Since when do refs get to fix players mistakes?

[FattyKnuckle]

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 line back up or huddle up and gave 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.

There's nothing in Desean's actions that indicate he's giving up. He was showboating. Even if you change the specifics of when that play happened, nothing in his actions indicate he's giving himself up. He just dropped it. The play today, the WR went to the ground making a catch during a hurry up offense. He didn't try to run it, no one was near him to touch him down. He put the ball on the ground deliberately and looked to lineup for the next hurry up play. It bears no resemblance to DJ's play.

 

[Natethegreat]

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?

If a player intends to give himself up he should so according to the rule book. In his case he should have stayed down.

He did not stay down.

He was up immediately.

No whistle was blown and he set the ball on the ground.

Setting the ball on the ground is not giving yourself up.

Therefore it was a fumble.

 

[renofox]

There's nothing in Desean's actions that indicate he's giving up. He was showboating. Even if you change the specifics of when that play happened, nothing in his actions indicate he's giving himself up. He just dropped it. The play today, the WR went to the ground making a catch during a hurry up offense. He didn't try to run it, no one was near him to touch him down. He put the ball on the ground deliberately and looked to lineup for the next hurry up play. It bears no resemblance to DJ's play.

I agree. Can you show me where in the rulebook that means the ball was dead?

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/10_Rule7_BallInPlay_DeadBall_Scrimm.pdf

 

[pinksheets]

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 line back up or huddle up and gave 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.

There's nothing in Desean's actions that indicate he's giving up. He was showboating. Even if you change the specifics of when that play happened, nothing in his actions indicate he's giving himself up. He just dropped it. The play today, the WR went to the ground making a catch during a hurry up offense. He didn't try to run it, no one was near him to touch him down. He put the ball on the ground deliberately and looked to lineup for the next hurry up play. It bears no resemblance to DJ's play.

Would it be a fumble if they weren't in hurry up?

 

[FattyKnuckle]

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.

There's zero chance he thought he was down. No one was near enough to touch him and even if he thought he might have been touched (which I just don't see how he could), what player wouldn't get up and try to get more yards? You use that same example of not realizing you've been touched. The only reason you wouldn't advance the ball is if you knew without a doubt that you were down, or you were giving yourself up. He didn't spike it, or drop it, or flip it, he deliberately set it down and went to line up. It was the right call.

 

[jamescasey1124]

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.

And that is why the argument is null and void. Refs didnt do anything because the play was still live. No one single player can deem a plays end unless they lay there and wait to be touched down.or clearly show they have given up. He didnt not. No whistle...no touch...no give up. Just another technicality refs can use to sway power in a game.

You know how I know its wrong...not that you care but go back and watch the play again. The claimed to given himself up reciever Josh Reynolds looks at bobby pick up the ball after he set it down and clearly looks distrot like he ****** up big time. He had no idea what he was doing. Fumble.

 

[themunn]

I watched the game without sound and maybe missed a play here or there so somebody can explain to me when we are talking about?

Is this the QB sneak that ended up in recovered fumble?

 

[FattyKnuckle]

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.

And that is why the argument is null and void. Refs didnt do anything because the play was still live. No one single player can deem a plays end unless they lay there and wait to be touched down.or clearly show they have given up. He didnt not. No whistle...no touch...no give up. Just another technicality refs can use to sway power in a game.

You know how I know its wrong...not that you care but go back and watch the play again. The claimed to given himself up reciever Josh Reynolds looks at bobby pick up the ball after he set it down and clearly looks distrot like he f*** up big time. He had no idea what he was doing. Fumble.

Refs let potential turnovers play out all the time rather than blow a play dead.

 

[LoneHawkFan]

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.

And that is why the argument is null and void. Refs didnt do anything because the play was still live. No one single player can deem a plays end unless they lay there and wait to be touched down.or clearly show they have given up. He didnt not. No whistle...no touch...no give up. Just another technicality refs can use to sway power in a game.

You know how I know its wrong...not that you care but go back and watch the play again. The claimed to given himself up reciever Josh Reynolds looks at bobby pick up the ball after he set it down and clearly looks distrot like he f*** up big time. He had no idea what he was doing. Fumble.

I think the refs f’d up as well. They both did. Two wrongs don’t make a right

 

[Natethegreat]

I watched the game without sound and maybe missed a play here or there so somebody can explain to me when we are talking about?

Is this the QB sneak that ended up in recovered fumble?

Last Rams drive. Reynolds caught the ball on the ground, spun and got up, then set the ball on the ground (no whistle had called the play dead nor had he been touched). Wagner then grabbed the ball and the refs signaled Seahawks ball. Then they conferred and decided that Reynolds had given himself up.

 

[FattyKnuckle]

I watched the game without sound and maybe missed a play here or there so somebody can explain to me when we are talking about?

Is this the QB sneak that ended up in recovered fumble?

Last Rams drive. Reynolds caught the ball on the ground, spun and got up, then set the ball on the gorund (no whistle had called the play dead). Wagner then grabbed the ball and the refs signaled Seahawks ball. Then they conferred and decided that Reynolds had given himself up.

This is all correct.

 

[Natethegreat]

I watched the game without sound and maybe missed a play here or there so somebody can explain to me when we are talking about?

Is this the QB sneak that ended up in recovered fumble?

Last Rams drive. Reynolds caught the ball on the ground, spun and got up, then set the ball on the gorund (no whistle had called the play dead). Wagner then grabbed the ball and the refs signaled Seahawks ball. Then they conferred and decided that Reynolds had given himself up.

This is all correct.

Exactly, so can you show me in the rule book were setting the ball on the ground is giving yourself up. Because if that is his intent he should have stayed on the ground till the whistle blew.

 

[jamescasey1124]

I watched the game without sound and maybe missed a play here or there so somebody can explain to me when we are talking about?

Is this the QB sneak that ended up in recovered fumble?

Reciever on rams catches ball and goes to ground because throw was low. Reciever gets up without being touched to set the ball on the ground and runs off. B wags picks it up like ok that was dumb and treats it like a fumble. No whistle blown...no play end until after bobby tried to run off with it.

 

[renofox]

I'll repost. You must have missed my agreeing with you.

There's nothing in Desean's actions that indicate he's giving up. He was showboating. Even if you change the specifics of when that play happened, nothing in his actions indicate he's giving himself up. He just dropped it. The play today, the WR went to the ground making a catch during a hurry up offense. He didn't try to run it, no one was near him to touch him down. He put the ball on the ground deliberately and looked to lineup for the next hurry up play. It bears no resemblance to DJ's play.

I agree. Can you show me where in the rulebook that means the ball was dead?

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/10_Rule7_BallInPlay_DeadBall_Scrimm.pdf

Can you relate your argument to the NFL Rulebook?

 

[jamescasey1124]

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.

And that is why the argument is null and void. Refs didnt do anything because the play was still live. No one single player can deem a plays end unless they lay there and wait to be touched down.or clearly show they have given up. He didnt not. No whistle...no touch...no give up. Just another technicality refs can use to sway power in a game.

You know how I know its wrong...not that you care but go back and watch the play again. The claimed to given himself up reciever Josh Reynolds looks at bobby pick up the ball after he set it down and clearly looks distrot like he f*** up big time. He had no idea what he was doing. Fumble.

I think the refs f’d up as well. They both did. Two wrongs don’t make a right

Agreed. But hey we won.

 

[FattyKnuckle]

I'll repost. You must have missed my agreeing with you.

There's nothing in Desean's actions that indicate he's giving up. He was showboating. Even if you change the specifics of when that play happened, nothing in his actions indicate he's giving himself up. He just dropped it. The play today, the WR went to the ground making a catch during a hurry up offense. He didn't try to run it, no one was near him to touch him down. He put the ball on the ground deliberately and looked to lineup for the next hurry up play. It bears no resemblance to DJ's play.

I agree. Can you show me where in the rulebook that means the ball was dead?

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/10_Rule7_BallInPlay_DeadBall_Scrimm.pdf

Can you relate your argument to the NFL Rulebook?

I'm looking for more clarification because that states that sliding is the only way to give up (other than qb kneel) but there was a language change that added going headfirst also.

 

[FattyKnuckle]

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.

And that is why the argument is null and void. Refs didnt do anything because the play was still live. No one single player can deem a plays end unless they lay there and wait to be touched down.or clearly show they have given up. He didnt not. No whistle...no touch...no give up. Just another technicality refs can use to sway power in a game.

You know how I know its wrong...not that you care but go back and watch the play again. The claimed to given himself up reciever Josh Reynolds looks at bobby pick up the ball after he set it down and clearly looks distrot like he f*** up big time. He had no idea what he was doing. Fumble.

I think the refs f’d up as well. They both did. Two wrongs don’t make a right

Agreed. But hey we won.

If we're going to use reactions as "how I know" then McVay sprinting out there immediately to argue that he gave himself up should be a big tip-off that that was the direction he gave the players.

 

[Seanhawk]

I'll repost. You must have missed my agreeing with you.

There's nothing in Desean's actions that indicate he's giving up. He was showboating. Even if you change the specifics of when that play happened, nothing in his actions indicate he's giving himself up. He just dropped it. The play today, the WR went to the ground making a catch during a hurry up offense. He didn't try to run it, no one was near him to touch him down. He put the ball on the ground deliberately and looked to lineup for the next hurry up play. It bears no resemblance to DJ's play.

I agree. Can you show me where in the rulebook that means the ball was dead?

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/10_Rule7_BallInPlay_DeadBall_Scrimm.pdf

Can you relate your argument to the NFL Rulebook?

I'm looking for more clarification because that states that sliding is the only way to give up (other than qb kneel) but there was a language change that added going headfirst also.

Except he didn't go head first. He went to the ground making the catch, got up off the ground, and set the ball on the ground. Fumble.

 

[renofox]

I'll repost. You must have missed my agreeing with you.

There's nothing in Desean's actions that indicate he's giving up. He was showboating. Even if you change the specifics of when that play happened, nothing in his actions indicate he's giving himself up. He just dropped it. The play today, the WR went to the ground making a catch during a hurry up offense. He didn't try to run it, no one was near him to touch him down. He put the ball on the ground deliberately and looked to lineup for the next hurry up play. It bears no resemblance to DJ's play.

I agree. Can you show me where in the rulebook that means the ball was dead?

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/10_Rule7_BallInPlay_DeadBall_Scrimm.pdf

Can you relate your argument to the NFL Rulebook?

I'm looking for more clarification because that states that sliding is the only way to give up (other than qb kneel) but there was a language change that added going headfirst also.

(e) when a runner is out of bounds, or declares himself down by falling to the ground, or kneeling, and making no effort to advance;

He fell to the ground as a result of making the catch. It was not a separate or deliberate act. So he did not "declare himself down by falling to the ground".

 

[pinksheets]

I'll repost. You must have missed my agreeing with you.

I agree. Can you show me where in the rulebook that means the ball was dead?

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/10_Rule7_BallInPlay_DeadBall_Scrimm.pdf

Can you relate your argument to the NFL Rulebook?

I'm looking for more clarification because that states that sliding is the only way to give up (other than qb kneel) but there was a language change that added going headfirst also.

Except he didn't go head first. He went to the ground making the catch, got up off the ground, and set the ball on the ground. Fumble.

Bingo.