Since when do refs get to fix players mistakes?

[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.

 

[olyfan63]

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.

Decades ago, I went through basketball ref training, where the "Rule" and the "Interpretation of the Rule" were hammered into us. "Interpreting" the rule is a fundamental part of every ref's job, whether football, basketball, soccer, or any other similar sport. In basketball, there are interpretations on the block/charge rule, what is/isn't a foul, and so forth. In football, there are interpretations on what is/isn't holding, or PI, or whatever.

The "interpretations" are often covered in separate training materials, not necessarily in the actual letter of the law in the rulebook(s). Back when there was such a thing as preseason games, the refs were in preseason too, working on the interpretations of whatever rule changes or points of emphasis the league was working on, and giving the coaches a chance to adjust before games that counted.

Lots of good arguments made on both sides of this one. IMO the DeSean Jackson play is totally different interpretation and not relevant to this scenario. However, the argument about the Fumble-rooskie type play is a relevant one. If this interpretation isn't clarified, I could see a fumble-rooskie hook-and-ladder play being a thing that would get called back, if it were somehow successful. I recall a brilliant and successful fumble-rooskie play that Nebraska ran, decades ago.

The NFL could/should clarify this interpretation. For example, specifying that a player must touch one knee down to indicate he is giving himself up. Or specifying that a player placing the ball on the ground without attempting to advance it is "giving himself up". That play is too open to "momentary referee's whim" interpretation, because it includes interpreting player intent.

Isn't it awesome it wasn't a game-deciding play?

 

[cymatica]

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.

(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".

I would think intentionally placing the ball on the ground after making a catch and falling to the ground, constitutes making no effort to advance. Doesn't have to be a slide or kneel, he clearly declared he was making no effort to advance by placing the ball on the ground and running back to the huddle

 

[Hawkpower]

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.

So, your answer to the OP's question is: yes, they can fix players mistakes if they choose to do so. (like they did yesterday)

Would be interesting to see how that would be applied across the board to other rules/etc. Like you said, definitely a slippery slope.

 

[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.

So, your answer to the OP's question is: yes, they can fix players mistakes if they choose to do so. (like they did yesterday)

Would be interesting to see how that would be applied across the board to other rules/etc. Like you said, definitely a slippery slope.

In a way, yes I would agree with that. Sometimes I believe a ref should fix a player's "mistake" if it makes sense in the context of what's happening.

In my opinion for the ref to rule this any other way would be cheap yarage and not earned. Let me ask you this. Take the rule out of it. Do you think Reynolds, when he stopped, put the ball down and ran to spot it, showed no intent to gain more yardage?

 

[JPatera76]

[youtube]rNOvBSTqLoc[/youtube]


https://youtu.be/rNOvBSTqLoc

Bingo. It was fumble then, still a fumble now. Only differences there is he spiked it and not set it down, but was still untouched.

 

[beaumaris]

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. This isn't some complex or persecution thing. I want to discuss what is a pretty clear blown call.

If the call was correct,why were they penalized :?:

 

[renofox]

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. This isn't some complex or persecution thing. I want to discuss what is a pretty clear blown call.

If the call was correct,why were they penalized :?:

They were penalized because McVay ran onto the field.

 

[Hawkpower]

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.

So, your answer to the OP's question is: yes, they can fix players mistakes if they choose to do so. (like they did yesterday)

Would be interesting to see how that would be applied across the board to other rules/etc. Like you said, definitely a slippery slope.

In a way, yes I would agree with that. Sometimes I believe a ref should fix a player's "mistake" if it makes sense in the context of what's happening.

In my opinion for the ref to rule this any other way would be cheap yarage and not earned. Let me ask you this. Take the rule out of it. Do you think Reynolds, when he stopped, put the ball down and ran to spot it, showed no intent to gain more yardage?

I don't necessarily disagree with you, however rules are rules too. We can't really take the rule out of things unless we are doing that across the board

Think about the box that gets opened if we start analyzing intent instead of just the rule. Intent doesn't matter when other rules are broken does it? Just something to consider

 

[Natethegreat]

Just listened to Pete on this call on 710 and he basically said the same thing. It was a mistake by Reynolds and the refs corrected it for him but they should not have.
He made the same points already made here. Reynolds did not give himself up and he put the ball down which is a mistake but not something the refs should be correcting for him.
He also said he is waiting to hear back from the league to get an explanation.

 

[Natethegreat]

The moment you start letting refs correct mistakes and let intent enter the equation is the moment you allow wide latitude for bias and shenanigans to happen.
There was a way for Reynolds to give himself up. All he had to do was stay down and wait for the whistle. He did not do that.
If placing the ball on the ground is giving yourself up (which Pete said was what he was told) where is it in the rule book? And as has been pointed out that would be a very problematic rule if it was.
He made a mistake but in my view it is not a refs job to correct it.

 

[renofox]

There was a way for Reynolds to give himself up. All he had to do was stay down and wait for the whistle. He did not do that.

There was another option which was within the rules, would have been clear, and would have accomplished his intent of ending the play quickly to line up for the next play.

All he had to do was roll up into the kneeling position to place the ball down. Kneeling is in the NFL Rulebook as an action displaying his intent of giving himself up.

 

[Natethegreat]

Agreed, point being the player could have given himself up per the rule book and did not do so. So why are the refs correcting his mistake?

 

[renofox]

Agreed, point being the player could have given himself up per the rule book and did not do so. So why are the refs correcting his mistake?

They shouldn't have. It should have been Seattle ball.

It would have been unfair and taken away the Rams final opportunity for a comeback. That would have sucked.

But the alternative - making objective rules open to subjective interpretation in the name of enhancing competition - sucked even more. Without equal and unbiased enforcement of the rules, the quality of the product suffers, as we have seen with the steady decline of the Officials' performance.

 

[scutterhawk]

Ball on the ground, no whistle indicating end of play?...It was a mistake by both receiver & Officials....Bad call.

 

[beaumaris]

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. This isn't some complex or persecution thing. I want to discuss what is a pretty clear blown call.

If the call was correct,why were they penalized :?:

They were penalized because McVay ran onto the field.

Cheers Bud,missed the call.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Ball on the ground, no whistle indicating end of play?...It was a mistake by both receiver & Officials....Bad call.

Bad call, but a call the refs can conference and get right......................and they conferred and decided the receiver was giving himself up because the clock was running.

So while technically he wasn't touched and set the ball down, his intent was to give himself up, stop the play so his offense could quickly run another play.

We all got excited too, but under the scope of what the refs can change, they got it right.

The worse call was the motion/set penalty on DK, that was a bunch of BS. The league's done nothing but tell us they're trying to get rid of ticky tack penalties that don't affect the play after the fact. Yet there the ref was, calling a VERY questionable set/motion penalty because DK moved his toe an inch on a run play he wasn't involved in?

Garbage call, and could have been a BIG penalty.

 

[Natethegreat]

Huh, interesting take. The call that was actually correct by the rule book (DK was moving) if perhaps a bit ticky tack was the wrong call.
But the call that was incorrectly called by the rule book was correctly fixed by the refs in your opinion.

 

[olyfan63]

Agreed, point being the player could have given himself up per the rule book and did not do so. So why are the refs correcting his mistake?

They shouldn't have. It should have been Seattle ball.

It would have been unfair and taken away the Rams final opportunity for a comeback. That would have sucked.

But the alternative - making objective rules open to subjective interpretation in the name of enhancing competition - sucked even more. Without equal and unbiased enforcement of the rules, the quality of the product suffers, as we have seen with the steady decline of the Officials' performance.

You've made some terrific arguments in this thread. Can't really argue with anything you've said except to say that this play highlighted an unclear rule interpretation, which left it up to the puny humans in stripes to deliberate and decide.

While the refs didn't necessarily make the "right call", I think refs ultimately "did the right thing", in the real-life circumstances of the moment, though probably not for the "right reasons". It eventually resulted in the "right outcome" for the competitors, without the refs "deciding" the game. THIS TIME.

Personally, I think it would be such a cheap way to close the door for a win, with tremendous negative consequences for an actual human player on the other team, and we're going to shut them down legitimately anyway, that I'd rather let the Hawks go ahead and earn it convincingly on the field. Which the Hawks then did, granted, with the help of the 15 yard UC penalty on McVay. That was pure justice; the penalty was on the *coach*, the coach whose organization failed to properly train its players on the "official" way to "give yourself up", e.g., taking a knee, rather than standing up.

So, from the situation outcome and game outcome perspective, what the refs did was actually pretty close to perfect; a 15 yard UC penalty on the coach for impulsively running out onto the field to argue with the refs, the same coach who failed to properly instruct his players, with the outcome that his actions made it much harder for his team to keep the drive going and get back in the game. Putting on my ref shirt for a moment, the best outcome as a ref is that the competitors decided the game on the field by making plays within the rules of the game, rather than anyone feeling the ref(s) played an outsized role in the outcome.

Refs, right call for the wrong reason: I suspect their criteria included keeping the game close enough to be interesting, from a ratings standpoint, for a bit longer.

I do agree the league should rock-solid-clarify the interpretation for plays like this, and it may take a play like the one we're discussing, with a harsh outcome for the offense, for coaches around the league to get the point and start training players to a more literal interpretation of the "giving yourself up" rule in 2 minute drills in practices.

 

[renofox]

I do agree the league should rock-solid-clarify the interpretation for plays like this, and it may take a play like the one we're discussing, with a harsh outcome for the offense, for coaches around the league to get the point and start training players to a more literal interpretation of the "giving yourself up" rule in 2 minute drills in practices.

Agreed. I also think the NFL needs to hire competent people to write their Rulebook. Out of personal curiosity, I've referred to it several times to clarify controversies. As a former lawyer (one of several careers before retiring), I am appalled by the ineptitude of the authors.