Should season ticket holders protest?

[GoBills808]

2 minutes ago, K-9 said:

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. 

 

 

But nowhere does it say tossing the ball at the ref fulfills the first obligation...you can clearly either fall to the ground, or kneel.

 

If someone catches a pass in the field of play and then tosses the ball at the nearest ref I don't think anyone is going to say he gave himself up. 

[Jauronimo]

51 minutes ago, K-9 said:

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.

 

I don't think you're a bad fan.  In fact, very far from it. Like the complete opposite.

 

Until the officials can actually enforce the rules we have accuracy then I am not not comfortable with the spirit of the rule subject to adjudication a la minute when the NFL has made painfully literal interpretations a hallmark of the fan experience for at least the last decade.  If the spirit of a rule is going to be observed then any fair person would like the spirit of all rules to be enforced with common sense consistently and that did not happen on Saturday.  No such allowance was given on Ford's block.  The blind side rule was meant to take vicious hits on unsuspecting players out of the game.  Instead of spirit we got by the book, 15 yards, and moved out of field goal range.  

 

I would say consideration of spirit of the rule and intent is an anomaly.  The video review process was meant to overturn bad calls on a standard of "any guy in a bar" could tell that was a bad call.  The norm has been making rulings based on fractions of an inch, blades of grass, and nano-seconds of control.  But now on a one off call the refs want to talk about common sense and I am supposed to just buy it no questions asked?????

[Turk71]

1 hour ago, K-9 said:

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.

 

The 'safe' signal is not a legal signal to the refs, it is a signal to your teammates. A fair catch signal is a signal to the refs and the play is over when you successfully catch it, no kneel down required. Without a fair catch signal a kneel down is required if the returner catches the ball. The ref made it quite clear that the returner did neither and the ball was live. It makes no difference that he didn't intend to return the kick, he didn't legally give himself up and the ball was live. Period. Embarrassing boneheaded mistakes are not excused because they didn't mean to make them. Just ask all the players who accidentally dropped the ball too soon while running unimpeded into the end zone. Why don't they just give them the touchdown? They obviously didn't mean to do something so stupid.

 What legal interpretation of the rules was used to overturn the call on the field? I'll wait.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Turk71

[GoBills808]

11 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

I don't think you're a bad fan.  In fact, very far from it. Like the complete opposite.

 

Until the officials can actually enforce the rules we have accuracy then I am not not comfortable with the spirit of the rule subject to adjudication a la minute when the NFL has made painfully literal interpretations a hallmark of the fan experience for at least the last decade.  If the spirit of a rule is going to be observed then any fair person would like the spirit of all rules to be enforced with common sense consistently and that did not happen on Saturday.  No such allowance was given on Ford's block.  The blind side rule was meant to take vicious hits on unsuspecting players out of the game.  Instead of spirit we got by the book, 15 yards, and moved out of field goal range.  

 

I would say consideration of spirit of the rule and intent is an anomaly.  The video review process was meant to overturn bad calls on a standard of "any guy in a bar" could tell that was a bad call.  The norm has been making rulings based on fractions of an inch, blades of grass, and nano-seconds of control.  But now on a one off call the refs want to talk about common sense and I am supposed to just buy it no questions asked?????

Go to sleep already

[K-9]

12 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

But nowhere does it say tossing the ball at the ref fulfills the first obligation...you can clearly either fall to the ground, or kneel.

 

If someone catches a pass in the field of play and then tosses the ball at the nearest ref I don't think anyone is going to say he gave himself up. 

I know. That’s what Pereira said. Is he more informed or referencing a different rule? I don’t know. Fall to ground, or kneel, ALSO make no immediate effort to advance. You and others insist on making the second and third criteria a single criteria. Reasonable minds can interpret that wording differently, which I tried to point out. 
 

Rules governing actions in the field of play during normal downs may differ from rules governing actions in the endzone during the act of fielding a kickoff. I’ll leave it at that. 

9 minutes ago, Turk71 said:

The 'safe' signal is not a legal signal to the refs, it is a signal to your teammates. A fair catch signal is a signal to the refs and the play is over when you successfully catch it, no kneel down required. Without a fair catch signal a kneel down is required if the returner catches the ball. The ref made it quite clear that the returner did neither and the ball was live. It makes no difference that he didn't intend to return the kick, he didn't legally give himself up and the ball was live. Period. Embarrassing boneheaded mistakes are not excused because they didn't mean to make them. Just ask all the players who accidentally dropped the ball too soon while running unimpeded into the end zone. Why don't they just give them the touchdown? They obviously didn't mean to do something so stupid.

 What legal interpretation of the rules was used to overturn the call on the field? I'll wait.

The “interpretation” was that the player gave himself up. That was the explanation given on the field. Your waiting is over.

[Turk71]

35 minutes ago, K-9 said:

I know. That’s what Pereira said. Is he more informed or referencing a different rule? I don’t know. Fall to ground, or kneel, ALSO make no immediate effort to advance. You and others insist on making the second and third criteria a single criteria. Reasonable minds can interpret that wording differently, which I tried to point out. 
 

Rules governing actions in the field of play during normal downs may differ from rules governing actions in the endzone during the act of fielding a kickoff. I’ll leave it at that. 

The “interpretation” was that the player gave himself up. That was the explanation given on the field. Your waiting is over.

Then the question is how did he do that? You either fair catch or take a knee. Walking forward towards the field of play and tossing the ball away is not giving yourself up in a legal rule book way, hence the ref standing right there ruled he had not legally given himself up and determined the ball was live. What legal determination of giving yourself up was used to overturn the call on the field? The fact that we all know that he meant to give himself up has absolutely nothing to do with the rules, just like the aforementioned runner dropping the ball before the end zone. Are you arguing that those tds should count because we all know they didn't mean to drop it short?

[Turk71]

Obviously the Bills could have made more plays or less mistakes and won the game. 

  The question here is when have you ever seen a call reversed because of 'common sense'. That is not in the rule book and the reason there is a rule book is so refs don't have to determine what a player intended to do, what he actually does is what matters. That's why dropping the ball just before you cross the goal line is not a td. Of course they didn't mean to do it, but they did. Why did the ref standing right there rule it a live ball? Because he never legally gave himself up. Period. In 50 years of watching football I have never seen common sense used as a reason to change a legally correct call on the field. That is it on this subject for me. Over it and out.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Turk71

[LOVEMESOMEBILLS]

8 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. 

The ref's job is to enforce the rules and the rules state that he needs to make no attempt to advance the ball AND kneel or lay on the ground. The ref's job is not, nor should it EVER be to judge a player's intentions. The returner had a job to do and he failed to do it, he shouldn't have been bailed out. The exact same thing happened in a Clemson game a couple years ago and it was ruled a TD for the kicking team. This is the equivalent of a player running free towards the endzone & letting go of the ball at the half yard line. Commonsense says his intent was to cross the goal line with the ball and everyone is sure that's the case, but in failing to do so it results in a fumble.

Edited January 7, 2020 by LOVEMESOMEBILLS

[1ManRaid]

13 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

all turnovers and scores are reviewed. Jesus it was the right call he was clearly giving himself up and happens just like that EVERY WEEK 

When a receiver makes a diving catch and everyone mistakenly thinks he is downed, they let play continue until someone yells at him to run for the endzone.  If he "gives himself up" and puts the ball down the other team picks it up and runs it back.  There's all kinds of plays like this where they follow the rules and let it play out.  Should have been a touchdown.  You know damn well if the teams were reversed or especially if it was a team like the Patriots they would have let the touchdown stand.

[SinceThe70s]

8 hours ago, Billl said:

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.

 

You've made a few subjective inferences about me here:

 

1) That I agree with the blind side block call. I've never expressed an opinion on that call, no clue why you brought it up. Two completely different plays/calls IMO.

2) The way I watch a game ("spend your weekends watching Robert’s Rules of Order" ). Please tell me what my reaction was after the play unfolded on Saturday and how it affected the way I watched the game. Here's a hint: it would probably surprise you. Discussing what happened after a game and the way I watch a game are two completely different things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rocbillsfan1]

11 hours ago, K-9 said:

Too late. You made it about that when you introduced the “tough guy” trope to the thread. 

Yep. Just realized that. 

Sure and your comment about the butt hurt Brigade being on patrol wasn’t in any way mocking and belittling posters. Like I said a real tough guy. 

[Rocbillsfan1]

10 hours 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.

 

It would suck but I have about 99% confidence that if the bills were already winning when this happened the rule on the field would have stood. This is all about the nfl arbitrarily putting their thumb on the scale and making it a closer game for ratings. Also the media loves making fun of the bills I’m sure that would have been the blooper of the year and everyone would love to laugh at the bills. But since the Texans were home and down 13-0 common sense prevailed. 

 

A buddy of mine told told me last night that the head referee during the conference and had his mic on for a second unknowingly and the thought process beyond calling a safety was being discussed before he turned it off. Wonder if we can get the video of that 30 second conference and hear it.

[Rocbillsfan1]

The real question for the people saying it was obvious he gave himself up by calling off his teammates. If the kick returner had walked towards the sideline with the ball and waited for the coast to clear and then ran it in for a td, do you think the refs would have overturned it and said he gave himself up? My guess is no, they would have called it a td and said wow what a brilliant move. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Rocbillsfan1

[row_33]

8 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

But nowhere does it say tossing the ball at the ref fulfills the first obligation...you can clearly either fall to the ground, or kneel.

 

If someone catches a pass in the field of play and then tosses the ball at the nearest ref I don't think anyone is going to say he gave himself up. 

 

it's all changed on kick returns in the NFL and college the last five years

 

if a tree falls and nobody is there, does it make a noise?

 

[Gugny]

15 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

all turnovers and scores are reviewed. Jesus it was the right call he was clearly giving himself up and happens just like that EVERY WEEK 

 

This is where I am, too.  It's where I was as soon as I saw the replay.  I can't believe how many people think we got robbed.

[Mr. WEO]

8 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

But nowhere does it say tossing the ball at the ref fulfills the first obligation...you can clearly either fall to the ground, or kneel.

 

If someone catches a pass in the field of play and then tosses the ball at the nearest ref I don't think anyone is going to say he gave himself up. 

 

Why would a player catch a ball in the field of play after a pass and give it to a ref?

 

 

[Amaru523]

Maybe I don't watch enough football, but I don't see this happening every week as many have said.  I see guys catch the ball and take a knee, I see guys let the ball hit the ground then walk away, I see guys give the fair catch signal, but I don't see guys catch the ball then throw it to the ref.  Common Sense tells us he was most likely giving himself up, but when does any sports league use common sense when interpreting the rules? Its like in the NHL when the goalie covers the puck with his glove and his entire glove crosses the line, they still say no goal because you cant clearly see the puck cross the line. Common sense tells us  otherwise, but you can't do that, you need to follow the rules to a T or, as someone said "The NFL opened up Pandora's box" with this call. 

 

 

[GoBills808]

15 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Why would a player catch a ball in the field of play after a pass and give it to a ref?

 

 

Because he thought he was down.

[apuszczalowski]

31 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Why would a player catch a ball in the field of play after a pass and give it to a ref?

 

 

Why would a player drop the football before being completely into the end zone?

 

I'm not part of this argument saying this cost the Bills the game or should mean the game be over turned or whatever, I'm only commenting cause it doesn't appear the rules were followed like they should have been and as someone said earlier, if referees can now make calls based on 'common sense' and intent, that opens up Pandora's box on how the games played. Referees have a hard enough time making calls based on what's written in the rule books, now they can make those rulings based on what they feel the player intended to do? Common sense says that John Brown made the catch while he was still in bounds and intended to get his feet down before going out of bounds, guess that play should have been called a catch. As also mentioned before, all those times where a player is all alone running into the endzone but dropped the ball just before actually getting in, those should all be ruled as TDs because common sense says the player would have scored and intended to drop the ball in the endzone and not before it.

 

From the written words in the NFL rule book, the original call by the Refs appears to have been correct that the ball was live in the endzone and a TD since the player did not take a knee or give the signal for a fair catch. We have seen this happen with the victory formation near the end of a game where common sense says the team on offence is intending to just kneel and down the ball and instead roll out and run a trick play. I guess the refs should blow those plays dead because of common sense and intent?

 

The player could have just as easily moved out of the way and let the ball hit the ground in the endzone instead of catching it if he didn't intend on running it out, the ball is now ruled automatically dead once it touches the endzone on a kick. If a player catches it, he either has to give himself up or can run it out because the ball is now live. The rules include the wording about advancing the football because a player can fall to the ground or kneel while diving forward to extend the play. This is why they want QBs to slide feet first to give themselves, otherwise they would be taught to start dropping to your knees while diving forward cause you get extra yardage and possibly a penalty for a late hit if someone tries to stop you going forward since your giving yourself up 

[apuszczalowski]

47 minutes ago, Amaru523 said:

Maybe I don't watch enough football, but I don't see this happening every week as many have said.  I see guys catch the ball and take a knee, I see guys let the ball hit the ground then walk away, I see guys give the fair catch signal, but I don't see guys catch the ball then throw it to the ref.  Common Sense tells us he was most likely giving himself up, but when does any sports league use common sense when interpreting the rules? Its like in the NHL when the goalie covers the puck with his glove and his entire glove crosses the line, they still say no goal because you cant clearly see the puck cross the line. Common sense tells us  otherwise, but you can't do that, you need to follow the rules to a T or, as someone said "The NFL opened up Pandora's box" with this call. 

 

 

That's because it doesn't happen every week, players either give the fair catch signal before they catch it, kneel it down if they don't want to run it out after catching it, or just run away out of the endzone Nd let it hit the ground so it's dead. It's why no one has been able to provide any video of a kickoff being caught in the endzone where a player didn't do atleast on of those things before giving the ball to a ref. He obviously didn't signal or let the ref know his intent to not run the ball out on that kick or else the ref wouldnt have left the ball alone and called it a TD. If he gave an acceptable signal for a fair catch, or let the ref know that he was not planning on running it out, the ref would have blown it dead right away.

[Jauronimo]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Why would a player catch a ball in the field of play after a pass and give it to a ref?

 

 

Because he doesn't know the rules and completely f@#$ed up.  Kinda like throwing a live ball to the referee in the end zone after a kickoff.  I have no idea why anybody would do that.

[GoBills808]

21 minutes ago, apuszczalowski said:

That's because it doesn't happen every week, players either give the fair catch signal before they catch it, kneel it down if they don't want to run it out after catching it, or just run away out of the endzone Nd let it hit the ground so it's dead. It's why no one has been able to provide any video of a kickoff being caught in the endzone where a player didn't do atleast on of those things before giving the ball to a ref. He obviously didn't signal or let the ref know his intent to not run the ball out on that kick or else the ref wouldnt have left the ball alone and called it a TD. If he gave an acceptable signal for a fair catch, or let the ref know that he was not planning on running it out, the ref would have blown it dead right away.

Some guy on Reddit says he watched every 2019 kickoff and didn’t see it happen once. 

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, GoBills808 said:

Because he thought he was down.

 

If he thinks he's down then he probably was.  If he wasn't and he gives the ball to the ref, the ref takes it.  It's calling "giving yourself up".  Play is over.

[GoBills808]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

If he thinks he's down then he probably was.  If he wasn't and he gives the ball to the ref, the ref takes it.  It's calling "giving yourself up".  Play is over.

Nope. That’s called giving the ball up. Giving yourself up is something else, and well defined at that.

[Mr. WEO]

36 minutes ago, apuszczalowski said:

Why would a player drop the football before being completely into the end zone?

 

I'm not part of this argument saying this cost the Bills the game or should mean the game be over turned or whatever, I'm only commenting cause it doesn't appear the rules were followed like they should have been and as someone said earlier, if referees can now make calls based on 'common sense' and intent, that opens up Pandora's box on how the games played. Referees have a hard enough time making calls based on what's written in the rule books, now they can make those rulings based on what they feel the player intended to do? Common sense says that John Brown made the catch while he was still in bounds and intended to get his feet down before going out of bounds, guess that play should have been called a catch. As also mentioned before, all those times where a player is all alone running into the endzone but dropped the ball just before actually getting in, those should all be ruled as TDs because common sense says the player would have scored and intended to drop the ball in the endzone and not before it.

 

From the written words in the NFL rule book, the original call by the Refs appears to have been correct that the ball was live in the endzone and a TD since the player did not take a knee or give the signal for a fair catch. We have seen this happen with the victory formation near the end of a game where common sense says the team on offence is intending to just kneel and down the ball and instead roll out and run a trick play. I guess the refs should blow those plays dead because of common sense and intent?

 

The player could have just as easily moved out of the way and let the ball hit the ground in the endzone instead of catching it if he didn't intend on running it out, the ball is now ruled automatically dead once it touches the endzone on a kick. If a player catches it, he either has to give himself up or can run it out because the ball is now live. The rules include the wording about advancing the football because a player can fall to the ground or kneel while diving forward to extend the play. This is why they want QBs to slide feet first to give themselves, otherwise they would be taught to start dropping to your knees while diving forward cause you get extra yardage and possibly a penalty for a late hit if someone tries to stop you going forward since your giving yourself up 

 

 

This "intent" stuff is nonsense...no matter how many times it is repeated.  The returner made his intent no to come out both with the fists out signal to his team and by immediately walking a few steps and calmly handing the ball to the ref.   Anyone who was watching knew he was not coming out.  No argument can be made otherwise.  It just can't.

 

Your bolded examples are off point and make no sense in regard to this case. 

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

Nope. That’s called giving the ball up. Giving yourself up is something else, and well defined at that.

 

The ref takes the ball--he doesn't do an "ole".  Play is over because by getting up and handing the ref the ball, he gave himself up.

27 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

Because he doesn't know the rules and completely f@#$ed up.  Kinda like throwing a live ball to the referee in the end zone after a kickoff.  I have no idea why anybody would do that.

 

Yeah but the ref doesn't run away and not take the ball, which is the point.

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

The ref takes the ball--he doesn't do an "ole".  Play is over because by getting up and handing the ref the ball, he gave himself up.

Did you even see the play in question lol

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, GoBills808 said:

Did you even see the play in question lol

 

 

Everyone saw it.  It's not complex.

[GoBills808]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Everyone saw it.  It's not complex.

Then what was he ‘getting up’ from?

[Mr. WEO]

10 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

But nowhere does it say tossing the ball at the ref fulfills the first obligation...you can clearly either fall to the ground, or kneel.

 

If someone catches a pass in the field of play and then tosses the ball at the nearest ref I don't think anyone is going to say he gave himself up. 

 

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

Then what was he ‘getting up’ from?

 

It's exactly what the ref would say, as he took the ball from the guy.  Otherwise, why would he take a "live ball" that had not been downed yet?

 

Because the player, whether he incorrectly assumed he was down and the play was over, gave the referee the ball and the ref ended the play.  The referee didn't dodge the ball and allow the defense to pick it up and run it in for a TD.

 

 

[GoBills808]

4 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

It's exactly what the ref would say, as he took the ball from the guy.  Otherwise, why would he take a "live ball" that had not been downed yet?

 

Because the player, whether he incorrectly assumed he was down and the play was over, gave the referee the ball and the ref ended the play.  The referee didn't dodge the ball and allow the defense to pick it up and run it in for a TD.

 

 

The exact opposite happened in the kickoff play, though.

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, GoBills808 said:

The exact opposite happened in the kickoff play, though.

 

Nope.  Both examples, player is ending the play (and declaring his intent) by handing a "live ball" to the ref.  In one case the ref uses common sense to conclude the obvious (play is over, although the ball hasn't been downed) and the other the ref runs away form the ball.  Technically, in both cases, the ref can allow the live ball to drop and let the play continue, or they can take the ball, and end the play.

 

So, your example shows how live balls are accepted by refs who then whistle the play dead. 

[GoBills808]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

 

Nope.  Both examples, player is ending the play (and declaring his intent) by handing a "live ball" to the ref.  In one case the ref uses common sense to conclude the obvious (play is over, although the ball hasn't been downed) and the other the ref runs away form the ball.  Technically, in both cases, the ref can allow the live ball to drop and let the play continue, or they can take the ball, and end the play.

 

So, your example shows how live balls are accepted by refs who then whistle the play dead. 

Show me one single example. Hint: don’t look too hard, it’s not out there.

[row_33]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Nope.  Both examples, player is ending the play (and declaring his intent) by handing a "live ball" to the ref.  In one case the ref uses common sense to conclude the obvious (play is over, although the ball hasn't been downed) and the other the ref runs away form the ball.  Technically, in both cases, the ref can allow the live ball to drop and let the play continue, or they can take the ball, and end the play.

 

So, your example shows how live balls are accepted by refs who then whistle the play dead. 

 

they are going to chew on this cud for the next 40 years... 

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, GoBills808 said:

Show me one single example. Hint: don’t look too hard, it’s not out there.

 

I'm responding to the hypothetical you gave me--it's one that you proposed.  That is how it would go.  The ref would take the ball.

[Utah John]

In the history of Bills clutch losses, most of them were a combination of them getting screwed, and them screwing up.  No Goal wouldn't have been a thing for the referees and league to get wrong if the Sabre had body checked Hull instead of trying to poke check him.  The Tennessee miracle throwback forward lateral wouldn't have worked if the Bills' cover team had stayed in its lanes.  The Bills lost their first SB all on their own, due to partying and drinking in the week leading up to the game.  

 

The loss to the Texans was keyed up by the officials failing to enforce the clear, written rules in effect.  But the Bills still got outplayed in the second half.  If the score had been 20-0 who knows whether the Texans would have been able to come back.

[Lurker]

On 1/6/2020 at 5:05 PM, Rocbillsfan1 said:

bs 

 

I endorse this part of your post...

[CodeMonkey]

On 1/6/2020 at 5:05 PM, Rocbillsfan1 said:

So I’d like to talk about something other than the play on the field there are a lot of great threads discussing that and we will have all offseason to discuss.

 

I gotta good laugh out of the thread about can the fans sue the nfl for the td call back  fumble play. While the answer is yes you can it obviously isn’t going anywhere as the nfl already stated they are just an entertainment business. But can the fans do anything else? Can we band together to demand some type of explanation or clarification to what exactly happened with the refs and how we can prevent this from happening in the future? I wonder what would even suffice and what could be said to fans to make it better? I don’t have a good answer for them. 

 

I’ve thought for many years now that since goodell has taken over that the nfl has turned into the wwe and I think there are dozens of examples in the last two decades that would point to that. I think as a season ticket holder and fan that maybe it’s time we demand more from the nfl. I was upset with some of the in game calls that were made or weren’t made but usually when you get down to it there’s a lot of grey area when calling a nfl game and fans are never going to completely happy with the way a game is called. That’s to be expected but the nfl has gone completely off the rails. Experienced viewers never know when or if a penalty will be called and there never seems to be any consistently. It’s a joke. 

 

However that isn’t my main concern. What is my concern is the obvious td callback. the rules make it 100% clear what you need to do as a returner when catching the ball in the end zone. It was the one time any experienced person that knows the rules understands that guy made a bonehead play that cost his team.  The refs as we know made the correct call and then something happened that I’ve never seen in my life. You had all these refs I’ve never seen in a game running onto the field calling a meeting. I’d like an answer for why were they allowed onto the field to and what initiated their decision to come onto the field. From what I’ve heard so far the refs in all black received a call from NY that there was an error of judgement made by the crew and that the call had to be overturned. Who is responsible for that and will there be any accountability for what they did? 

 

 My guess and I don’t even think this is conspiracy stuff is that the nfl wanted a competitive game because it was better for their ratings. They are in the entertainment business after all and the most important thing to them is ratings and guess what, they got it but at the bills expense. That is ridiculous if you ask me and something that should be taken way more seriously then what I’m seeing in the aftermath. ESPN didnt even mention the play anywhere on the nfl page. It’s still all about jj watt and Watson. But because it could have ruined the game ratings wise the NFL, not the game crew determined that we didn’t have to follow the rules anymore but instead use common sense. That is flat out wrong. 

 

I know there will be tough tough guys stating things like just get over it or deal with it but if no one ever takes a stand it will just be more of the same. So maybe as fans there’s a way to group together not as a protest to the bills or the pegulas but in order to stand up to the nfl and say we aren’t renewing season tickets until you’ve admitted your mistakes and correct this so we never had to go through this bs again. Otherwise, just enjoy football like a slightly more entertaining sport than wwe because it couldn’t be more obvious that it is. 

You are partially correct in your well thought post,  in that the way to "protest" is to not buy tickets ... but it would be any tickets, not just season tickets, and also not watch on TV.  If ratings as well as ticket revenue drop by enough across the NFL because of your protest, the NFL will respond.  The NFL is a business and has always done what's in their own best financial interest.  

But the NFL, as they themselves state, are an entertainment enterprise ... period.  And that is 100% true. NFL games offer nothing of any inherent value except entertainment.  They do what they feel is reasonable to try and keep things square during games.  But expecting perfection, or anything close to it, is unreasonable and quite frankly unattainable given the nature of the game in its current form.  You could even argue that the "human factor" of the officiating how it is now is more entertaining to the casual NFL fans than perfect officiating would be.  At the end of the day, the NFL does not care much who wins and who loses (despite the complaints that the Bills always get the short end of the officiating stick by some here ).  They care if it was entertaining enough to keep people spending their hard earned money on their product. in the future.

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by CodeMonkey

[MJS]

Why would the NFL care about that? It would hurt the Bills, not the NFL.

[MJS]

On 1/6/2020 at 10:27 PM, K-9 said:

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.

 

No, the "AND" means "in addition to". You can fall to the ground or fall to your knees and get back up and return the ball. You have to be downed by defensive player unless you are ALSO making no intention of returning the ball. For instance, if you making a diving catch for the kickoff or fall to your knees to make the catch, then get up and attempt to return the ball, that's not giving yourself up.