no consolation in a rule change as soon as the super bowl is over.  I have zero doubt they will immediately shore up the kickoff rule and blindside block rule and we will still be looking for our first playoff win in 26 years.

 

Why have a rule book if its so obviously based in silliness that referees can disregard written regulations and hand down common sense rulings after 2 minutes of deliberation?  That officiating crew undermined the integrity of the game.  They went wildly off the reservation and the precedent set is irresponsible at best. 

 

I must be a moron because I'm one of the 3 crazy #######s who cares that officials now have the power to disregard rules and make calls based on what they think was supposed to happen.  Nothing can go wrong there.  Its not like officials have a problem consistently and appropriately administering the rules they actually choose to observe.  Nope, nothing to see here.

There IS no consolation.

 

If the overturned TD and blindside block penalty were the sole reasons we lost, perhaps I’d be more outraged. But there were approximately 65 other plays on both sides of the ball that had a direct bearing on the outcome as well. 
 

I just can’t agree with your take on the enormity of the that two minute discussion or the slippery slope aspect of it as well. I feel the officials had more justified cause to overturn the call on the field than they do in most other reviews. We can agree to disagree and move on. 

[Augie]

2 minutes ago, Billl said:

It’s not, though.  At least that’s not the intent of the rule.  That rule in meant to refer to the team that snapped the ball.  As in a hold in the endzone or intentional grounding in the endzone because if the player with the ball went down in that situation it would be a safety.  In the end, common sense has to apply.  It’s simply not possible to write a perfect rule book, and you don’t start spontaneously enforcing something one way during the playoffs after it’s been enforced a different way all season long.

 

Sports are meant to be settled on the field for our entertainment.  There is nothing sportsmanlike nor entertaining about deciding a game via procedural interpretations of an imperfect rule book that never attempted to legislate this situation.

 

Irrelevant. The rule is the rule. Enforce it. What does it say in black and white? That’s all that counts. 

 

I’m not whining, I’m moving on, but this is a fact: Refs should NOT call a game based upon perceived intent. 

 

I’m a “what does it say in writing” guy. That’s the only way to keep it clean. Sometimes you win, sometimes you get screwed. They got this wrong. Period. Now I’ll watch some playoffs and move on to FA. 

[Jauronimo]

1 minute ago, Billl said:

It’s not, though.  At least that’s not the intent of the rule.  That rule in meant to refer to the team that snapped the ball.  As in a hold in the endzone or intentional grounding in the endzone because if the player with the ball went down in that situation it would be a safety.  In the end, common sense has to apply.  It’s simply not possible to write a perfect rule book, and you don’t start spontaneously enforcing something one way during the playoffs after it’s been enforced a different way all season long.

 

Sports are meant to be settled on the field for our entertainment.  There is nothing sportsmanlike nor entertaining about deciding a game via procedural interpretations of an imperfect rule book that never attempted to legislate this situation.

Its common sense to know the rules of your profession especially when they are few and cut and dry.  Its common sense to understand failure to do so often results in undesirable outcomes.  Ignorance is rarely a viable defense.  

 

No one ever asked for a perfect rule book but I do expect the one we got to be observed. Especially when it 100% covers the events that transpired.

 

I'm still going to need one of you to show how often returners have committed the same offense as I have seen ZERO proof.  This idea is rather important to your point.

[loyal2dagame]

I'm a season ticket holder and this is silly.  Lawsuits?  Protests?  This society has jumped the shark. 

We are all doomed. 

[Jauronimo]

1 minute ago, K-9 said:

There IS no consolation.

 

If the overturned TD and blindside block penalty were the sole reasons we lost, perhaps I’d be more outraged. But there were approximately 65 other plays on both sides of the ball that had a direct bearing on the outcome as well. 
 

I just can’t agree with your take on the enormity of the that two minute discussion or the slippery slope aspect of it as well. I feel the officials had more justified cause to overturn the call on the field than they do in most other reviews. We can agree to disagree and move on. 

There are always 65 other plays.  No one play determines a game but that doesnt mean we get to toss out the rules.

 

2 minutes, 20 minutes, 5 seconds.  Introducing common sense which contradicts the rules as defined has no bounds.  If we can disregard what is written in favor of common sense which is previously undocumented then where does it end?  Why would this power be limited to kickoffs with outcomes that make some people uncomfortable?

[K-9]

19 minutes ago, Turk71 said:

  It was obvious to everyone that Mike Gillislie had no intention of returning the kickoff that just laid in the endzone while he stayed away from it; the td was awarded to the Jets anyway, weird huh? Were you apoplectic then?

  Curious, what was the one of two things required that the Texans returner did? I didn't see a fair catch or a kneel down, either one of which would have been all that is required.

The returner gave the safe signal indicating no intention of returning it. That’s a requirement when fielding a kickoff in the endzone under the modified kickoff rules enacted to better protect blockers. That’s the first requirement. The second is to leave the ball alone. He didn’t do that, obviously. 

 

Since the Gillislie play occurred before the modified rules were enacted, it really has no relevance to the current day issue. But yeah, I was mad about that play since Gillislie should have been more aware. 
 

 

[Meatloaf63]

13 minutes ago, Billl said:

It’s not, though.  At least that’s not the intent of the rule.  That rule in meant to refer to the team that snapped the ball.  As in a hold in the endzone or intentional grounding in the endzone because if the player with the ball went down in that situation it would be a safety.  In the end, common sense has to apply.  It’s simply not possible to write a perfect rule book, and you don’t start spontaneously enforcing something one way during the playoffs after it’s been enforced a different way all season long.

 

Sports are meant to be settled on the field for our entertainment.  There is nothing sportsmanlike nor entertaining about deciding a game via procedural interpretations of an imperfect rule book that never attempted to legislate this situation.

Wrong, the rules states you can’t make a forward pass after a change in possession. It is the intent that a forward pass after change of possession is illegal and it also states it is a safety. You can choose to ignore the rules, but the rule is black and white, He did not by the rule give himself up, no argument there, he did commit an illegal forward pass in the end zone, black and white rule there too. The only by the rule out come is a safety. The player was lazy and didn’t follow the written and accepted rules. There is no other interpretation. You don’t get to pick and choose which rules you want to follow, you have to change them in order for that.

5 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

There are always 65 other plays.  No one play determines a game but that doesnt mean we get to toss out the rules.

 

2 minutes, 20 minutes, 5 seconds.  Introducing common sense which contradicts the rules as defined has no bounds.  If we can disregard what is written in favor of common sense which is previously undocumented then where does it end?  Why would this power be limited to kickoffs with outcomes that make some people uncomfortable?

It’s amazing people can’t understand this, or what door that opens if that’s truly how the game rules are to be enforced.

[K-9]

1 minute ago, Jauronimo said:

There are always 65 other plays.  No one play determines a game but that doesnt mean we get to toss out the rules.

 

2 minutes, 20 minutes, 5 seconds.  Introducing common sense which contradicts the rules as defined has no bounds.  If we can disregard what is written in favor of common sense which is previously undocumented then where does it end?  Why would this power be limited to kickoffs with outcomes that make some people uncomfortable?

Because this power WAS only limited to the issue of a player giving the safe signal, in the endzone, on a kickoff. I just don’t share your doomsday prediction that this same kind of one and done issue will all of a sudden permeate EVERY call or non call referees make moving forward. There were FAR more egregious calls and non calls made for me to be more concerned about moving forward. But those calls are ubiquitous and made on routine plays on normal downs in the field of play and NOT the kind of rare play we saw in the endzone on Saturday. 

[Jauronimo]

7 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Because this power WAS only limited to the issue of a player giving the safe signal, in the endzone, on a kickoff. I just don’t share your doomsday prediction that this same kind of one and done issue will all of a sudden permeate EVERY call or non call referees make moving forward. There were FAR more egregious calls and non calls made for me to be more concerned about moving forward. But those calls are ubiquitous and made on routine plays on normal downs in the field of play and NOT the kind of rare play we saw in the endzone on Saturday. 

This power was only used for the first time.  First as in precedent.  So next time the rules get tossed out in favor of "common sense" I hope to see your fervent support.  Why do we even have rules if they aren't reflective of common sense?       

[K-9]

14 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

This power was only used for the first time.  First as in precedent.  So next time the rules get tossed out in favor of "common sense" I hope to see your fervent support.  Why do we even have rules if they aren't reflective of common sense?       

I think precedent played a big role in the play and that is the precedent established in every game every week this year of returners in their own endzone giving the safe signal and then nonchalantly trotting off the field. Every. Game. Every. Week. Yes, the Houston return man absolutely brain cramped as he took it for granted after the giving the safe signal. And yes, the ref who gave us the TD was correct in his call. I also think overturning that call was right per the spirit of the rules. I see no conflict there.
 

If that makes me a bad fan, so be it. 
 

That’s all I got.

 

[SinceThe70s]

55 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

Whether it makes sense or not, what’s in writing is the final word. I go back to my banking days, or contract law in college and a real estate career. Whatever it says in black and white is the deciding factor. It might be badly worded, and maybe even missed the intent, but that doesn’t matter. You can fix it for next time. THIS time, the rule is the rule. What we “meant” or what the perceived intent was could not be more irrelevant. 

 

Having said all that, it’s over. I just hope it brings greater resolve and our team takes a big step up next year after a great offseason. 

 

I go back to the tuck rule. I never understood why that rule was ever on the books in the first place and I only recall ever seeing it applied once. But I grudgingly had to admit that it was applied correctly at the time. Fortunately once Al Davis passed away they got rid of the rule.

 

I don't see any need to change this rule. Just apply it correctly.

  

I'm over any impact it had on the game, but not how it reflects on the current state of NFL officiating.They have got to get better.

[Billl]

5 minutes ago, SinceThe70s said:

 

I go back to the tuck rule. I never understood why that rule was ever on the books in the first place and I only recall ever seeing it applied once. But I grudgingly had to admit that it was applied correctly at the time. Fortunately once Al Davis passed away they got rid of the rule.

 

I don't see any need to change this rule. Just apply it correctly.

  

I'm over any impact it had on the game, but not how it reflects on the current state of NFL officiating.They have got to get better.

I disagree.  That was a terrible call.  It’s maybe the most famous example of common sense not being used.  Nobody remembers that play if it’s called a fumble.  Even Brady admits it was a fumble.

 

That said, I want you to commend the referee who called that blindside block on Cody Ford for throwing that flag.  It was a TECHNICALLY correct call that (IMO) shouldn’t have been made because it has nothing to do with the intent of the rule (which is protecting player safety by eliminating cheap shots).  That wasn’t a cheap shot, but you can’t perfectly define a cheap shot.  It shouldn’t have been called.  The official should have used common sense.  In sports, the “spirit of the rule” matters.  If you want to spend your weekends watching Robert’s Rules of Order, have at it 

 

 

 

  I’d rather watch football.

[K-9]

1 hour ago, High Football IQ said:

Not sure a protest is needed but please stop showing up to the airport every time this team wins (and especially loses) a game because it's simply played out and it's actually sad people supported this team after such a horrendous loss in the playoffs that is probably worst than the music city miracle all things considered.

So fans should only show support when their team wins. Got it. There’s a word for that.

 

High Football IQ? You’re referring to soccer, right?

[GoBills808]

13 minutes ago, Billl said:

That said, I want you to commend the referee who called that blindside block on Cody Ford for throwing that flag.  It was a TECHNICALLY correct call that (IMO) shouldn’t have been made because it has nothing to do with the intent of the rule (which is protecting player safety by eliminating cheap shots).  That wasn’t a cheap shot, but you can’t perfectly define a cheap shot.  It shouldn’t have been called.  The official should have used common sense.  In sports, the “spirit of the rule” matters.  If

Disagree. The blindside rule has ambiguity baked into it re: wording ('forcible' is the standard) and in that sense is somewhat open to interpretation. The kickoff rules don't offer similar leeway, they're very cut and dried as to what constitutes giving yourself up as a runner after you catch the kick.

[Billl]

5 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Disagree. The blindside rule has ambiguity baked into it re: wording ('forcible' is the standard) and in that sense is somewhat open to interpretation. The kickoff rules don't offer similar leeway, they're very cut and dried as to what constitutes giving yourself up as a runner after you catch the kick.

You think there’s ambiguity regarding whether Ford forced that contact?  Like maybe he wasn’t trying to block?  You’re trying to have it both ways.

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, Billl said:

You think there’s ambiguity regarding whether Ford forced that contact?  Like maybe he wasn’t trying to block?  You’re trying to have it both ways.

I interpret it as the contact needs to be forcible, not whether it was intentional. IMO the wording on the blindside blocking is ambiguous in a way that the rules governing the kickoff play aren't. But I suppose ambiguity is in the eye of the beholder lol

[Freak-O]

There should be some sort of official explanation from the NFL. The refs did not follow the rule book in a very important game and it might have changed the outcome. Some of us are angry, but we don't know the Bills would have won had it been called a TD or safety. We'll get over it. However, this must not ever happen again and that's why the NFL needs to address it. 

 

Why was Allen's fumble called a fumble? Common sense says that wasn't his intention at all! And Ford's blindside hit was also an error in judgement, common sense says he didn't want to cause a penalty costing his team the game.

 

I would also like to be the first to congratulate the 1991 Superbowl champions the Buffalo Bills, because there's no way in hell Norwood intended to miss that field goal.

[K-9]

15 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Disagree. The blindside rule has ambiguity baked into it re: wording ('forcible' is the standard) and in that sense is somewhat open to interpretation. The kickoff rules don't offer similar leeway, they're very cut and dried as to what constitutes giving yourself up as a runner after you catch the kick.

Regarding that, Mike Pereira said that even if the returner doesn’t down the ball in the endzone, the act of tossing the ball to the official or dropping the ball intentionally means he is deemed to have given himself up. Thought that was interesting as that was the explanation given by the ref on the field as well. 
 

As for the other elements of the give yourself up rule, I think some here are misreading the use of the word “and” in the list of the three criteria. It is clearly meant as “also” as the first two are OBVIOUS that there is no clear and immediate effort to advance; you are on the ground, so the third defined element would be redundant. “Making no immediate effort to advance” can be done without falling to the ground or kneeling in order to demonstrate no effort to advance as we see when a player simply catches the ball and stands there before tossing it to the ref, for instance. 
 

People can debate these words until the end of time, but it’s clear to me why the refs made the determination they did in their interpretation. 

 

Quote

 

When a runner declares himself down by:

1. falling to the ground, or kneeling, and clearly making no immediate effort to advance.