Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Since when do refs get to fix players mistakes?

The Original Seattle Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute for Seahawks Talk, News, Rumors, Trades, and Analytics. LANGUAGE: PG-13
  • If Reynolds wanted to give himself up he needed to stay down until the whistle is blown. He didn't. He got up dropped the ball and the Seahawks recovered and then the whistle was blown. You can't rewrite history and call a play dead that was never blown dead when he was untouched, regardless of his intent or lack of awareness.
    Natethegreat
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1935
    Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 8:21 pm


  • Natethegreat wrote:If he wanted to give himself up he needed to stay down until the whistle is blown. He didn't. He got up dropped the ball and the Seahawks recovered and then the whistle was blown. You can't rewrite history and call a play dead that was never blown dead and he was untouched regardless of his intent or lack of awareness.



    Exactly. He stood up, then put the ball down. if he was giving himself up, he would have made it clear, and stayed down. He thought he was touched, period.
    CPHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3668
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:49 pm


  • Exactly. This (and a few other) call was such BS.

    You play until they blow the whistle. If Reynolds would've got up and started running, could we argue that he gave himself up? Doubt it.

    To give yourself up is to actually lay on the ground in the fetal position, not just place the ball on the ground. That was a fumble!
    Jerhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3762
    Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:39 am
    Location: Spokane, WA


  • I said it in another forum but will repeat it here. The moment he purposely put the ball on the ground he gave himself up. The initial call by the refs of a fumble was wrong but corrected and rightly so to have given himself up. I’ve seen a similar call before but it’s been awhile. I’d expect to get the same call if it were us.
    kidhawk
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 20427
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • In my eyes,he did the same thing as celebrating to early,dropping the ball before crossing the endzone. Fumble
    BChawkfan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1010
    Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 6:13 pm


  • kidhawk wrote:I said it in another forum but will repeat it here. The moment he purposely put the ball on the ground he gave himself up. The initial call by the refs of a fumble was wrong but corrected and rightly so to have given himself up. I’ve seen a similar call before but it’s been awhile. I’d expect to get the same call if it were us.

    He should have got in the ground with the ball.. he made by the rules a football move, when he got up and ran forward and then set it down. I’d agree if he stayed down or ran forward then got physically on the ground and stayed there.
    JPatera76
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1444
    Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:32 am


  • No whistle?Live Ball!!!
    IndyHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5934
    Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 2:42 pm


  • So weird
    nanomoz
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6155
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:20 pm
    Location: UT


  • BChawkfan wrote:In my eyes,he did the same thing as celebrating to early,dropping the ball before crossing the endzone. Fumble



    Bingo
    nwHawk
    Platinum Supporter
    Platinum Supporter
     
    Posts: 1798
    Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 12:14 pm


  • [urlTargetBlank][/urlTargetBlank]
    JPatera76 wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:I said it in another forum but will repeat it here. The moment he purposely put the ball on the ground he gave himself up. The initial call by the refs of a fumble was wrong but corrected and rightly so to have given himself up. I’ve seen a similar call before but it’s been awhile. I’d expect to get the same call if it were us.

    He should have got in the ground with the ball.. he made by the rules a football move, when he got up and ran forward and then set it down. I’d agree if he stayed down or ran forward then got physically on the ground and stayed there.



    This. He stood up and spun around like he was going for more yards (a football move), then put the ball down. He should either have stayed down until the whistle blew (curl up around the ball and that'll happen real fast), or knelt back down.

    I do agree that we all knew his intent was to place the ball but you can't leave room for interpretation.
    Torc
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 167
    Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:54 pm


  • BChawkfan wrote:In my eyes,he did the same thing as celebrating to early,dropping the ball before crossing the endzone. Fumble

    Good example, a player may have intended to cross the goal line but in actuality he didn't. Doesn't mean the refs get to correct his mistake.
    Reynolds either thought he was touched or the play had been called dead but neither happened. He hadn't given himself up by any rule I'm aware of. He has to stay down and let the refs call the play dead. No whistle was blown and he let go of the ball. Thats a fumble. A really dumb fumble but a fumble regardless.
    Natethegreat
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1935
    Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 8:21 pm


  • The way I understand the rule, I thought it was the correct call. The runner gave himself up.

    If anyone has the link to the rulebook section, with the verbiage, please share. I felt it was the correct call at the time, even if it wasn't textbook version of giving himself up.

    We were good enough on this day to beat the Rams without needing help from the refs. It's been a while since we've actually outplayed the Rams, let's celebrate!
    olyfan63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3847
    Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:03 am


  • olyfan63 wrote:If anyone has the link to the rulebook section, with the verbiage, please share.


    Section 2 Dead Ball

    Article 1: Dead Ball Declared. An official shall declare the ball dead and the down ended:

    (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; or


    Could be argued either way.

    Legalese: "declares himself down by falling to the ground

    Argument 1: He was falling to the ground because of the action required to make the catch, so he did not choose to fall to the ground. Therefore, the player took no action with the sole intention of giving himself up.

    Argument 2: Before making the catch he had the intention of giving himself up. You cannot prove that this was not his intention.
    renofox
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1442
    Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:20 pm
    Location: Reno, NV


  • renofox wrote:
    olyfan63 wrote:If anyone has the link to the rulebook section, with the verbiage, please share.


    Section 2 Dead Ball

    Article 1: Dead Ball Declared. An official shall declare the ball dead and the down ended:

    (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; or


    Could be argued either way.

    Legalese: "declares himself down by falling to the ground

    Argument 1: He was falling to the ground because of the action required to make the catch, so he did not choose to fall to the ground. Therefore, the player took no action with the sole intention of giving himself up.

    Argument 2: Before making the catch he had the intention of giving himself up. You cannot prove that this was not his intention.

    The officials did not declare the ball dead is the point. He needs to hold onto the ball unless and until the whistle has been blown. At no point did he give himself up so that the whistle would be blown. It was a mistake on his part but last time I checked its not the refs job to fix a players mistake.
    Natethegreat
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1935
    Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 8:21 pm


  • It was the right call.
    Hawkstorian
    * NET Staff *
     
    Posts: 4384
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:19 pm
    Location: Spokane


  • olyfan63 wrote:The way I understand the rule, I thought it was the correct call. The runner gave himself up.

    If anyone has the link to the rulebook section, with the verbiage, please share. I felt it was the correct call at the time, even if it wasn't textbook version of giving himself up.

    We were good enough on this day to beat the Rams without needing help from the refs. It's been a while since we've actually outplayed the Rams, let's celebrate!


    Yeah, he wasn't making a football move and changed his mind, he didn't think he was touched. It was the right call.
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 94
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • Hypothetical: It's part of a designed trick play. Another Ram player picks up the ball and runs it in for a TD.

    Do the refs call that a dead ball?
    renofox
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1442
    Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:20 pm
    Location: Reno, NV


  • renofox wrote:Hypothetical: It's part of a designed trick play. Another Ram player picks up the ball and runs it in for a TD.

    Do the refs call that a dead ball?



    That is a trick play, fumblerooski .Usually happens with the Center and QB and they go one way and a RB or WR picks it up on the ground and runs the other.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 34930
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    olyfan63 wrote:The way I understand the rule, I thought it was the correct call. The runner gave himself up.

    If anyone has the link to the rulebook section, with the verbiage, please share. I felt it was the correct call at the time, even if it wasn't textbook version of giving himself up.

    We were good enough on this day to beat the Rams without needing help from the refs. It's been a while since we've actually outplayed the Rams, let's celebrate!


    Yeah, he wasn't making a football move and changed his mind, he didn't think he was touched. It was the right call.

    By rule he made a football move. He rolled with the catch and then got up and took two steps.

    He didn’t even get down with the ball when he set it down, he just literally set the ball down. That’s a fumble.
    JPatera76
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1444
    Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:32 am


  • renofox wrote:Hypothetical: It's part of a designed trick play. Another Ram player picks up the ball and runs it in for a TD.

    Do the refs call that a dead ball?

    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.
    Natethegreat
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1935
    Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 8:21 pm


  • renofox wrote:Hypothetical: It's part of a designed trick play. Another Ram player picks up the ball and runs it in for a TD.

    Do the refs call that a dead ball?


    Within the last 2 min, a fumble can only be advanced by the player that fumbled it.
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 94
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • Laying on the ground and staying there is giving yourself up. Falling down and staying there is giving yourself up. Kneeling is giving yourself up. Fair catch is giving yourself up.

    Laying the football on the ground is not giving yourself up by any rule I am aware of. Reynolds did none of the things required to give himself up and the play was not blown dead. It was an incorrect call and an aggregous one in my mind.
    Last edited by Natethegreat on Sun Dec 27, 2020 7:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Natethegreat
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1935
    Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 8:21 pm


  • Natethegreat wrote:
    renofox wrote:Hypothetical: It's part of a designed trick play. Another Ram player picks up the ball and runs it in for a TD.

    Do the refs call that a dead ball?

    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.


    The persecution complex here is huge. Every player goes after the ball any time it's on the ground regardless. Other than a qb slide, it's pretty rare for a player to give himself up so most players wouldnt recognize the situation that quickly. They're trained to pick up the ball when it's on the ground so they do. Additionally, the refs are supposed to let turnovers go without a whistle so that an inadvertent whistle doesn't ruin the play. They let the play happen, they discussed it and they got it right.

    If it was a Seahawk that did it, some of you would be mad at the refs for even needing to have a conference to decide he was giving himself up.
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 94
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    renofox wrote:Hypothetical: It's part of a designed trick play. Another Ram player picks up the ball and runs it in for a TD.

    Do the refs call that a dead ball?


    Within the last 2 min, a fumble can only be advanced by the player that fumbled it.



    Clarified anti-quibble hypothetical: It's part of a designed trick play. Another Ram player picks up the ball and runs it in for a TD.

    Do the refs call that a dead ball? Or a fumble recovered by the other player (that, if occurring on 4th down or the last 2 minutes of a half cannot be advanced)?
    renofox
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1442
    Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:20 pm
    Location: Reno, NV


  • 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.
    Natethegreat
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1935
    Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 8:21 pm


  • Natethegreat wrote: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.


    You are correct. No such rule.
    renofox
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1442
    Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:20 pm
    Location: Reno, NV


  • Natethegreat wrote: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.
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 94
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    Natethegreat wrote:
    renofox wrote:Hypothetical: It's part of a designed trick play. Another Ram player picks up the ball and runs it in for a TD.

    Do the refs call that a dead ball?

    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.


    The persecution complex here is huge. Every player goes after the ball any time it's on the ground regardless. Other than a qb slide, it's pretty rare for a player to give himself up so most players wouldnt recognize the situation that quickly. They're trained to pick up the ball when it's on the ground so they do. Additionally, the refs are supposed to let turnovers go without a whistle so that an inadvertent whistle doesn't ruin the play. They let the play happen, they discussed it and they got it right.

    If it was a Seahawk that did it, some of you would be mad at the refs for even needing to have a conference to decide he was giving himself up.



    Persecution complex?

    I see fans chatting about a pretty weird play that may not have been called correctly.

    Not sure what you are seeing.
    Hawkpower
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2824
    Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:53 am
    Location: Phoenix az


  • I think that in the spirit of the game he gave himself up but by the letter of the law I think it was a fumble. You could also try and argue he was trying to gain an advantage (saving time) that the refs bailed them out on.
    UK_Seahawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3247
    Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:08 pm


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    Natethegreat wrote: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.
    Last edited by Natethegreat on Sun Dec 27, 2020 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Natethegreat
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1935
    Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 8:21 pm


  • Hawkpower wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    Natethegreat wrote:
    renofox wrote:Hypothetical: It's part of a designed trick play. Another Ram player picks up the ball and runs it in for a TD.

    Do the refs call that a dead ball?

    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.


    The persecution complex here is huge. Every player goes after the ball any time it's on the ground regardless. Other than a qb slide, it's pretty rare for a player to give himself up so most players wouldnt recognize the situation that quickly. They're trained to pick up the ball when it's on the ground so they do. Additionally, the refs are supposed to let turnovers go without a whistle so that an inadvertent whistle doesn't ruin the play. They let the play happen, they discussed it and they got it right.

    If it was a Seahawk that did it, some of you would be mad at the refs for even needing to have a conference to decide he was giving himself up.



    Persecution complex?

    I see fans chatting about a pretty weird play that may not have been called correctly.

    Not sure what you are seeing.


    It's an exceptionally common, and tiring, theme here about how much the NFL, refs etc... are against the Seahawks. Specifically in this thread, the statement: "But instead they fixed it because the Seahawks recovered that ball".
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 94
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • Natethegreat wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    Natethegreat wrote: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.

    Wasn't it within the last 2 min?
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 94
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • Natethegreat wrote: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.
    OrangeGravy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 564
    Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:47 pm


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    Hawkpower wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    Natethegreat wrote: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.


    The persecution complex here is huge. Every player goes after the ball any time it's on the ground regardless. Other than a qb slide, it's pretty rare for a player to give himself up so most players wouldnt recognize the situation that quickly. They're trained to pick up the ball when it's on the ground so they do. Additionally, the refs are supposed to let turnovers go without a whistle so that an inadvertent whistle doesn't ruin the play. They let the play happen, they discussed it and they got it right.

    If it was a Seahawk that did it, some of you would be mad at the refs for even needing to have a conference to decide he was giving himself up.



    Persecution complex?

    I see fans chatting about a pretty weird play that may not have been called correctly.

    Not sure what you are seeing.


    It's an exceptionally common, and tiring, theme here about how much the NFL, refs etc... are against the Seahawks. Specifically in this thread, the statement: "But instead they fixed it because the Seahawks recovered that ball".

    I get what you are saying. In fact I made a comment in the Josh Gordon thread about all the conspiracy theories of the NFL out to get the Hawks. Thats not what I'm getting at here. I think it was a blown call and worthy of discussion.
    Natethegreat
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1935
    Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 8:21 pm


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    Natethegreat wrote:
    renofox wrote:Hypothetical: It's part of a designed trick play. Another Ram player picks up the ball and runs it in for a TD.

    Do the refs call that a dead ball?

    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.


    The persecution complex here is huge. Every player goes after the ball any time it's on the ground regardless. Other than a qb slide, it's pretty rare for a player to give himself up so most players wouldnt recognize the situation that quickly. They're trained to pick up the ball when it's on the ground so they do. Additionally, the refs are supposed to let turnovers go without a whistle so that an inadvertent whistle doesn't ruin the play. They let the play happen, they discussed it and they got it right.

    If it was a Seahawk that did it, some of you would be mad at the refs for even needing to have a conference to decide he was giving himself up.the refs would have awarded the ball to the other team and the board would explode calling for the idiot player to be cut (and/or executed).


    FIFY
    renofox
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1442
    Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:20 pm
    Location: Reno, NV


  • OrangeGravy wrote:
    Natethegreat wrote: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?
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 94
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • renofox wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    Natethegreat wrote:
    renofox wrote:Hypothetical: It's part of a designed trick play. Another Ram player picks up the ball and runs it in for a TD.

    Do the refs call that a dead ball?

    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.


    The persecution complex here is huge. Every player goes after the ball any time it's on the ground regardless. Other than a qb slide, it's pretty rare for a player to give himself up so most players wouldnt recognize the situation that quickly. They're trained to pick up the ball when it's on the ground so they do. Additionally, the refs are supposed to let turnovers go without a whistle so that an inadvertent whistle doesn't ruin the play. They let the play happen, they discussed it and they got it right.

    If it was a Seahawk that did it, some of you would be mad at the refs for even needing to have a conference to decide he was giving himself up.the refs would have awarded the ball to the other team and the board would explode calling for the idiot player to be cut (and/or executed).


    FIFY

    Clearly I was way off thinking there was a persecution complex here.
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 94
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • To be perfectly honest I'm more mad at the DK illegal shift penalty. That was truly awful.
    UK_Seahawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3247
    Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:08 pm


  • This is Desean Jackson giving himself up - should have been called down at the 1.

    Image
    pinksheets
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3018
    Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:47 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    Hawkpower wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    Natethegreat wrote: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.


    The persecution complex here is huge. Every player goes after the ball any time it's on the ground regardless. Other than a qb slide, it's pretty rare for a player to give himself up so most players wouldnt recognize the situation that quickly. They're trained to pick up the ball when it's on the ground so they do. Additionally, the refs are supposed to let turnovers go without a whistle so that an inadvertent whistle doesn't ruin the play. They let the play happen, they discussed it and they got it right.

    If it was a Seahawk that did it, some of you would be mad at the refs for even needing to have a conference to decide he was giving himself up.



    Persecution complex?

    I see fans chatting about a pretty weird play that may not have been called correctly.

    Not sure what you are seeing.


    It's an exceptionally common, and tiring, theme here about how much the NFL, refs etc... are against the Seahawks. Specifically in this thread, the statement: "But instead they fixed it because the Seahawks recovered that ball".



    Well, the Seahawks were the other team....what did you want him to say?? The dudes recovered the ball?

    There are complaints in this forum about the refs (often justified) but this doesnt feel all that persecut-ish to me.

    Pretty legitimate conversation IMO
    Hawkpower
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2824
    Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:53 am
    Location: Phoenix az


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    Natethegreat wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    Natethegreat wrote: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.

    Wasn't it within the last 2 min?


    Nope.
    Seanhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6776
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:04 pm


  • Seanhawk wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    Natethegreat wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    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.

    Wasn't it within the last 2 min?


    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.
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 94
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • pinksheets wrote:This is Desean Jackson giving himself up - should have been called down at the 1.

    Image


    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.
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 94
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    pinksheets wrote:This is Desean Jackson giving himself up - should have been called down at the 1.

    Image


    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?
    Last edited by pinksheets on Sun Dec 27, 2020 7:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    pinksheets
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3018
    Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:47 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    pinksheets wrote:This is Desean Jackson giving himself up - should have been called down at the 1.

    Image


    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.

    The question isn't intent, its what the actual rules are. Yes, he either thought he was touched or the play had been called dead but neither actually happened and he fumbled the ball. Intentional or not. Putting the ball on the ground is not giving yourself up per the rules as far as I am aware.
    Last edited by Natethegreat on Sun Dec 27, 2020 7:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Natethegreat
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1935
    Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 8:21 pm


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    pinksheets wrote:This is Desean Jackson giving himself up - should have been called down at the 1.

    Image


    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.



    Is it the intent or the actual action itself that matters?

    Both players dropped a live ball, so are the refs also charged with being mind readers?

    Pretty sure there are definitions to the rule for a reason...
    Hawkpower
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2824
    Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:53 am
    Location: Phoenix az


  • pinksheets wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    pinksheets wrote:This is Desean Jackson giving himself up - should have been called down at the 1.

    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?


    Excellent point. For The Win.
    renofox
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1442
    Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:20 pm
    Location: Reno, NV


  • pinksheets wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    pinksheets wrote:This is Desean Jackson giving himself up - should have been called down at the 1.

    Image


    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.
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 94
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    Seanhawk wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    Natethegreat wrote: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.

    Wasn't it within the last 2 min?


    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.
    jamescasey1124
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 746
    Joined: Mon May 04, 2020 12:36 am


  • renofox wrote:
    pinksheets wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    pinksheets wrote:This is Desean Jackson giving himself up - should have been called down at the 1.

    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?


    Excellent point. For The Win.


    Amazing how you can be wrong twice in only five words.
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 94
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


Next


It is currently Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:32 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ SEATTLE SEAHAWKS FOOTBALL ]




Information
  • Who is online