Since when do refs get to fix players mistakes?

[Seanhawk]

Exactly, had Reynolds or another player simply ran with that ball Reynolds would not have been ruled as having given himself up. Because he hadn't. But instead they fixed it because the Seahawks recovered that ball. Thats why every player on the field went after that ball.

Sure, no persecution complex at all.

My point is that had the Rams recovered the ball they would not have gone backwards and proclaimed the ball dead earlier when no whistle had been blown.

Wasn't it within the last 2 min?

Nope.

 

[FattyKnuckle]

Sure, no persecution complex at all.

My point is that had the Rams recovered the ball they would not have gone backwards and proclaimed the ball dead earlier when no whistle had been blown.

Wasn't it within the last 2 min?

Nope.

Thanks, couldn't remember exactly when it was.

My answer is still no, they wouldn't have because the Ram gave himself up and everyone was lining up for the next play. When it happened in real time I was pretty shocked that they let the play go on as it seemed extremely obvious what was happening.

 

[FattyKnuckle]

This is Desean Jackson giving himself up - should have been called down at the 1.

Weird, it doesn't look like he is running to line up for the next play because time was of the essence. Almost as if this isn't a remotely good comparison at all.

 

[pinksheets]

This is Desean Jackson giving himself up - should have been called down at the 1.

Weird, it doesn't look like he is running to line up for the next play because time was of the essence. Almost as if this isn't a remotely good comparison at all.

So, not only do the refs have to interpret whether dropping the football was intentional, they need to interpret whether it's reasonable to think the player thinks they might have been touched AND whether doing any of it makes sense situationally?

Sounds like an arbitrary mess with zero clarity.

Would you accept what Desean did as giving himself up if they were up 1 score with a minute to go and downing it to run out the clock would be beneficial?

 

[Natethegreat]

This is Desean Jackson giving himself up - should have been called down at the 1.

Weird, it doesn't look like he is running to line up for the next play because time was of the essence. Almost as if this isn't a remotely good comparison at all.

The question isn't intent, its what the actual rules are. Yes, he either thought he was touched or the play had been called dead but neither actually happened and he fumbled the ball. Intentional or not. Putting the ball on the ground is not giving yourself up per the rules as far as I am aware.

 

[Hawkpower]

This is Desean Jackson giving himself up - should have been called down at the 1.

Weird, it doesn't look like he is running to line up for the next play because time was of the essence. Almost as if this isn't a remotely good comparison at all.

Is it the intent or the actual action itself that matters?

Both players dropped a live ball, so are the refs also charged with being mind readers?

Pretty sure there are definitions to the rule for a reason...

 

[renofox]

This is Desean Jackson giving himself up - should have been called down at the 1.

Weird, it doesn't look like he is running to line up for the next play because time was of the essence. Almost as if this isn't a remotely good comparison at all.

So, not only do the refs have to interpret whether dropping the football was intentional, they need to interpret whether it's reasonable to think the player thinks they might have been touched AND whether doing any of it makes sense situationally?

Sounds like an arbitrary mess with zero clarity.

Would you accept what Desean did as giving himself up if they were up 1 score with a minute to go and downing it to run out the clock would be beneficial?

Excellent point. For The Win.

 

[FattyKnuckle]

This is Desean Jackson giving himself up - should have been called down at the 1.

Weird, it doesn't look like he is running to line up for the next play because time was of the essence. Almost as if this isn't a remotely good comparison at all.

So, not only do the refs have to interpret whether dropping the football was intentional, they need to interpret whether it's reasonable to think the player thinks they might have been touched AND whether doing any of it makes sense situationally?

Sounds like an arbitrary mess with zero clarity.

Would you accept what Desean did as giving himself up if they were up 1 score with a minute to go and downing it to run out the clock would be beneficial?

If you want to quibble about a terrible comparison, go for it. It doesn't remotely match what happened today and neither does your second hypothetical. However, if DeSean put the ball on the ground, not dropped it, and then turned to either lineup or huddle up, not sauntering around in the endzone... So basically the opposite of everything you're trying to make stick, then probably.

 

[jamescasey1124]

My point is that had the Rams recovered the ball they would not have gone backwards and proclaimed the ball dead earlier when no whistle had been blown.

Wasn't it within the last 2 min?

Nope.

Thanks, couldn't remember exactly when it was.

My answer is still no, they wouldn't have because the Ram gave himself up and everyone was lining up for the next play. When it happened in real time I was pretty shocked that they let the play go on as it seemed extremely obvious what was happening.

Since when does a player get to set the ball down...placement for his team to line up and hike without a ref touching? Doesnt happen. That is called cheating. Your argument is now null and void.

 

[FattyKnuckle]

This is Desean Jackson giving himself up - should have been called down at the 1.

Weird, it doesn't look like he is running to line up for the next play because time was of the essence. Almost as if this isn't a remotely good comparison at all.

So, not only do the refs have to interpret whether dropping the football was intentional, they need to interpret whether it's reasonable to think the player thinks they might have been touched AND whether doing any of it makes sense situationally?

Sounds like an arbitrary mess with zero clarity.

Would you accept what Desean did as giving himself up if they were up 1 score with a minute to go and downing it to run out the clock would be beneficial?

Excellent point. For The Win.

Amazing how you can be wrong twice in only five words.

 

[evergreen]

I think we all know what he was trying to do. I've never seen a guy go down early to stop the clock when there was still minutes left. It looked like what happened to DK Metcalf against Dallas. There's a giant difference between what he thought he did and actually did. He set the ball down all on his own and wasn't legally down. Why was he in such a rush?

 

[renofox]

So, not only do the refs have to interpret whether dropping the football was intentional, they need to interpret whether it's reasonable to think the player thinks they might have been touched AND whether doing any of it makes sense situationally?

Sounds like an arbitrary mess with zero clarity.

Would you accept what Desean did as giving himself up if they were up 1 score with a minute to go and downing it to run out the clock would be beneficial?

Excellent point. For The Win.

Amazing how you can be wrong twice in only five words.

Logic and critical thinking. Some got it, some don't.

 

[FattyKnuckle]

Wasn't it within the last 2 min?

Nope.

Thanks, couldn't remember exactly when it was.

My answer is still no, they wouldn't have because the Ram gave himself up and everyone was lining up for the next play. When it happened in real time I was pretty shocked that they let the play go on as it seemed extremely obvious what was happening.

Since when does a player get to set the ball down...placement for his team to line up and hike without a ref touching? Doesnt happen. That is called cheating. Your argument is now null and void.

What?! Where does it say the ref wouldn't get to touch it? Players place the ball on the ground to hurry up the action every single game. The players line up while the refs get in there to set the ball. Every. Single. Game.

 

[RolandDeschain]

This kind of officiating has cost us games a number of times in the past. It was total BS. I hate human officiating.

The NFL needs to develop software that officiates with human review and nothing more.

 

[Hawkpower]

So, not only do the refs have to interpret whether dropping the football was intentional, they need to interpret whether it's reasonable to think the player thinks they might have been touched AND whether doing any of it makes sense situationally?

Sounds like an arbitrary mess with zero clarity.

Would you accept what Desean did as giving himself up if they were up 1 score with a minute to go and downing it to run out the clock would be beneficial?

Excellent point. For The Win.

Amazing how you can be wrong twice in only five words.

You're picking a strange hill to die on here.

Seems to be a weird play with multiple layers that could have been interpreted in a multitude of ways.

Your insistence that its black and white ( and hence airing your superiority over fans you claim have a persecution complex) is grating at best.

Nothing wrong with claiming it was a strange play and walking away....

 

[Natethegreat]

So, not only do the refs have to interpret whether dropping the football was intentional, they need to interpret whether it's reasonable to think the player thinks they might have been touched AND whether doing any of it makes sense situationally?

Sounds like an arbitrary mess with zero clarity.

Would you accept what Desean did as giving himself up if they were up 1 score with a minute to go and downing it to run out the clock would be beneficial?

Excellent point. For The Win.

Amazing how you can be wrong twice in only five words.

Show us how we are wrong per the rules. Intent doesn't matter. What actually happened matters.

 

[FattyKnuckle]

Excellent point. For The Win.

Amazing how you can be wrong twice in only five words.

Logic and critical thinking. Some got it, some don't.

If you're trying to use that example as being remotely similar to what we're talking about here, I've got a bridge to sell you.

 

[pinksheets]

This is Desean Jackson giving himself up - should have been called down at the 1.

Weird, it doesn't look like he is running to line up for the next play because time was of the essence. Almost as if this isn't a remotely good comparison at all.

So, not only do the refs have to interpret whether dropping the football was intentional, they need to interpret whether it's reasonable to think the player thinks they might have been touched AND whether doing any of it makes sense situationally?

Sounds like an arbitrary mess with zero clarity.

Would you accept what Desean did as giving himself up if they were up 1 score with a minute to go and downing it to run out the clock would be beneficial?

If you want to quibble about a terrible comparison, go for it. It doesn't remotely match what happened today and neither does your second hypothetical. However, if DeSean put the ball on the ground, not dropped it, and then turned to either lineup or huddle up, not sauntering around in the endzone... So basically the opposite of everything you're trying to make stick, then probably.

Then that should be in the rule. I'm carrying your logic of so many factors that need to be assumed by the ref in terms of the players intent to its conclusion to show it creates a total mess.

Dropping the ball intentionally, on its own, isn't "giving up" to you. The player has to also do something to show they want to line back up or huddle up and have it make sense in context, too? Is it a live ball until they run to line up?

I get why you think it was fine in this case, I'm just pointing out your interpretation of the rule could never be applied in anything even approaching an objective way without listing out substantial situational caveats which aren't there.

 

[FattyKnuckle]

Excellent point. For The Win.

Amazing how you can be wrong twice in only five words.

Show us how we are wrong per the rules. Intent doesn't matter. What actually happened matters.

Intent doesn't matter for a play where a player intends to give himself up?

Are you referring back to today's play or to the absurd comparison that bears zero resemblance to the play today?

 

[OrangeGravy]

No complex or persecution here. I just think they blew the call. He never gave himself up. Unless there is a rule that states placing the ball on the ground is giving yourself up. Maybe there is but I am not aware of it.

Because there is no such rule. He set that ball down because he thought he was down by contact. The language of the rule doesn't state setting the ball down while standing up constitutes giving yourself up. If they did call that rule correctly, they need to either change the rule or change how it's written. You can't have officials out there interpreting a player's intent on any call let alone a play where the ball is loose. I guarantee they had a laugh about it after the game. He knows he got away with one there.

No one was anywhere near him, why would he possibly think he was touched?

Nobody can convince me that a player would take the chance of putting the ball on the ground on purpose (when there is no rule stating that this action constitutes giving themselves up) and leaving it to the refs to make the call. Not one coach in Football would be preaching that "give up" move. In fact, they would be coaching against that very thing because it's way too risky. He thought he was down. When things are moving that fast and you go to the ground you can't always tell if you've been touched or not. I've seen players get up to advance the ball thinking they weren't touched even when they were. This is the first time I've ever seen someone stand up and set the ball down other than Plaxico spiking the ball in the field of play, which was a fumble. According to this play that should've been a dead ball.