Since when do refs get to fix players mistakes?

[olyfan63]

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.

You are once again true to form. MO of hostile attacks to make up for your lack of anything intelligent or relevant to say. Carry on.

 

[olyfan63]

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.

You label the refs interpretation as "wrong", I label it as the refs scrambling to come up with a reasonable interpretation in the heat of the moment for a gray area situation. Refs were trying hard to avoid deciding the game on something they weren't absolutely clear on. In support of your view, if they felt the runner was clearly giving himself up, the refs would have immediately blown the whistle when the receiver placed the ball down.

I think you've pretty well nailed it with the league explanation part, vague in public, and private clarification for coaches and officials. I bet the same play this coming week would be ruled a fumble.

 

[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.

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.

You'll wait for what? Unintuitive, is you not realizing that yes, he put the ball down to spot it to reset for the next play, because he thought the play was dead. Either because he thought he was touched, or maybe he thought it was blown dead, but either way that's a fumble. Because if the player didn't think the play was over, wouldn't he have tried to advance the ball further? So he didn't give himself up, simple as that.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Nobody touched him, he jumped up and sit it down. In no way was he "giving himself up"
Then we had to listen to Troy say how obvious it was that he gave himself up :?

 

[TypeSly]

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.

You are once again true to form. MO of hostile attacks to make up for your lack of anything intelligent or relevant to say. Carry on.

Glad to see that you made a post that one doesn't have to cypher through all the phrasing, and rephrasing of repetitive words that usually takes you about 4 paragraphs to make your point. I didn't like his smug answers of "Nope, you are wrong" type of replies to everyone without anything to back up his "holier than thou" claims, except his opintion which apparently just beats everyone's arguments.

So I gave him a piece of my mind. You wanto say that it's a hostile attack, go ahead... but save us the "There's a latin term for it" crap. If there is one, then bring it. If you can't find it, then come up with something else that will make your point, instead of writing useless stuff that you think makes you sound more intelligent, because it doesn't. It's all just babble like most of your other posts.

 

[253hawk]

I don't think it should have been a fumble in this instance because it was pretty obvious given the context of the situation in the game, but there needs to be something in the rules that a player can do to signal that they are giving themselves up. It's not like that Texans kick return where the player just chucked a live ball.

Either a year or two ago, I remember seeing a play where a WR went down untouched. The DB stood about a yard away, waiting for him to get up. As soon as the WR got up, the DB punched the ball out of his hands and the defense recovered the fumble. It was in the middle of the game if I recall, so it wasn't an urgent drive, and the WR was trying to advance. But if a team is trying to hurry down the field with no timeouts (or trying to preserve them), a player should be able to give himself up in order to get up uncontested to help spot the ball quickly for the next snap.

 

[rigelian]

I think it was the correct call. The player's intent was clear. He was not trying to advance the ball, he was essentially downing himself so they could more quickly run the next play. There was no ambiguity to it.

 

[Natethegreat]

I don't think it should have been a fumble in this instance because it was pretty obvious given the context of the situation in the game, but there needs to be something in the rules that a player can do to signal that they are giving themselves up. It's not like that Texans kick return where the player just chucked a live ball.

Either a year or two ago, I remember seeing a play where a WR went down untouched. The DB stood about a yard away, waiting for him to get up. As soon as the WR got up, the DB punched the ball out of his hands and the defense recovered the fumble. It was in the middle of the game if I recall, so it wasn't an urgent drive, and the WR was trying to advance. But if a team is trying to hurry down the field with no timeouts (or trying to preserve them), a player should be able to give himself up in order to get up uncontested to help spot the ball quickly for the next snap.

"but there needs to be something in the rules that a player can do to signal that they are giving themselves up."

This is the whole point because there is. He could have stayed down till the whistle blew or kneeled. He failed to do so which is why it was a fumble. Whether he thought he was touched or thought the play was over is inconsequential.

 

[rcaido]

Receiver made a mistake thinking he was touched. There was no whistle, look at both teams reaction after he put the ball down....Even the refs signaled Seahawks ball.

The crap call they did w/ Metcalf earlier in the game, if you're going to be petty they should have continued to be petty for both sides.

 

[OrangeGravy]

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.

You label the refs interpretation as "wrong", I label it as the refs scrambling to come up with a reasonable interpretation in the heat of the moment for a gray area situation. Refs were trying hard to avoid deciding the game on something they weren't absolutely clear on. In support of your view, if they felt the runner was clearly giving himself up, the refs would have immediately blown the whistle when the receiver placed the ball down.

I think you've pretty well nailed it with the league explanation part, vague in public, and private clarification for coaches and officials. I bet the same play this coming week would be ruled a fumble.

You are correct. That is what the refs did, but it's not a gray area situation. They made it a gray area situation by adding context to it that isn't included in the written rule. That's my argument. There is no gray area according to the rule when applying it to what the player did. Any perceived gray area is nothing more than individuals adding their own personal view of common sense to the rule. Sure the rule might be bad from a common sense perspective, but the rule is the rule. Refs aren't allowed to make adjustments to any rule on the fly just because they might be bad rules or poorly written.

 

[IndyHawk]

Im going to make an off balanced catch untouched,lose the ball before landing
on the ground but I will get up acting like I was giving myself up.
I will get the call too according to the many posts in here.
The whistle doesn't mean a damn thing (zero) But what the zebra saw and thinks
was going through my mind.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

Im going to make an off balanced catch untouched,lose the ball before landing
on the ground but I will get up acting like I was giving myself up.
I will get the call too according to the many posts in here.
The whistle doesn't mean a damn thing (zero) But what the zebra saw and thinks
was going through my mind.

Ahh 260 Trip Rainbo Rambo

Seen it on a lot of playbooks...just never implemented. :twisted: :twisted: