Since when do refs get to fix players mistakes?

[jamescasey1124]

What he’s saying is valid. Did u see the Falcons lose this year because Gurley scored a TD when they were down 1 or 2 points instead of staying out of the end zone so they couldrun down the clock and kick the FGfor the win? That was his point. It’s a valid comment.

Not in using the Desean clip it isn't.

Your point was that putting the ball on the ground intentionally counts as giving yourself up. I showed another example and you introduced a handful of new variables about which the refs have to make assumptions. None of which is in the rulebook.

And again, regardless of the situational changes, what Desean did was nothing whatsoever like what happened today.

Yep, there are differences, absolutely, but if "putting the ball on the ground intentionally" is giving yourself up, as you argued, it should fit. That's why you then said that putting the ball on the ground intentionally is only giving yourself up if uh... It makes sense situationally and you run over AFTER to line up - so giving yourself up even is defined retroactively by your next actions.

Again, none of that is anywhere in the rulebook. I get your point, that it seems like Reynolds intended to give himself up and then adding commentary not based on nfl rules to bolster that, but it doesn't show how he gave himself up based on the established rule.[/quote]

The refs and the announcers thought differently so what are they looking at?[/quote]

They are looking at dollar signs and thinking about keeping there garbage ass jobs. Not making 100 percent accurate calls. That I know for certain.

 

[renofox]

I'm not saying it supports my argument. I'm saying that I believe they changed it a few years ago so I am looking for it to see what language changes are in there.

I think you may be confusing that with the rule interpretation change that gave the QB limited protection when diving forward rather than sliding. That's in a different section of the Rulebook and has nothing to do with the Dead Ball section or if determining when the ball is dead.

 

[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?

 

[FattyKnuckle]

I'm not saying it supports my argument. I'm saying that I believe they changed it a few years ago so I am looking for it to see what language changes are in there.

I think you may be confusing that with the rule interpretation change that gave the QB limited protection when diving forward rather than sliding. That's in a different section of the Rulebook and has nothing to do with the Dead Ball section or if determining when the ball is dead.

Maybe, but there was a similar play a few years ago when a receiver dove forward and got right back up to lineup and they were ruled to have given themself up. I think it was a Patriot but I can't remember.

 

[renofox]

I'm not saying it supports my argument. I'm saying that I believe they changed it a few years ago so I am looking for it to see what language changes are in there.

I think you may be confusing that with the rule interpretation change that gave the QB limited protection when diving forward rather than sliding. That's in a different section of the Rulebook and has nothing to do with the Dead Ball section or if determining when the ball is dead.

Maybe, but there was a similar play a few years ago when a receiver dove forward and got right back up to lineup and they were ruled to have given themself up. I think it was a Patriot but I can't remember.

If that was the case he took a separate and deliberate action to "declare himself down by falling to the ground".

In this case the receiver went to the ground as part of making the catch. If he was going to the ground anyway, how can that be ruled an action that would "declare himself down by falling to the ground"?

Does that mean every time a receiver is going to the ground to make a catch he is automatically down? Or do we need to have a special psychic ref to determine the player's intention?

 

[FattyKnuckle]

I'm not saying it supports my argument. I'm saying that I believe they changed it a few years ago so I am looking for it to see what language changes are in there.

I think you may be confusing that with the rule interpretation change that gave the QB limited protection when diving forward rather than sliding. That's in a different section of the Rulebook and has nothing to do with the Dead Ball section or if determining when the ball is dead.

Maybe, but there was a similar play a few years ago when a receiver dove forward and got right back up to lineup and they were ruled to have given themself up. I think it was a Patriot but I can't remember.

If that was the case he took a separate and deliberate action to "declare himself down by falling to the ground".

In this case the receiver went to the ground as part of making the catch. If he was going to the ground anyway, how can that be ruled an action that would "declare himself down by falling to the ground"?

Does that mean every time a receiver is going to the ground to make a catch he is automatically down? Or do we need to have a special psychic ref to determine the player's intention?

I think you're confusing a few posts. I only brought up going headfirst because I know they allow that but the rulebook definition I was looking at doesn't say anything about going headfirst. So I am looking to find what other practical clarifications are used in this situation.

 

[FattyKnuckle]

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?

Why was he in a rush with time running out and needing to score twice to win?

 

[renofox]

I think you may be confusing that with the rule interpretation change that gave the QB limited protection when diving forward rather than sliding. That's in a different section of the Rulebook and has nothing to do with the Dead Ball section or if determining when the ball is dead.

Maybe, but there was a similar play a few years ago when a receiver dove forward and got right back up to lineup and they were ruled to have given themself up. I think it was a Patriot but I can't remember.

If that was the case he took a separate and deliberate action to "declare himself down by falling to the ground".

In this case the receiver went to the ground as part of making the catch. If he was going to the ground anyway, how can that be ruled an action that would "declare himself down by falling to the ground"?

Does that mean every time a receiver is going to the ground to make a catch he is automatically down? Or do we need to have a special psychic ref to determine the player's intention?

I think you're confusing a few posts. I only brought up going headfirst because I know they allow that but the rulebook definition I was looking at doesn't say anything about going headfirst. So I am looking to find what other practical clarifications are used in this situation.

"Going to the ground headfirst" is a form of "declaring himself down by falling to the ground".

 

[jamescasey1124]

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?

Why was he in a rush with time running out and needing to score twice to win?

Because they were down 2 scores with minutes left not seconds left. Who cares. The play was wrongly called and you can stop riding the refs/rams jock strap. Thanks. Bye.

 

[FattyKnuckle]

Maybe, but there was a similar play a few years ago when a receiver dove forward and got right back up to lineup and they were ruled to have given themself up. I think it was a Patriot but I can't remember.

If that was the case he took a separate and deliberate action to "declare himself down by falling to the ground".

In this case the receiver went to the ground as part of making the catch. If he was going to the ground anyway, how can that be ruled an action that would "declare himself down by falling to the ground"?

Does that mean every time a receiver is going to the ground to make a catch he is automatically down? Or do we need to have a special psychic ref to determine the player's intention?

I think you're confusing a few posts. I only brought up going headfirst because I know they allow that but the rulebook definition I was looking at doesn't say anything about going headfirst. So I am looking to find what other practical clarifications are used in this situation.

"Going to the ground headfirst" is a form of "declaring himself down by falling to the ground".

Yes, I get that. I thought you were implying that I was trying to apply the headfirst example to today's game.

 

[renofox]

If that was the case he took a separate and deliberate action to "declare himself down by falling to the ground".

In this case the receiver went to the ground as part of making the catch. If he was going to the ground anyway, how can that be ruled an action that would "declare himself down by falling to the ground"?

Does that mean every time a receiver is going to the ground to make a catch he is automatically down? Or do we need to have a special psychic ref to determine the player's intention?

I think you're confusing a few posts. I only brought up going headfirst because I know they allow that but the rulebook definition I was looking at doesn't say anything about going headfirst. So I am looking to find what other practical clarifications are used in this situation.

"Going to the ground headfirst" is a form of "declaring himself down by falling to the ground".

Yes, I get that. I thought you were implying that I was trying to apply the headfirst example to today's game.

If you want to find that, look in the personal fouls section and check the examples and interpretations related to QB protection. That's probably where it is.

 

[FattyKnuckle]

Maybe, but there was a similar play a few years ago when a receiver dove forward and got right back up to lineup and they were ruled to have given themself up. I think it was a Patriot but I can't remember.

If that was the case he took a separate and deliberate action to "declare himself down by falling to the ground".

In this case the receiver went to the ground as part of making the catch. If he was going to the ground anyway, how can that be ruled an action that would "declare himself down by falling to the ground"?

Does that mean every time a receiver is going to the ground to make a catch he is automatically down? Or do we need to have a special psychic ref to determine the player's intention?

I think you're confusing a few posts. I only brought up going headfirst because I know they allow that but the rulebook definition I was looking at doesn't say anything about going headfirst. So I am looking to find what other practical clarifications are used in this situation.

"Going to the ground headfirst" is a form of "declaring himself down by falling to the ground".

Found it, it was the Chargers against the Patriots in 2010. I misremembered it a little bit. He went to the ground in making the catch and just let the ball sit there when he popped up, which makes the situation very similar to today. I'd argue that it was a lot less clear that he was giving himself up because he didn't try to place the ball after he got up. It looked more like a fumble than today's did. So there's precedent in that call on an extremely similar play and also in the Bills game last year. I haven't found any rule clarification that covers it but "points of emphasis" aren't always codified into the rulebook, but precedent is just as good. I don't know if this game was before they started letting the play go when there's a potential turnover. They made that a point of emphasis after Hotchuli blew dead a clear turnover in a DEN vs SD game that cost the Bolts a playoff berth. So in the 2010 example, they blow it dead and rule him to have given himself up. Today they let it play out rather than blow it dead immediately then got together and made the right call.

Goes to the ground making the catch, hustles to lineup quickly, clear recovery by defense, ruled down.
https://youtu.be/_j2CujPFkHg?t=1810

Compared to:

Goes to the ground making the catch, hustles to lineup quickly, clear recovery by defense, ruled down.
https://streamable.com/rhw37w

 

[Somos doces]

I can see how this play could have been called either way. Hopefully it will be one that compels a new definition in the rule book of "giving one's self up."

 

[therealjohncarlson]

After reading the rules and reading this thread it seems the rules are written very unclearly and need to be amended.

That being said I have no problem with the refs being intelligent humans and not robots and interpreting the “spirit of the game” to make a reasonable interpretation in real time. Should Reynolds have been smarter and not done what he did? Sure. But he did. And we will know his intent was to “give himself up”. The specifics of the letter of the law is not more important than the intent behind it.

Some might disagree with me, and call it a “slippery slope” to make judgments outside of the letter of the law like this. But at the end of the day rules won’t be written perfectly, so it’s up to the refs to interpret “why” the rule exists and make an intelligent determination.

 

[Maelstrom787]

After reading the rules and reading this thread it seems the rules are written very unclearly and need to be amended.

That being said I have no problem with the refs being intelligent humans and not robots and interpreting the “spirit of the game” to make a reasonable interpretation in real time. Should Reynolds have been smarter and not done what he did? Sure. But he did. And we will know his intent was to “give himself up”. The specifics of the letter of the law is not more important than the intent behind it.

Some might disagree with me, and call it a “slippery slope” to make judgments outside of the letter of the law like this. But at the end of the day rules won’t be written perfectly, so it’s up to the refs to interpret “why” the rule exists and make an intelligent determination.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Looks like everything has probably been said here, but based on the verbiage of the rule, I honestly think it was the right call. Like you said, the intent was clearly there, and even based on the specific verbiage in the rulebook (which is vague, perhaps intentionally so), I think the call fit within the parameters of the rule.

 

[Flyingsquad23]

So my only question now is...would they make the same call if Lockett did the same thing?

 

[OrangeGravy]

After reading the rules and reading this thread it seems the rules are written very unclearly and need to be amended.

That being said I have no problem with the refs being intelligent humans and not robots and interpreting the “spirit of the game” to make a reasonable interpretation in real time. Should Reynolds have been smarter and not done what he did? Sure. But he did. And we will know his intent was to “give himself up”. The specifics of the letter of the law is not more important than the intent behind it.

Some might disagree with me, and call it a “slippery slope” to make judgments outside of the letter of the law like this. But at the end of the day rules won’t be written perfectly, so it’s up to the refs to interpret “why” the rule exists and make an intelligent determination.

The ref's job is not to interpret anything. Their job to make calls based on the rules AS written. If a rule is written poorly and proves to cause problems, it should be amended. They can make judgements on whether or not something like contact between receiver/DB reaches a level of being a foul, but they do not and are not instructed to interpret whether or not a player intended to break a rule. If they were, they would wave off all those BS unnecessary roughness penalties like the one last week. On procedural violations in sports, you either violate the rule or you don't. There is no interpretation of intent.

In this case, the rule as written is incomplete and doesn't have language that covers this example exactly. I think the reason people have a problem with this instance is that the refs used assumptions about a rule and effectively added language to it that doesn't exist.

 

[Maelstrom787]

So my only question now is...would they make the same call if Lockett did the same thing?

I'd wager that they'd almost certainly make the same call under those circumstances.

 

[pinksheets]

[youtube]rNOvBSTqLoc[/youtube]


https://youtu.be/rNOvBSTqLoc

 

[Sports Hernia]

So my only question now is...would they make the same call if Lockett did the same thing?

Matters on who Seattle was playing at the time. If it’s a Legacy team (GB, Tampa Brady, Stealers, Cowboys etc) it’s fumble, if it’s a non legacy team (Detroit, Browns, Bengals, Jacksonville etc) no fumble.