Since when do refs get to fix players mistakes?

[Sgt. Largent]

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.

It's amazing how Hawk fans twist league rules and precedent to argue their obvious homer cases.

Reynolds was on the ground, rolled over and set the ball down. By rule the refs can and SHOULD interpret that as "giving himself up."

Allen Robinson did the same thing for the Bears last year. It's the going to the ground and giving yourself up part you guys aren't factoring into your little "OMG THE REFS ALWAYS SCREW US" pity party.

The rulebook states a deadball is declared when:

when a runner declares himself down by:

(1) falling to the ground, or kneeling, and clearly making no immediate effort to advance.

- went to the ground, check.
- made no effort to advance, check.

/discussion

 

[Torc]

One could argue that by setting the ball down he made no effort to advance. I agree with the call being within the spirit of the rule, but if that is accepted you also should be able to argue that dropping it at the one like Jackson and Metcalf falls in the same category.

The rule doesn't say "if the runner makes no effort to advance". The actual rule says he has to fall to the ground, or kneel, AND make no effort to advance." The signal that he is giving himself up is being on the ground. In other words, being "down" requires the usual body parts on the ground AND either an opponent's touch or not advancing. Placing the ball on the ground is a fumble.

"A fumble is any act, other than a pass or kick, which results in a loss of player possession." Nothing there about "except if the player is trying to hurry and place the ball to line up for the next play."

I completely understand that his intent was to get back to the line of scrimmage. But the whole point of having rules is to remove ambiguity. I have yet to see anyone agreeing with the final ruling quoting a rule that supports their assertion. (edit: except for the post right before this one. I took too long typing it. I would argue that he fell to the ground prior to having possession - he jumped back up and made a football move - one that as a viewer made me think he was about to run. The falling to the ground wasn't giving himself up because he was not at that point a runner. Had he stayed on the ground, maybe curled up to avoid being hit and losing the ball, THAT would have been giving himself up and the whistle would have been blown.)

 

[IndyHawk]

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.

Sliding is for QB's only -It was made to protect them.
It is CLEAR as day since I was 6-7 yrs old ..
The ball is live until the whistle is blown
There was a Hawk defender near the play btw
I bet he thought the defender touched him.
They showed that replay to see if the Hawk player
did..It's not the refs job to judge what the player
thought or not..It's to enforce the live ball rule.
They didn't and here we are ukeface:

 

[JimmyNightshade]

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.

It's amazing how Hawk fans twist league rules and precedent to argue their obvious homer cases.

Reynolds was on the ground, rolled over and set the ball down. By rule the refs can and SHOULD interpret that as "giving himself up."

Allen Robinson did the same thing for the Bears last year. It's the going to the ground and giving yourself up part you guys aren't factoring into your little "OMG THE REFS ALWAYS SCREW US" pity party.

The rulebook states a deadball is declared when:

when a runner declares himself down by:

(1) falling to the ground, or kneeling, and clearly making no immediate effort to advance.

- went to the ground, check.
- made no effort to advance, check.

/discussion

False. As the rule is written, the player must go to the ground AND make no effort to advance. As soon as dude popped to his feet he broke that sequence—as a defender must respect his ability to take off and run unless he wants to be on the wrong end of a Marvin Harrison-esque highlight.

Just as the “precedent” shows with the Plaxico Burress video posted earlier, refs aren’t allowed to interpret intent of black and white rules. Helmet to helmet hits and intentional grounding would be called a lot different if they could. Maybe he was trying to get up and run by pushing off the ground with the ball but it slipped out of his hands?

We can argue about what his intent was all day, but it means nothing in light of the rules—which were clearly applied incorrectly. Dude made a bonehead move before the whistle and got away with it...such is life in the NFL. Luckily this time it had no effect on the outcome—not even Vegas felt an impact.

 

[Natethegreat]

Good post, Pete Carrol made a similiar point. He went to the ground to make the catch then immediately got up. So the receiver at no point gave himself up by kneeling or staying on the ground. Pete made a comment that the refs told him the runner gave himself up by placing the ball on the ground.

THAT IS UNEQUIVOCALLY NOT IN THE RULES!

In fact the post above shows it to be exactly the opposite.

I am baffled by people actually wanting refs to make stuff up on the fly I.E. go with their gut and or bias. That is throwing open the door for skewed calls and uneven application of rules. You go by the rule book and teach your players the rules on how to give themselves up. If they screw up thats their fault. Its certainly not the refs job to correct it for them.

Same goes for Metcalf rocking back and forth. I had no problem with that call. He needs to make sure he is set. Thats on him not the ref.

 

[OrangeGravy]

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?

Those aren't interpretations of a rule, those are judgements about the degree of contact/collision during a play. The judgement/interpretation isn't about the rule, it's about the act of the play. Those are situations where an official is determining whether something was egregious enough to merit applying the rule, not of the rule itself. .The language written about fouls in basketball and PI or holding in football, have to have wiggle room. If you make them black and white, you have to game. You would have to make ANY contact with a receiver (football) or shooter (basketball) a foul/penalty. The only way to have a watchable and playable game is to leave a gray. Interpretations of rules would be using your personal judgment about why a player violated something written in the rules and using that to go against the rule as written.
Back to the play. Whether or not a player is down according to the rules of football is not a judgement call. You either get it right or you get it wrong. There is no, well it could of gone either way. It's no different than whether or not a player steps out of bounds. He either does or doesn't.

 

[FattyKnuckle]

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.

Sliding is for QB's only -It was made to protect them.
It is CLEAR as day since I was 6-7 yrs old ..
The ball is live until the whistle is blown
There was a Hawk defender near the play btw
I bet he thought the defender touched him.
They showed that replay to see if the Hawk player
did..It's not the refs job to judge what the player
thought or not..It's to enforce the live ball rule.
They didn't and here we are ukeface:

Wrong about sliding

I posted another video of the exact situation that was ruled the same way. It also happened in a Bills game and a Bears game last year, also not ruled fumble.

Bobby was about a yard away from him and didn't come close to touching him. I bet you're wrong.

 

[TypeSly]

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.

I love how you're one guy arguing against a whole forum, and you're so smug about it, like you're just right and everybody else is just ignorant, so you don't have to actually consider any poonts being made. So you're a Rams fan who's on a first-name basis with the players? It's actually you who's fighting the losing battle, because you haven't made one valid point or shown a shred of evidence proving that the rule backs up your claim on this. It was clearly a mistake by the Rams player and a blown call by the refs. Just by the reason of common sense, why would any player in the world give himself up in that situation? The team is behind in the game, and needs as many yards as they can get on every down... but the player just decides to give himself up, without so much as a pause?

You're simply wrong, and you know you are... just like the call on the field. So unless you bring some sort of evidence like a rule that clearly defines his actions or at least show us an exact play from the past where this has happened, because the crap you posted doesn't resemble anything close to this play. Until then, why don't you take your smug ass off the board and go wank with the other sore Rams fans.

 

[olyfan63]

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.

I love how you're one guy arguing against a whole forum, and you're so smug about it, like you're just right and everybody else is just ignorant, so you don't have to actually consider any poonts being made. So you're a Rams fan who's on a first-name basis with the players? It's actually you who's fighting the losing battle, because you haven't made one valid point or shown a shred of evidence proving that the rule backs up your claim on this. It was clearly a mistake by the Rams player and a blown call by the refs. Just by the reason of common sense, why would any player in the world give himself up in that situation? The team is behind in the game, and needs as many yards as they can get on every down... but the player just decides to give himself up, without so much as a pause?

You're simply wrong, and you know you are... just like the call on the field. So unless you bring some sort of evidence like a rule that clearly defines his actions or at least show us an exact play from the past where this has happened, because the crap you posted doesn't resemble anything close to this play. Until then, why don't you take your smug ass off the board and go wank with the other sore Rams fans.

What a lame ad hominem attack disguised as an argument. I'm sure there's also a Latin name for the nasty tactic of you trying to make it seem like it's him (FattyKnuckle) against the world. Don't really know you or the dude you're attacking, only know that these hostile and lame types of tactics you used there are better suited to a family court smear effort or ESPN "discussion" forum smackdown trolling type of format. Whatever. There's also "The Shack" forum on this board for people who prefer that type of expression.

The DeSean Jackson play of stupidly dropping the ball too soon while showboating has next to nothing in common with the play where the Rams receiver gave himself up (or didn't, depending on your interpretation). It was a physical misjudgment by a showboater. The applicable rule for that one is that Jackson didn't get any portion of the ball over any portion of the goal line while still in possession of the ball and not "down".

Foolish play by the Rams receiver, and he got bailed out by the refs. Refs ruled, whether you agree or disagree, and it's in the books for now. Maybe Pete will take it to the NFL's Competition Committee in the offseason.

 

[olyfan63]

Those aren't interpretations of a rule, those are judgements about the degree of contact/collision during a play. The judgement/interpretation isn't about the rule, it's about the act of the play. Those are situations where an official is determining whether something was egregious enough to merit applying the rule, not of the rule itself. .The language written about fouls in basketball and PI or holding in football, have to have wiggle room. If you make them black and white, you have to game. You would have to make ANY contact with a receiver (football) or shooter (basketball) a foul/penalty. The only way to have a watchable and playable game is to leave a gray. Interpretations of rules would be using your personal judgment about why a player violated something written in the rules and using that to go against the rule as written.
Back to the play. Whether or not a player is down according to the rules of football is not a judgement call. You either get it right or you get it wrong. There is no, well it could of gone either way. It's no different than whether or not a player steps out of bounds. He either does or doesn't.

Your argument simply proves my point. There is the rule, and then there is the interpretation of the rule, applying to the situation on the field.

The refs interpreted the "runner giving himself up" rule to apply to what the Rams receiver did. Note that it's not the "down" rule that applies, where a body part touches the ground, and the runner is ruled down. Your view is on target for that rule, and the out-of-bounds rule. However, these NFL-trained, NFL-paid refs disagreed with your opinion and applied an interpretation that the runner had given himself up by making no attempt to advance the ball, plus whatever else they factored into their interpretation.

The refs decided that they *could* apply an interpretation where they felt there wasn't a clear one. It's now up to the NFL decisionmakers, e.g., supervisor of officials, to review and issue clarifications on how the rule should be interpreted. I suspect (and hope) the NFL will try to align the language and interpretation with your view, i.e., to make it a physical observation Yes/No decision without room for subjective "intent" interpretation.

The refs decided they had the power to interpret the rule to apply to that situation, and you disagree with them. The refs won that one. That only means you're wrong for that game, that situation, and that reffing crew. By next week's games, NFL may have clarified and communicated the rule, to make you right for all following games.

"Tuck rule" anyone?

 

[TypeSly]

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.

I love how you're one guy arguing against a whole forum, and you're so smug about it, like you're just right and everybody else is just ignorant, so you don't have to actually consider any poonts being made. So you're a Rams fan who's on a first-name basis with the players? It's actually you who's fighting the losing battle, because you haven't made one valid point or shown a shred of evidence proving that the rule backs up your claim on this. It was clearly a mistake by the Rams player and a blown call by the refs. Just by the reason of common sense, why would any player in the world give himself up in that situation? The team is behind in the game, and needs as many yards as they can get on every down... but the player just decides to give himself up, without so much as a pause?

You're simply wrong, and you know you are... just like the call on the field. So unless you bring some sort of evidence like a rule that clearly defines his actions or at least show us an exact play from the past where this has happened, because the crap you posted doesn't resemble anything close to this play. Until then, why don't you take your smug ass off the board and go wank with the other sore Rams fans.

What a lame ad hominem attack disguised as an argument. I'm sure there's also a Latin name for the nasty tactic of you trying to make it seem like it's him (FattyKnuckle) against the world. Don't really know you or the dude you're attacking, only know that these hostile and lame types of tactics you used there are better suited to a family court smear effort or ESPN "discussion" forum smackdown trolling type of format. Whatever. There's also "The Shack" forum on this board for people who prefer that type of expression.

The DeSean Jackson play of stupidly dropping the ball too soon while showboating has next to nothing in common with the play where the Rams receiver gave himself up (or didn't, depending on your interpretation). It was a physical misjudgment by a showboater. The applicable rule for that one is that Jackson didn't get any portion of the ball over any portion of the goal line while still in possession of the ball and not "down".

Foolish play by the Rams receiver, and he got bailed out by the refs. Refs ruled, whether you agree or disagree, and it's in the books for now. Maybe Pete will take it to the NFL's Competition Committee in the offseason.

What the hell are you babbling about? I didn't mention anything about "goal line" and I'm saying that he got bailed out by the refs because it was a bad call.
Every post you do, it's just "babble babble babble". Are you one of those lawyers who write disclaimers? Because your posts are just full of repetitive words that beg to be skimmed through because it takes you 10 sentences to get to your point, where one would have been sufficient.

 

[OrangeGravy]

Those aren't interpretations of a rule, those are judgements about the degree of contact/collision during a play. The judgement/interpretation isn't about the rule, it's about the act of the play. Those are situations where an official is determining whether something was egregious enough to merit applying the rule, not of the rule itself. .The language written about fouls in basketball and PI or holding in football, have to have wiggle room. If you make them black and white, you have to game. You would have to make ANY contact with a receiver (football) or shooter (basketball) a foul/penalty. The only way to have a watchable and playable game is to leave a gray. Interpretations of rules would be using your personal judgment about why a player violated something written in the rules and using that to go against the rule as written.
Back to the play. Whether or not a player is down according to the rules of football is not a judgement call. You either get it right or you get it wrong. There is no, well it could of gone either way. It's no different than whether or not a player steps out of bounds. He either does or doesn't.

Your argument simply proves my point. There is the rule, and then there is the interpretation of the rule, applying to the situation on the field.

The refs interpreted the "runner giving himself up" rule to apply to what the Rams receiver did. Note that it's not the "down" rule that applies, where a body part touches the ground, and the runner is ruled down. Your view is on target for that rule, and the out-of-bounds rule. However, these NFL-trained, NFL-paid refs disagreed with your opinion and applied an interpretation that the runner had given himself up by making no attempt to advance the ball, plus whatever else they factored into their interpretation.

The refs decided that they *could* apply an interpretation where they felt there wasn't a clear one. It's now up to the NFL decisionmakers, e.g., supervisor of officials, to review and issue clarifications on how the rule should be interpreted. I suspect (and hope) the NFL will try to align the language and interpretation with your view, i.e., to make it a physical observation Yes/No decision without room for subjective "intent" interpretation.

The refs decided they had the power to interpret the rule to apply to that situation, and you disagree with them. The refs won that one. That only means you're wrong for that game, that situation, and that reffing crew. By next week's games, NFL may have clarified and communicated the rule, to make you right for all following games.

"Tuck rule" anyone?

And they decided wrong. If that is how they were supposed to and instructed to apply the "giving yourself" up rule, the league would've expressed that to each and every team when the rule was added or amended. Pete wouldn't have the same view of that play as I and others have expressed here if this were the case. Someone in the building would've let him know at some point today. He felt strongly enough to express it on the radio even though he said he's not supposed to talk about that stuff publicly. Anyway you slice it, the refs and the league by extension are wrong on this. Either the rule is lacking details that the refs have been instructed to apply or the refs straight up overstepped their authority by adding something to a rule that doesn't exist.
I expect the league to probably be vague on a public explanation, but "clarify" the situation to the officials and coaching staffs going forward. They'll either have to admit that going down in the process of a catch or setting the ball down in and of itself does not constitute giving yourself up under the rule OR they'll have to amend the rule in the offseason to include that language to cover their ass.

 

[therealjohncarlson]

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.

I love how you're one guy arguing against a whole forum, and you're so smug about it, like you're just right and everybody else is just ignorant, so you don't have to actually consider any poonts being made. So you're a Rams fan who's on a first-name basis with the players? It's actually you who's fighting the losing battle, because you haven't made one valid point or shown a shred of evidence proving that the rule backs up your claim on this. It was clearly a mistake by the Rams player and a blown call by the refs. Just by the reason of common sense, why would any player in the world give himself up in that situation? The team is behind in the game, and needs as many yards as they can get on every down... but the player just decides to give himself up, without so much as a pause?

You're simply wrong, and you know you are... just like the call on the field. So unless you bring some sort of evidence like a rule that clearly defines his actions or at least show us an exact play from the past where this has happened, because the crap you posted doesn't resemble anything close to this play. Until then, why don't you take your smug ass off the board and go wank with the other sore Rams fans.

I've seen a lot of points made in this thread supporting it being ruled a fumble but this might be the most unintuitive. Not in anyway saying what he did was smart, but watch the play again and tell me his intent wasn't to stop advancing the ball. He put the ball down to spot it and ran off to reset for the next play.

What is your argument for thinking he didn't mean to give himself up besides it not being an intelligent play in the moment? I'll wait.

 

[Uncle Si]

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.

I love how you're one guy arguing against a whole forum, and you're so smug about it, like you're just right and everybody else is just ignorant, so you don't have to actually consider any poonts being made. So you're a Rams fan who's on a first-name basis with the players? It's actually you who's fighting the losing battle, because you haven't made one valid point or shown a shred of evidence proving that the rule backs up your claim on this. It was clearly a mistake by the Rams player and a blown call by the refs. Just by the reason of common sense, why would any player in the world give himself up in that situation? The team is behind in the game, and needs as many yards as they can get on every down... but the player just decides to give himself up, without so much as a pause?

You're simply wrong, and you know you are... just like the call on the field. So unless you bring some sort of evidence like a rule that clearly defines his actions or at least show us an exact play from the past where this has happened, because the crap you posted doesn't resemble anything close to this play. Until then, why don't you take your smug ass off the board and go wank with the other sore Rams fans.

I've seen a lot of points made in this thread supporting it being ruled a fumble but this might be the most unintuitive. Not in anyway saying what he did was smart, but watch the play again and tell me his intent wasn't to stop advancing the ball. He put the ball down to spot it and ran off to reset for the next play.

What is your argument for thinking he didn't mean to give himself up besides it not being an intelligent play in the moment? I'll wait.

This is where I am as well...

Yes, letter of the rule it's probably a fumble. But, all things considered, it's pretty obvious what he is doing. I didn't even know what the issue was during the game until I read through this thread.

Now, i have every belief that if that was DK, it's a fumble.. because Seahawks.

 

[Hockey Guy]

As long as it's called the same way if a Seahawk player does it in the future, I'm fine with the ruling.

Hopefully it never happens because that would mean we're behind & desperate late in a game which has never happened before. :lol:

 

[chris98251]

If he had not went to the ground but caught it standing up would he have conceded at that spot is the question I ask since he was untouched.

I would bet absolutely not.

 

[therealjohncarlson]

After re-watching the video I change my earlier claim. I actually believe by the letter of the law it was definitely the correct call.

[youtube]k48xsocA7iM[/youtube]

As I understand it to declare himself down without contact a player must go to the ground AND make no effort to advance. As someone pointed out, if the act was in two parts 1) him going down and 2) him making no effort to advance than it would not fit this definition. (Meaning that he goes down, get back up, tries to advance, and then stops trying to advance)

However, I would argue it is part of the same motion enough to fit this description. Notice when Reynolds goes to the ground and gets up there is a very small amount of time between that motion and when he drops the ball. He is still facing his own end zone, lifts his left leg, plants it and while his right leg is still kneeling places the ball down. In no part of this action does he try to advance forward before he puts the ball down. In other words I don't believe simply getting up constitutes trying to advance the ball.

I would actually say logically this is the most efficient way to declare yourself down while still trying to preserve the most time possible. If you catch the ball while diving down and want to preserve as much time as possible staying down would allow players to 1) dive on you and slow the next play down and 2) what reynolds did is just the fastest way of trying to start the next play, because youre giving yourself up and not waiting for the whistle.

 

[Milehighhawk]

After re-watching the video I change my earlier claim. I actually believe by the letter of the law it was definitely the correct call.

[youtube]k48xsocA7iM[/youtube]

As I understand it to declare himself down without contact a player must go to the ground AND make no effort to advance. As someone pointed out, if the act was in two parts 1) him going down and 2) him making no effort to advance than it would not fit this definition. (Meaning that he goes down, get back up, tries to advance, and then stops trying to advance)

However, I would argue it is part of the same motion enough to fit this description. Notice when Reynolds goes to the ground and gets up there is a very small amount of time between that motion and when he drops the ball. He is still facing his own end zone, lifts his left leg, plants it and while his right leg is still kneeling places the ball down. In no part of this action does he try to advance forward before he puts the ball down. In other words I don't believe simply getting up constitutes trying to advance the ball.

I would actually say logically this is the most efficient way to declare yourself down while still trying to preserve the most time possible. If you catch the ball while diving down and want to preserve as much time as possible staying down would allow players to 1) dive on you and slow the next play down and 2) what reynolds did is just the fastest way of trying to start the next play, because youre giving yourself up and not waiting for the whistle.

Since when is giving yourself up a replacement for the whistle? As I understand it, the whistle is also blown signaling the4 end of the play when a player slides feet first. You are making that part of the "rule" up.

 

[Mad Dog]

Recently Wilson got called for grounding when his receiver obviously made the wrong route decision. Wilson wasn’t under duress and it was obvious what happened but since no one was near the ball, it got called.

I’m not sure why that mistake can’t be over ruled the same way Reynolds mistake was overruled. Getting up is the first part of attempting to advance the ball. Because he got up, he is an active runner until he takes a knee or slides. Laying the ball down cannot be a replacement for that act as it allows anyone that fumbles while going to the ground to argue I was giving myself up.

 

[OrangeGravy]

Recently Wilson got called for grounding when his receiver obviously made the wrong route decision. Wilson wasn’t under duress and it was obvious what happened but since no one was near the ball, it got called.

I’m not sure why that mistake can’t be over ruled the same way Reynolds mistake was overruled. Getting up is the first part of attempting to advance the ball. Because he got up, he is an active runner until he takes a knee or slides. Laying the ball down cannot be a replacement for that act as it allows anyone that fumbles while going to the ground to argue I was giving myself up.

That's a good example of why you can't make the call they did. You have to call it by the letter of the rule and let the league change the rule if needed.