olyfan63 wrote:

TypeSly wrote:

FattyKnuckle wrote:

pinksheets wrote:
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.

olyfan63 wrote:

OrangeGravy wrote: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.

TypeSly wrote:

FattyKnuckle wrote:

pinksheets wrote:

FattyKnuckle wrote: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.

therealjohncarlson wrote:

TypeSly wrote:

FattyKnuckle wrote:

pinksheets wrote:
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.

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.

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.

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.



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.

therealjohncarlson wrote: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.



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.

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.

Mad Dog wrote: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.

TypeSly wrote: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.

OrangeGravy wrote: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.

therealjohncarlson wrote:

TypeSly wrote:

FattyKnuckle wrote:

pinksheets wrote:
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.

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

olyfan63 wrote:

TypeSly wrote: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.

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.

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.

253hawk wrote: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.

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.

olyfan63 wrote:

OrangeGravy wrote: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.

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.

IndyHawk wrote: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.