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
  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    pinksheets wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    pinksheets wrote:
    What he’s saying is valid. Did u see the Falcons lose this year because Gurley scored a TD when they were down 1 or 2 points instead of staying out of the end zone so they couldrun down the clock and kick the FGfor the win? That was his point. It’s a valid comment.


    Not in using the Desean clip it isn't.

    Your point was that putting the ball on the ground intentionally counts as giving yourself up. I showed another example and you introduced a handful of new variables about which the refs have to make assumptions. None of which is in the rulebook.


    And again, regardless of the situational changes, what Desean did was nothing whatsoever like what happened today.


    Yep, there are differences, absolutely, but if "putting the ball on the ground intentionally" is giving yourself up, as you argued, it should fit. That's why you then said that putting the ball on the ground intentionally is only giving yourself up if uh... It makes sense situationally and you run over AFTER to line up - so giving yourself up even is defined retroactively by your next actions.

    Again, none of that is anywhere in the rulebook. I get your point, that it seems like Reynolds intended to give himself up and then adding commentary not based on nfl rules to bolster that, but it doesn't show how he gave himself up based on the established rule.[/quote]

    The refs and the announcers thought differently so what are they looking at?[/quote]

    They are looking at dollar signs and thinking about keeping there garbage ass jobs. Not making 100 percent accurate calls. That I know for certain.
    jamescasey1124
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 740
    Joined: Mon May 04, 2020 12:36 am


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:I'm not saying it supports my argument. I'm saying that I believe they changed it a few years ago so I am looking for it to see what language changes are in there.


    I think you may be confusing that with the rule interpretation change that gave the QB limited protection when diving forward rather than sliding. That's in a different section of the Rulebook and has nothing to do with the Dead Ball section or if determining when the ball is dead.
    renofox
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1442
    Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:20 pm
    Location: Reno, NV


  • I think we all know what he was trying to do. I've never seen a guy go down early to stop the clock when there was still minutes left. It looked like what happened to DK Metcalf against Dallas. There's a giant difference between what he thought he did and actually did. He set the ball down all on his own and wasn't legally down. Why was he in such a rush?
    evergreen
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 760
    Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 5:56 pm


  • renofox wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:I'm not saying it supports my argument. I'm saying that I believe they changed it a few years ago so I am looking for it to see what language changes are in there.


    I think you may be confusing that with the rule interpretation change that gave the QB limited protection when diving forward rather than sliding. That's in a different section of the Rulebook and has nothing to do with the Dead Ball section or if determining when the ball is dead.


    Maybe, but there was a similar play a few years ago when a receiver dove forward and got right back up to lineup and they were ruled to have given themself up. I think it was a Patriot but I can't remember.
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 86
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    renofox wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:I'm not saying it supports my argument. I'm saying that I believe they changed it a few years ago so I am looking for it to see what language changes are in there.


    I think you may be confusing that with the rule interpretation change that gave the QB limited protection when diving forward rather than sliding. That's in a different section of the Rulebook and has nothing to do with the Dead Ball section or if determining when the ball is dead.


    Maybe, but there was a similar play a few years ago when a receiver dove forward and got right back up to lineup and they were ruled to have given themself up. I think it was a Patriot but I can't remember.


    If that was the case he took a separate and deliberate action to "declare himself down by falling to the ground".

    In this case the receiver went to the ground as part of making the catch. If he was going to the ground anyway, how can that be ruled an action that would "declare himself down by falling to the ground"?

    Does that mean every time a receiver is going to the ground to make a catch he is automatically down? Or do we need to have a special psychic ref to determine the player's intention?
    renofox
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1442
    Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:20 pm
    Location: Reno, NV


  • renofox wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    renofox wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:I'm not saying it supports my argument. I'm saying that I believe they changed it a few years ago so I am looking for it to see what language changes are in there.


    I think you may be confusing that with the rule interpretation change that gave the QB limited protection when diving forward rather than sliding. That's in a different section of the Rulebook and has nothing to do with the Dead Ball section or if determining when the ball is dead.


    Maybe, but there was a similar play a few years ago when a receiver dove forward and got right back up to lineup and they were ruled to have given themself up. I think it was a Patriot but I can't remember.


    If that was the case he took a separate and deliberate action to "declare himself down by falling to the ground".

    In this case the receiver went to the ground as part of making the catch. If he was going to the ground anyway, how can that be ruled an action that would "declare himself down by falling to the ground"?

    Does that mean every time a receiver is going to the ground to make a catch he is automatically down? Or do we need to have a special psychic ref to determine the player's intention?


    I think you're confusing a few posts. I only brought up going headfirst because I know they allow that but the rulebook definition I was looking at doesn't say anything about going headfirst. So I am looking to find what other practical clarifications are used in this situation.
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 86
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • evergreen wrote:I think we all know what he was trying to do. I've never seen a guy go down early to stop the clock when there was still minutes left. It looked like what happened to DK Metcalf against Dallas. There's a giant difference between what he thought he did and actually did. He set the ball down all on his own and wasn't legally down. Why was he in such a rush?

    Why was he in a rush with time running out and needing to score twice to win?
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 86
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    renofox wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    renofox wrote:
    I think you may be confusing that with the rule interpretation change that gave the QB limited protection when diving forward rather than sliding. That's in a different section of the Rulebook and has nothing to do with the Dead Ball section or if determining when the ball is dead.


    Maybe, but there was a similar play a few years ago when a receiver dove forward and got right back up to lineup and they were ruled to have given themself up. I think it was a Patriot but I can't remember.


    If that was the case he took a separate and deliberate action to "declare himself down by falling to the ground".

    In this case the receiver went to the ground as part of making the catch. If he was going to the ground anyway, how can that be ruled an action that would "declare himself down by falling to the ground"?

    Does that mean every time a receiver is going to the ground to make a catch he is automatically down? Or do we need to have a special psychic ref to determine the player's intention?


    I think you're confusing a few posts. I only brought up going headfirst because I know they allow that but the rulebook definition I was looking at doesn't say anything about going headfirst. So I am looking to find what other practical clarifications are used in this situation.


    "Going to the ground headfirst" is a form of "declaring himself down by falling to the ground".
    renofox
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1442
    Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:20 pm
    Location: Reno, NV


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    evergreen wrote:I think we all know what he was trying to do. I've never seen a guy go down early to stop the clock when there was still minutes left. It looked like what happened to DK Metcalf against Dallas. There's a giant difference between what he thought he did and actually did. He set the ball down all on his own and wasn't legally down. Why was he in such a rush?

    Why was he in a rush with time running out and needing to score twice to win?


    Because they were down 2 scores with minutes left not seconds left. Who cares. The play was wrongly called and you can stop riding the refs/rams jock strap. Thanks. Bye.
    jamescasey1124
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 740
    Joined: Mon May 04, 2020 12:36 am


  • renofox wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    renofox wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    Maybe, but there was a similar play a few years ago when a receiver dove forward and got right back up to lineup and they were ruled to have given themself up. I think it was a Patriot but I can't remember.


    If that was the case he took a separate and deliberate action to "declare himself down by falling to the ground".

    In this case the receiver went to the ground as part of making the catch. If he was going to the ground anyway, how can that be ruled an action that would "declare himself down by falling to the ground"?

    Does that mean every time a receiver is going to the ground to make a catch he is automatically down? Or do we need to have a special psychic ref to determine the player's intention?


    I think you're confusing a few posts. I only brought up going headfirst because I know they allow that but the rulebook definition I was looking at doesn't say anything about going headfirst. So I am looking to find what other practical clarifications are used in this situation.


    "Going to the ground headfirst" is a form of "declaring himself down by falling to the ground".


    Yes, I get that. I thought you were implying that I was trying to apply the headfirst example to today's game.
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 86
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    renofox wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    renofox wrote:
    If that was the case he took a separate and deliberate action to "declare himself down by falling to the ground".

    In this case the receiver went to the ground as part of making the catch. If he was going to the ground anyway, how can that be ruled an action that would "declare himself down by falling to the ground"?

    Does that mean every time a receiver is going to the ground to make a catch he is automatically down? Or do we need to have a special psychic ref to determine the player's intention?


    I think you're confusing a few posts. I only brought up going headfirst because I know they allow that but the rulebook definition I was looking at doesn't say anything about going headfirst. So I am looking to find what other practical clarifications are used in this situation.


    "Going to the ground headfirst" is a form of "declaring himself down by falling to the ground".


    Yes, I get that. I thought you were implying that I was trying to apply the headfirst example to today's game.


    If you want to find that, look in the personal fouls section and check the examples and interpretations related to QB protection. That's probably where it is.
    renofox
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1442
    Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:20 pm
    Location: Reno, NV


  • renofox wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    renofox wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    Maybe, but there was a similar play a few years ago when a receiver dove forward and got right back up to lineup and they were ruled to have given themself up. I think it was a Patriot but I can't remember.


    If that was the case he took a separate and deliberate action to "declare himself down by falling to the ground".

    In this case the receiver went to the ground as part of making the catch. If he was going to the ground anyway, how can that be ruled an action that would "declare himself down by falling to the ground"?

    Does that mean every time a receiver is going to the ground to make a catch he is automatically down? Or do we need to have a special psychic ref to determine the player's intention?


    I think you're confusing a few posts. I only brought up going headfirst because I know they allow that but the rulebook definition I was looking at doesn't say anything about going headfirst. So I am looking to find what other practical clarifications are used in this situation.


    "Going to the ground headfirst" is a form of "declaring himself down by falling to the ground".



    Found it, it was the Chargers against the Patriots in 2010. I misremembered it a little bit. He went to the ground in making the catch and just let the ball sit there when he popped up, which makes the situation very similar to today. I'd argue that it was a lot less clear that he was giving himself up because he didn't try to place the ball after he got up. It looked more like a fumble than today's did. So there's precedent in that call on an extremely similar play and also in the Bills game last year. I haven't found any rule clarification that covers it but "points of emphasis" aren't always codified into the rulebook, but precedent is just as good. I don't know if this game was before they started letting the play go when there's a potential turnover. They made that a point of emphasis after Hotchuli blew dead a clear turnover in a DEN vs SD game that cost the Bolts a playoff berth. So in the 2010 example, they blow it dead and rule him to have given himself up. Today they let it play out rather than blow it dead immediately then got together and made the right call.

    Goes to the ground making the catch, hustles to lineup quickly, clear recovery by defense, ruled down.
    https://youtu.be/_j2CujPFkHg?t=1810

    Compared to:

    Goes to the ground making the catch, hustles to lineup quickly, clear recovery by defense, ruled down.
    https://streamable.com/rhw37w
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 86
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • I can see how this play could have been called either way. Hopefully it will be one that compels a new definition in the rule book of "giving one's self up."
    Somos doces
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 81
    Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:27 pm
    Location: Southeast Washington


  • After reading the rules and reading this thread it seems the rules are written very unclearly and need to be amended.

    That being said I have no problem with the refs being intelligent humans and not robots and interpreting the “spirit of the game” to make a reasonable interpretation in real time. Should Reynolds have been smarter and not done what he did? Sure. But he did. And we will know his intent was to “give himself up”. The specifics of the letter of the law is not more important than the intent behind it.

    Some might disagree with me, and call it a “slippery slope” to make judgments outside of the letter of the law like this. But at the end of the day rules won’t be written perfectly, so it’s up to the refs to interpret “why” the rule exists and make an intelligent determination.
    therealjohncarlson
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4210
    Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 3:09 pm


  • therealjohncarlson wrote:After reading the rules and reading this thread it seems the rules are written very unclearly and need to be amended.

    That being said I have no problem with the refs being intelligent humans and not robots and interpreting the “spirit of the game” to make a reasonable interpretation in real time. Should Reynolds have been smarter and not done what he did? Sure. But he did. And we will know his intent was to “give himself up”. The specifics of the letter of the law is not more important than the intent behind it.

    Some might disagree with me, and call it a “slippery slope” to make judgments outside of the letter of the law like this. But at the end of the day rules won’t be written perfectly, so it’s up to the refs to interpret “why” the rule exists and make an intelligent determination.


    I think you hit the nail on the head. Looks like everything has probably been said here, but based on the verbiage of the rule, I honestly think it was the right call. Like you said, the intent was clearly there, and even based on the specific verbiage in the rulebook (which is vague, perhaps intentionally so), I think the call fit within the parameters of the rule.
    Maelstrom787
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4425
    Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:38 pm
    Location: Delaware


  • So my only question now is...would they make the same call if Lockett did the same thing?
    Flyingsquad23
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 549
    Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:47 pm


  • therealjohncarlson wrote:After reading the rules and reading this thread it seems the rules are written very unclearly and need to be amended.

    That being said I have no problem with the refs being intelligent humans and not robots and interpreting the “spirit of the game” to make a reasonable interpretation in real time. Should Reynolds have been smarter and not done what he did? Sure. But he did. And we will know his intent was to “give himself up”. The specifics of the letter of the law is not more important than the intent behind it.

    Some might disagree with me, and call it a “slippery slope” to make judgments outside of the letter of the law like this. But at the end of the day rules won’t be written perfectly, so it’s up to the refs to interpret “why” the rule exists and make an intelligent determination.

    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.
    OrangeGravy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 563
    Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:47 pm


  • Flyingsquad23 wrote:So my only question now is...would they make the same call if Lockett did the same thing?


    I'd wager that they'd almost certainly make the same call under those circumstances.
    Maelstrom787
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4425
    Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:38 pm
    Location: Delaware



  • Flyingsquad23 wrote:So my only question now is...would they make the same call if Lockett did the same thing?

    Matters on who Seattle was playing at the time. If it’s a Legacy team (GB, Tampa Brady, Stealers, Cowboys etc) it’s fumble, if it’s a non legacy team (Detroit, Browns, Bengals, Jacksonville etc) no fumble.
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 33370
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:36 pm
    Location: The pit


  • Flyingsquad23 wrote:So my only question now is...would they make the same call if Lockett did the same thing?

    Matters on who Seattle was playing at the time. If it’s a Legacy team (GB, Tampa Brady, Stealers, Cowboys etc) it’s fumble, if it’s a non legacy team (Detroit, Browns, Bengals, Jacksonville etc) no fumble.
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 33370
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:36 pm
    Location: The pit


  • OrangeGravy wrote: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?
    olyfan63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3847
    Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:03 am


  • renofox wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    renofox wrote:I'll repost. You must have missed my agreeing with you.

    renofox wrote:
    I agree. Can you show me where in the rulebook that means the ball was dead?

    http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/10_Rule7_BallInPlay_DeadBall_Scrimm.pdf


    Can you relate your argument to the NFL Rulebook?


    I'm looking for more clarification because that states that sliding is the only way to give up (other than qb kneel) but there was a language change that added going headfirst also.


    (e) when a runner is out of bounds, or declares himself down by falling to the ground, or kneeling, and making no effort to advance;

    He fell to the ground as a result of making the catch. It was not a separate or deliberate act. So he did not "declare himself down by falling to the ground".


    I would think intentionally placing the ball on the ground after making a catch and falling to the ground, constitutes making no effort to advance. Doesn't have to be a slide or kneel, he clearly declared he was making no effort to advance by placing the ball on the ground and running back to the huddle
    cymatica
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1589
    Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2014 8:40 am


  • therealjohncarlson wrote:After reading the rules and reading this thread it seems the rules are written very unclearly and need to be amended.

    That being said I have no problem with the refs being intelligent humans and not robots and interpreting the “spirit of the game” to make a reasonable interpretation in real time. Should Reynolds have been smarter and not done what he did? Sure. But he did. And we will know his intent was to “give himself up”. The specifics of the letter of the law is not more important than the intent behind it.

    Some might disagree with me, and call it a “slippery slope” to make judgments outside of the letter of the law like this. But at the end of the day rules won’t be written perfectly, so it’s up to the refs to interpret “why” the rule exists and make an intelligent determination.



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

    Would be interesting to see how that would be applied across the board to other rules/etc. Like you said, definitely a slippery slope.
    Hawkpower
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2817
    Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:53 am
    Location: Phoenix az


  • Hawkpower wrote:
    therealjohncarlson wrote:After reading the rules and reading this thread it seems the rules are written very unclearly and need to be amended.

    That being said I have no problem with the refs being intelligent humans and not robots and interpreting the “spirit of the game” to make a reasonable interpretation in real time. Should Reynolds have been smarter and not done what he did? Sure. But he did. And we will know his intent was to “give himself up”. The specifics of the letter of the law is not more important than the intent behind it.

    Some might disagree with me, and call it a “slippery slope” to make judgments outside of the letter of the law like this. But at the end of the day rules won’t be written perfectly, so it’s up to the refs to interpret “why” the rule exists and make an intelligent determination.



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

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


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

    In my opinion for the ref to rule this any other way would be cheap yarage and not earned. Let me ask you this. Take the rule out of it. Do you think Reynolds, when he stopped, put the ball down and ran to spot it, showed no intent to gain more yardage?
    therealjohncarlson
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4210
    Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 3:09 pm



  • Bingo. It was fumble then, still a fumble now. Only differences there is he spiked it and not set it down, but was still untouched.
    JPatera76
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1444
    Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:32 am


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

    If the call was correct,why were they penalized :?:
    beaumaris
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 120
    Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 4:09 pm


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

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


    They were penalized because McVay ran onto the field.
    renofox
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1442
    Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:20 pm
    Location: Reno, NV


  • therealjohncarlson wrote:
    Hawkpower wrote:
    therealjohncarlson wrote:After reading the rules and reading this thread it seems the rules are written very unclearly and need to be amended.

    That being said I have no problem with the refs being intelligent humans and not robots and interpreting the “spirit of the game” to make a reasonable interpretation in real time. Should Reynolds have been smarter and not done what he did? Sure. But he did. And we will know his intent was to “give himself up”. The specifics of the letter of the law is not more important than the intent behind it.

    Some might disagree with me, and call it a “slippery slope” to make judgments outside of the letter of the law like this. But at the end of the day rules won’t be written perfectly, so it’s up to the refs to interpret “why” the rule exists and make an intelligent determination.



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

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


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

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



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

    Think about the box that gets opened if we start analyzing intent instead of just the rule. Intent doesn't matter when other rules are broken does it? Just something to consider
    Hawkpower
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2817
    Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:53 am
    Location: Phoenix az


  • Just listened to Pete on this call on 710 and he basically said the same thing. It was a mistake by Reynolds and the refs corrected it for him but they should not have.
    He made the same points already made here. Reynolds did not give himself up and he put the ball down which is a mistake but not something the refs should be correcting for him.
    He also said he is waiting to hear back from the league to get an explanation.
    Natethegreat
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1935
    Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 8:21 pm


  • The moment you start letting refs correct mistakes and let intent enter the equation is the moment you allow wide latitude for bias and shenanigans to happen.
    There was a way for Reynolds to give himself up. All he had to do was stay down and wait for the whistle. He did not do that.
    If placing the ball on the ground is giving yourself up (which Pete said was what he was told) where is it in the rule book? And as has been pointed out that would be a very problematic rule if it was.
    He made a mistake but in my view it is not a refs job to correct it.
    Natethegreat
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1935
    Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 8:21 pm


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


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

    All he had to do was roll up into the kneeling position to place the ball down. Kneeling is in the NFL Rulebook as an action displaying his intent of giving himself up.
    renofox
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1442
    Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:20 pm
    Location: Reno, NV


  • Agreed, point being the player could have given himself up per the rule book and did not do so. So why are the refs correcting his mistake?
    Natethegreat
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1935
    Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 8:21 pm


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


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

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

    But the alternative - making objective rules open to subjective interpretation in the name of enhancing competition - sucked even more. Without equal and unbiased enforcement of the rules, the quality of the product suffers, as we have seen with the steady decline of the Officials' performance.
    renofox
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1442
    Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:20 pm
    Location: Reno, NV


  • Ball on the ground, no whistle indicating end of play?...It was a mistake by both receiver & Officials....Bad call.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7524
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:48 pm


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

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


    They were penalized because McVay ran onto the field.

    Cheers Bud,missed the call.
    beaumaris
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 120
    Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 4:09 pm


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


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

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

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

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

    Garbage call, and could have been a BIG penalty.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 18491
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

    I do agree the league should rock-solid-clarify the interpretation for plays like this, and it may take a play like the one we're discussing, with a harsh outcome for the offense, for coaches around the league to get the point and start training players to a more literal interpretation of the "giving yourself up" rule in 2 minute drills in practices.
    olyfan63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3847
    Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:03 am


  • olyfan63 wrote:I do agree the league should rock-solid-clarify the interpretation for plays like this, and it may take a play like the one we're discussing, with a harsh outcome for the offense, for coaches around the league to get the point and start training players to a more literal interpretation of the "giving yourself up" rule in 2 minute drills in practices.


    Agreed. I also think the NFL needs to hire competent people to write their Rulebook. Out of personal curiosity, I've referred to it several times to clarify controversies. As a former lawyer (one of several careers before retiring), I am appalled by the ineptitude of the authors.
    renofox
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1442
    Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:20 pm
    Location: Reno, NV


  • Natethegreat wrote: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
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 18491
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • JGreen79 wrote:
    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.)
    Torc
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 166
    Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:54 pm


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    renofox wrote:I'll repost. You must have missed my agreeing with you.

    renofox wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote: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 :pukeface:
    IndyHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5931
    Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 2:42 pm


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Natethegreat wrote: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.
    JimmyNightshade
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 8
    Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:23 pm
    Location: Kitsap County


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


  • olyfan63 wrote:
    OrangeGravy wrote: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.
    OrangeGravy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 563
    Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:47 pm


  • IndyHawk wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    renofox wrote:I'll repost. You must have missed my agreeing with you.

    renofox wrote:
    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 :pukeface:


    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.
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 86
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    pinksheets wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    pinksheets wrote: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.
    TypeSly
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1054
    Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:54 pm


  • 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.


    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
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3847
    Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:03 am


  • 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?
    olyfan63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3847
    Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:03 am


PreviousNext


It is currently Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:28 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ SEATTLE SEAHAWKS FOOTBALL ]




Information
  • Who is online