Titans player test positive today 10/7

[Livinginthepast]

1 hour ago, Joe Ferguson said:

NFL will forfeit the Bills instead of the Titans. You ask why? Because they're the Bills.

Yes the NFL will force the BILLS to forefeit!! But then McD will throw the challenge flag!! at which they will go to NY who will confirm that replays confirm the forfeit call by the league!! 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

8 minutes ago, Livinginthepast said:

Yes the NFL will force the BILLS to forefeit!! But then McD will throw the challenge flag!! at which they will go to NY who will confirm that replays confirm the forfeit call by the league!! 

 

I was gonna laugh, but I just can't. 

 

You know what I thought first when I saw Diggs come down with that spectacular contested catch?  "Oh *****, they're going to screw us again by calling that catch an interception"

 

The Brown TD, the Diggs first down, it goes on and on.

[whatdrought]

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I was gonna laugh, but I just can't. 

 

You know what I thought first when I saw Diggs come down with that spectacular contested catch?  "Oh *****, they're going to screw us again by calling that catch an interception"

 

The Brown TD, the Diggs first down, it goes on and on.

 

Do you meant the Diggs first on the play where josh got hurt?

 

If so, I was definitely wondering why nobody seemed to care about that... 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, Limeaid said:

 

The Raiders players were POTENTIALLY exposed but not Raider players played were tested.  

The Bills players were not necessarily exposed because they played again those players.

 

NFL should consider making Titans travel rather than Bills go to Titans' facility

 

I'm having trouble parsing the sentence I bolded.

 

14 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

Do you meant the Diggs first on the play where josh got hurt?

 

If so, I was definitely wondering why nobody seemed to care about that... 

 

Yes, the Diggs first after Josh pitched him the ball as he was falling.

 

[Rochesterfan]

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I'm having trouble parsing the sentence I bolded.

 

 

Yes, the Diggs first after Josh pitched him the ball as he was falling.

 

 

Has their been an image showing anything other than him going out of bounds.

 

I thought they marked him a little short of where he was, but I have not seen a view that showed the ball in the field of play and across the marker.

 

 

[Punching Bag]

7 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I'm having trouble parsing the sentence I bolded.

 

 

I reworded it: The Raiders players were POTENTIALLY exposed but the Raider who players played were tested prior to game on their usual schedule.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

12 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

Has their been an image showing anything other than him going out of bounds.

 

I thought they marked him a little short of where he was, but I have not seen a view that showed the ball in the field of play and across the marker.

 

I will ack that I can't find anything super definitive.  This looks to me like the ball is at or near the 14 yd line, while nothing has yet touched down OOB.

 

Here's when/where Diggs touches OOB, the ball isn't across the 14 at this point but he pulled it back as he fell.  It's very clear nothing of Diggs touches until this point watching the whole clip, he is airborne

From the broadcast, another angle, looks like the ball is across and then can see from above view he is not down at this point.

 

At the very least, should have called for discussion and measurement

 

 

[Joe Ferguson]

[syhuang]

7 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I will ack that I can't find anything super definitive.  This looks to me like the ball is at or near the 14 yd line, while nothing has yet touched down OOB.

 

Here's when/where Diggs touches OOB, the ball isn't across the 14 at this point but he pulled it back as he fell.  It's very clear nothing of Diggs touches until this point watching the whole clip, he is airborne

From the broadcast, another angle, looks like the ball is across and then can see from above view he is not down at this point.

 

At the very least, should have called for discussion and measurement

 

 

 

Do you mean that although the ball doesn't across 14-yard line when Diggs is last inbound (the first picture), the ball could be at 14-yard line when any part of his body touches the ground (the last picture)?

 

If so, the question is not where the ball is when Diggs touches the ground, the culprit is where the ball is when the ball crosses the sideline. By NFL rulebook as below, the spot is determined by the location when the ball crosses the sideline. In this case, it looks to me it's quite short of the first down mark.

 

--------------------------------------

Item 2. Runner Out of Bounds. If the ball is in player possession when that player goes out of bounds,the out-of-bounds spot is the forward point of the ball when the ball crosses the side line, or, if the ball does not cross the sideline, the forward point of the ball at the instant the player is out of bounds

--------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

[HardyBoy]

2 hours ago, Limeaid said:

 

The Raiders players were POTENTIALLY exposed but the Raider who players played were tested prior to game on their usual schedule.

The Bills players were not necessarily exposed because they played again those players.

 

NFL should consider making Titans travel rather than Bills go to Titans' facility

 

No, they were exposed because they played against someone who tested positive a day or two after the game. I'm not saying the Bills Raiders game should have been postponed because of the charity event, most likely that did not lead to an infection, though for sure a chance...I'm saying the Bills Titans game should be postponed because they played against someone who tested positive on the first test following the game and their last negative test was from Saturday, which was farther back in time than the test they took after the game.

[Doc]

5 minutes ago, HardyBoy said:

No, they were exposed because they played against someone who tested positive a day or two after the game. I'm not saying the Bills Raiders game should have been postponed because of the charity event, most likely that did not lead to an infection, though for sure a chance...I'm saying the Bills Titans game should be postponed because they played against someone who tested positive on the first test following the game and their last negative test was from Saturday, which was farther back in time than the test they took after the game.

 

If Hurst got infected after the game, the Bills weren't exposed.  He wasn't positive on Saturday and they don't test on game day so we'll never know.  So now it's a matter of waiting to see if any Bills players test positive.

[Rochesterfan]

32 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I will ack that I can't find anything super definitive.  This looks to me like the ball is at or near the 14 yd line, while nothing has yet touched down OOB.

 

Here's when/where Diggs touches OOB, the ball isn't across the 14 at this point but he pulled it back as he fell.  It's very clear nothing of Diggs touches until this point watching the whole clip, he is airborne

From the broadcast, another angle, looks like the ball is across and then can see from above view he is not down at this point.

 

At the very least, should have called for discussion and measurement

 

 

Thanks - it is close - tough to tell the exact point it leaves the field of play. 
 

I don’t think it matters where he is down anymore - it is now marked at the spot the bill leaves the field of play when nothing else the touches inbound.

 

So it would be someplace in the jump prior to where he lands out of bounds.  Probably around the 15  maybe 14.5 yard line.

 

I thought it was much closer than they gave him credit for - god what an effort by JA and Diggs on that play.

 

Years ago - that would of been a first down because it was where they landed, but they changed that up - thanks SyHaung for the exact wording of the rule.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Rochesterfan

[Hapless Bills Fan]

23 minutes ago, syhuang said:

 

Do you mean that although the ball doesn't across 14-yard line when Diggs is last inbound (the first picture), the ball could be at 14-yard line when any part of his body touches the ground (the last picture)?

 

If so, the question is not where the ball is when Diggs touches the ground, the culprit is where the ball is when the ball crosses the sideline. By NFL rulebook as below, the spot is determined by the location when the ball crosses the sideline. In this case, it looks to me it's quite short of the first down mark.

 

--------------------------------------

Item 2. Runner Out of Bounds. If the ball is in player possession when that player goes out of bounds,the out-of-bounds spot is the forward point of the ball when the ball crosses the side line, or, if the ball does not cross the sideline, the forward point of the ball at the instant the player is out of bounds

--------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

No, that's not what I mean.  The ball appears to be inbound and across the 14 yd line while Diggs is out of bound, but still in the air.  So per part 1 of the rule you cite above, to my understanding that should have been a 1st down.  The last picture is the clearest, but impossible to tell if Diggs is down at that point.  The coaches film shows that he isn't.

 

22 minutes ago, HardyBoy said:

No, they were exposed because they played against someone who tested positive a day or two after the game.

 

Per the NFL contact tracing explained in a Minn. Star Sentinel article, players are not considered to be close contacts (exposed) based upon play on the field during the game, because it is considered to be of too brief duration:

"Friday’s PCR tests and Saturday morning’s point-of-care tests turned up negative results for all the Vikings nearly a week after they played the Tennessee Titans (....) While some Vikings coaches and staffers had “moderate-risk contacts” with the Titans before and after last weekend’s game, athletic trainer and infection control officer Eric Sugarman said last week that in-game contact between players is often brief and that the team viewed pregame and postgame conversations as longer, higher-risk contacts. (....)Sugarman pinpointed Thursday, Friday, Saturday and through Sunday as critical days for the Vikings based on how long COVID-19 can take to show up on a test. The Vikings will be the first NFL team to be tested on game day, according to updated NFL guidelines for teams affected by or in close contact with the virus."

 

So the Vikes NFL infection control officer is looking from potential exposure Sunday, to 4-7 days, as a critical window for testing

 

By analogy, if Hurst of the Raiders tested positive on Monday, he would likely have been considered to be exposed the previous Sunday or sometime early in the previous week.

 

 

 

[HardyBoy]

13 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

If Hurst got infected after the game, the Bills weren't exposed.  He wasn't positive on Saturday and they don't test on game day so we'll never know.  So now it's a matter of waiting to see if any Bills players test positive.

 

Absolutely, and I'm not going to get into a discussion on incubation period, but just look at it logically. He tested positive on the Monday test after testing negative on the Saturday test. That means he likely would have tested positive anywhere in between those two days...right in the middle...that's Sunday at 4pm. They should pause for a week to prevent a potential issue that could be contained from spreading and being uncontrollable in my opinion.

9 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

No, that's not what I mean.  The ball appears to be inbound and across the 14 yd line while Diggs is out of bound, but still in the air.  So per part 1 of the rule you cite above, to my understanding that should have been a 1st down.  The last picture is the clearest, but impossible to tell if Diggs is down at that point.  The coaches film shows that he isn't.

 

Per the NFL contact tracing explained in a Minn. Star Sentinel article quoted elsewhere, players are not considered to be close contacts (exposed) based upon play on the field during the game, because it is considered to be of too brief duration (6 seconds per play x 60 plays per game or something like that, and usually not exposed to the same player on every play)

 

I truly and really hope that is the case. I mean makes sense, but I would think a sneeze in the face more than equals 15 minutes talking in a closed space (feel like an nfl play could cause someone to breath out real hard on contact on the lines). I'm not a doctor or a scientists though, but man that would be great to see no Bills players test positive because of what it means in the larger scheme of things with this virus.

 

Also, agree, I thought Diggs got the first.

Edited October 8, 2020 by HardyBoy

[syhuang]

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

No, that's not what I mean.  The ball appears to be inbound and across the 14 yd line while Diggs is out of bound, but still in the air.  So per part 1 of the rule you cite above, to my understanding that should have been a 1st down.  The last picture is the clearest, but impossible to tell if Diggs is down at that point.  The coaches film shows that he isn't.

 

It looks to me that only when Diggs is about to touch the ground that the ball reaches first down mark. Consider how far he is out-of-bound in the end (as in your 2nd picture) and he still moves forward after he jumps, it doesn't seem to me the ball is at 14-yard line when the ball crosses sideline.

 

Below is after he is airborne and the ball is not yet at first down mark where Diggs stretch forward with the ball ahead of him. This is soon after your first picture. Consider where his body position is in your first picture, the ball seems already out of play field here and short of first down.

 

 

 

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, HardyBoy said:

Absolutely, and I'm not going to get into a discussion on incubation period, but just look at it logically. He tested positive on the Monday test after testing negative on the Saturday test. That means he likely would have tested positive anywhere in between those two days...right in the middle...that's Sunday at 4pm. They should pause for a week to prevent a potential issue that could be contained from spreading and being uncontrollable in my opinion.

 

That would be extreme.  Most likely they're figuring that if he did get infected prior to the game, he wasn't shedding particles enough to infect Bills players during the brief contact they had.  His teammates should test positive first and AFAIK, they're not even quarantining.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

15 minutes ago, HardyBoy said:

I truly and really hope that is the case. I mean makes sense, but I would think a sneeze in the face more than equals 15 minutes talking in a closed space (feel like an nfl play could cause someone to breath out real hard on contact on the lines). I'm not a doctor or a scientists though, but man that would be great to see no Bills players test positive because of what it means in the larger scheme of things with this virus.

 

You and me both, Brother!  I would think having two big linemen head-to-head and breathing hard in each other's faces would be an infection risk, and aren't they usually lined up over each other for more than 6 seconds on the play clock sometimes?  But we just have to hope that the NFL consultants who came up with the infection control protocols had enough data from somewhere to develop realistic protocols.

 

It is a very good sign IMO that none of the Vikes seem to have been infected even though DL Daquan Jones and LS Beau Brinkley could potentially have been infected during their game (Monday's swabs get reported Tues am is my understanding)

 

Quote

Also, agree, I thought Diggs got the first.

 

I will acknowledge it was not a clear-cut play. 

 

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

That would be extreme.  Most likely they're figuring that if he did get infected prior to the game, he wasn't shedding particles enough to infect Bills players during the brief contact they had.  His teammates should test positive first and AFAIK, they're not even quarantining.

 

The NFL protocol calls for identified close contacts of Hurst to be able to enter the facility as soon as they have two negative tests 24 hrs apart, then continue daily testing.  It doesn't call for quarantining close contacts.  (see flow chart posted elsewhere).  Don't shoot me, don't argue it, I'm only the messenger.

[Rock'em Sock'em]

15 hours ago, Just Joshin' said:

Add in a missed game check for the players

Do you think players are paid game checks if they don't play a game due to the other team's forfeit? Not sure what the CBA says about that.

[Rochesterian Bills Fan]

So my huge fear is the league postpones the Bills/Titans game without announcing any clear roadmap as to when the game will be played.

[BillnutinHouston]

17 hours ago, Beast said:

 

If the NFL starts handing out forfeit wins they may as well just shut the whole damned league down because there will be many more positive tests, leaguewide, in the near future.

 

Is it your take that forfeits not only don't have a deterrent effect, but actually encourage dumb behavior?

Edited October 8, 2020 by BillnutinHouston

[CorkScrewHill]

And the Tennessee Titan  potential potential positive from 10/7 is now confirmed positive and a new confirmed positive for today

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/10/08/another-titans-player-tests-positive/

 

[Doc]

20 minutes ago, CorkScrewHill said:

And the Tennessee Titan  potential potential positive from 10/7 is now confirmed positive and a new confirmed positive for today

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/10/08/another-titans-player-tests-positive/

 

That's it then.  No game this weekend.

 

And still no Bills players positive?

[badassgixxer05]

So now the question will become, is it a bye week or do the Titans start forfeiting? Not sure what the NFL will do with the Titans scheduling if they cant keep a healthy team. They cant have weeks of byes then finish up their season in January....

[Mr. K]

As much as I wouldn't like a win without testing the other team there is no way the NFL lets this game happen on Sunday. Two weeks of games being rescheduled seems like it would be a issue so a forfeit might be in tow

[BillsFan4]

Bummer. Looks like there will probably be no Bills football this Sunday.

 

I’m wondering if they’ll move the game to the end of the season and only play it if it’s necessary (like if the game has playoff implications). 
 

It would kind of piss me off if the Bills are the only team playing a week 18 game though and all the other playoff teams get (basically) a bye week.

[Midwest1981]

Dianna Russini

 

@diannaESPN

·

34m

 

I’m told by #Titans

 

and #Bills players they were told there is an option of playing their Sunday game on Monday or Tuesday in Nashville. If that happens, Thursday night’s game between the Chiefs at Bills would be moved to Saturday. This all just being discussed.

[DQW87]

Also doesn't seem fair if they change the playoff formula from wins to winning percentage if the Titans end up not having to play the Bills at all.  Nice getting to skip playing an undefeated team when you are going for the highest winning percentage possible. Especially when you're team may have been at fault in not following league protocol which is being investigated by the NFL.

[ndirish1978]

Screw the moron titans. They should have to forfeit every game they can't field a team for. This was completely preventable and these idiots decided to violate the no-contact rules and meet on their own for "informal" practices and now over a third of the team is infected. I've seen all these players online getting defensive about "making a living" and that's asinine selfish thinking. These guys know they are putting other players and by extension their families at risk and it doesn't matter to them. Titans just rocketed to the top of my "can't stand this team" list.

[billsfan89]

8 hours ago, badassgixxer05 said:

So now the question will become, is it a bye week or do the Titans start forfeiting? Not sure what the NFL will do with the Titans scheduling if they cant keep a healthy team. They cant have weeks of byes then finish up their season in January....

 

The NFL needed to have a league wide bye week in the middle and at the end of the season. It would have allowed for up to 3 games per team to be rescheduled into those weeks and the individual team's bye. I think that it might just be easier for them to forfeit these two games and try to make it against their opponent in week 6.

[Punching Bag]

Titans broke protocols, gathered for a workout last week

https://www.paulkuharsky.com/news/titans-broke-protocols-gathered-for-a-workout-last-week

[Jerome007]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The NFL needed to have a league wide bye week in the middle and at the end of the season. It would have allowed for up to 3 games per team to be rescheduled into those weeks and the individual team's bye. I think that it might just be easier for them to forfeit these two games and try to make it against their opponent in week 6.

Yes. But can they? No or little crowd makes it easier, but rescheduling 100s of games (as this what amonuts to)... think of hotel expenses, booking, travel arrangements, etc. Not as easy as it seems

[Augie]

23 minutes ago, Jerome007 said:

Yes. But can they? No or little crowd makes it easier, but rescheduling 100s of games (as this what amonuts to)... think of hotel expenses, booking, travel arrangements, etc. Not as easy as it seems

 

They will do everything they can for billions in TV revenue. A little overtime for scheduling and figuring out details is peanuts compared to the money involved. They can handle the details, but I’m not sure they can handle the virus.