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
  • 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: 761
    Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 5:56 pm


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    renofox wrote:
    pinksheets wrote:
    FattyKnuckle 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?


    Excellent point. For The Win.


    Amazing how you can be wrong twice in only five words.


    Logic and critical thinking. Some got it, some don't.
    renofox
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1442
    Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:20 pm
    Location: Reno, NV


  • jamescasey1124 wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    Seanhawk wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:Wasn't it within the last 2 min?


    Nope.

    Thanks, couldn't remember exactly when it was.

    My answer is still no, they wouldn't have because the Ram gave himself up and everyone was lining up for the next play. When it happened in real time I was pretty shocked that they let the play go on as it seemed extremely obvious what was happening.


    Since when does a player get to set the ball down...placement for his team to line up and hike without a ref touching? Doesnt happen. That is called cheating. Your argument is now null and void.



    What?! Where does it say the ref wouldn't get to touch it? Players place the ball on the ground to hurry up the action every single game. The players line up while the refs get in there to set the ball. Every. Single. Game.
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 91
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • This kind of officiating has cost us games a number of times in the past. It was total BS. I hate human officiating.

    The NFL needs to develop software that officiates with human review and nothing more.
    RolandDeschain
    * Spelling High Lord *
     
    Posts: 32116
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 9:39 am
    Location: North Miami Beach, FL


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    renofox wrote:
    pinksheets wrote:
    FattyKnuckle 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?


    Excellent point. For The Win.


    Amazing how you can be wrong twice in only five words.



    You're picking a strange hill to die on here.

    Seems to be a weird play with multiple layers that could have been interpreted in a multitude of ways.

    Your insistence that its black and white ( and hence airing your superiority over fans you claim have a persecution complex) is grating at best.

    Nothing wrong with claiming it was a strange play and walking away....
    Hawkpower
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2821
    Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:53 am
    Location: Phoenix az


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    renofox wrote:
    pinksheets wrote:
    FattyKnuckle 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?


    Excellent point. For The Win.


    Amazing how you can be wrong twice in only five words.

    Show us how we are wrong per the rules. Intent doesn't matter. What actually happened matters.
    Natethegreat
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1935
    Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 8:21 pm


  • renofox wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    renofox wrote:
    pinksheets wrote:


    Excellent point. For The Win.


    Amazing how you can be wrong twice in only five words.


    Logic and critical thinking. Some got it, some don't.

    If you're trying to use that example as being remotely similar to what we're talking about here, I've got a bridge to sell you.
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 91
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


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

    Image


    Weird, it doesn't look like he is running to line up for the next play because time was of the essence. Almost as if this isn't a remotely good comparison at all.

    So, not only do the refs have to interpret whether dropping the football was intentional, they need to interpret whether it's reasonable to think the player thinks they might have been touched AND whether doing any of it makes sense situationally?

    Sounds like an arbitrary mess with zero clarity.

    Would you accept what Desean did as giving himself up if they were up 1 score with a minute to go and downing it to run out the clock would be beneficial?

    If you want to quibble about a terrible comparison, go for it. It doesn't remotely match what happened today and neither does your second hypothetical. However, if DeSean put the ball on the ground, not dropped it, and then turned to either lineup or huddle up, not sauntering around in the endzone... So basically the opposite of everything you're trying to make stick, then probably.


    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 to line back up or huddle up and have 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.
    Last edited by pinksheets on Sun Dec 27, 2020 8:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    pinksheets
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3016
    Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:47 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • Natethegreat wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    renofox wrote:
    pinksheets wrote:


    Excellent point. For The Win.


    Amazing how you can be wrong twice in only five words.

    Show us how we are wrong per the rules. Intent doesn't matter. What actually happened matters.

    Intent doesn't matter for a play where a player intends to give himself up?

    Are you referring back to today's play or to the absurd comparison that bears zero resemblance to the play today?
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 91
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    OrangeGravy wrote:
    Natethegreat wrote:No complex or persecution here. I just think they blew the call. He never gave himself up. Unless there is a rule that states placing the ball on the ground is giving yourself up. Maybe there is but I am not aware of it.

    Because there is no such rule. He set that ball down because he thought he was down by contact. The language of the rule doesn't state setting the ball down while standing up constitutes giving yourself up. If they did call that rule correctly, they need to either change the rule or change how it's written. You can't have officials out there interpreting a player's intent on any call let alone a play where the ball is loose. I guarantee they had a laugh about it after the game. He knows he got away with one there.


    No one was anywhere near him, why would he possibly think he was touched?

    Nobody can convince me that a player would take the chance of putting the ball on the ground on purpose (when there is no rule stating that this action constitutes giving themselves up) and leaving it to the refs to make the call. Not one coach in Football would be preaching that "give up" move. In fact, they would be coaching against that very thing because it's way too risky. He thought he was down. When things are moving that fast and you go to the ground you can't always tell if you've been touched or not. I've seen players get up to advance the ball thinking they weren't touched even when they were. This is the first time I've ever seen someone stand up and set the ball down other than Plaxico spiking the ball in the field of play, which was a fumble. According to this play that should've been a dead ball.
    OrangeGravy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 564
    Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:47 pm


  • pinksheets wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    pinksheets wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    Weird, it doesn't look like he is running to line up for the next play because time was of the essence. Almost as if this isn't a remotely good comparison at all.

    So, not only do the refs have to interpret whether dropping the football was intentional, they need to interpret whether it's reasonable to think the player thinks they might have been touched AND whether doing any of it makes sense situationally?

    Sounds like an arbitrary mess with zero clarity.

    Would you accept what Desean did as giving himself up if they were up 1 score with a minute to go and downing it to run out the clock would be beneficial?

    If you want to quibble about a terrible comparison, go for it. It doesn't remotely match what happened today and neither does your second hypothetical. However, if DeSean put the ball on the ground, not dropped it, and then turned to either lineup or huddle up, not sauntering around in the endzone... So basically the opposite of everything you're trying to make stick, then probably.


    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.
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 91
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    Natethegreat wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    renofox wrote:
    Excellent point. For The Win.


    Amazing how you can be wrong twice in only five words.

    Show us how we are wrong per the rules. Intent doesn't matter. What actually happened matters.

    Intent doesn't matter for a play where a player intends to give himself up?

    Are you referring back to today's play or to the absurd comparison that bears zero resemblance to the play today?

    If a player intends to give himself up he should so according to the rule book. In his case he should have stayed down.

    He did not stay down.

    He was up immediately.

    No whistle was blown and he set the ball on the ground.

    Setting the ball on the ground is not giving yourself up.

    Therefore it was a fumble.
    Last edited by Natethegreat on Sun Dec 27, 2020 8:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Natethegreat
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1935
    Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 8:21 pm


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


  • 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.
    Would it be a fumble if they weren't in hurry up?
    pinksheets
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3016
    Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:47 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • OrangeGravy wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    OrangeGravy wrote:
    Natethegreat wrote:No complex or persecution here. I just think they blew the call. He never gave himself up. Unless there is a rule that states placing the ball on the ground is giving yourself up. Maybe there is but I am not aware of it.

    Because there is no such rule. He set that ball down because he thought he was down by contact. The language of the rule doesn't state setting the ball down while standing up constitutes giving yourself up. If they did call that rule correctly, they need to either change the rule or change how it's written. You can't have officials out there interpreting a player's intent on any call let alone a play where the ball is loose. I guarantee they had a laugh about it after the game. He knows he got away with one there.


    No one was anywhere near him, why would he possibly think he was touched?

    Nobody can convince me that a player would take the chance of putting the ball on the ground on purpose (when there is no rule stating that this action constitutes giving themselves up) and leaving it to the refs to make the call. Not one coach in Football would be preaching that "give up" move. In fact, they would be coaching against that very thing because it's way too risky. He thought he was down. When things are moving that fast and you go to the ground you can't always tell if you've been touched or not. I've seen players get up to advance the ball thinking they weren't touched even when they were. This is the first time I've ever seen someone stand up and set the ball down other than Plaxico spiking the ball in the field of play, which was a fumble. According to this play that should've been a dead ball.


    There's zero chance he thought he was down. No one was near enough to touch him and even if he thought he might have been touched (which I just don't see how he could), what player wouldn't get up and try to get more yards? You use that same example of not realizing you've been touched. The only reason you wouldn't advance the ball is if you knew without a doubt that you were down, or you were giving yourself up. He didn't spike it, or drop it, or flip it, he deliberately set it down and went to line up. It was the right call.
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 91
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    jamescasey1124 wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    Seanhawk wrote:
    Nope.

    Thanks, couldn't remember exactly when it was.

    My answer is still no, they wouldn't have because the Ram gave himself up and everyone was lining up for the next play. When it happened in real time I was pretty shocked that they let the play go on as it seemed extremely obvious what was happening.


    Since when does a player get to set the ball down...placement for his team to line up and hike without a ref touching? Doesnt happen. That is called cheating. Your argument is now null and void.



    What?! Where does it say the ref wouldn't get to touch it? Players place the ball on the ground to hurry up the action every single game. The players line up while the refs get in there to set the ball. Every. Single. Game.


    And that is why the argument is null and void. Refs didnt do anything because the play was still live. No one single player can deem a plays end unless they lay there and wait to be touched down.or clearly show they have given up. He didnt not. No whistle...no touch...no give up. Just another technicality refs can use to sway power in a game.

    You know how I know its wrong...not that you care but go back and watch the play again. The claimed to given himself up reciever Josh Reynolds looks at bobby pick up the ball after he set it down and clearly looks distrot like he f*** up big time. He had no idea what he was doing. Fumble.
    jamescasey1124
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 743
    Joined: Mon May 04, 2020 12:36 am


  • I watched the game without sound and maybe missed a play here or there so somebody can explain to me when we are talking about?

    Is this the QB sneak that ended up in recovered fumble?
    themunn
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3617
    Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 5:38 pm


  • jamescasey1124 wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    jamescasey1124 wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:Thanks, couldn't remember exactly when it was.

    My answer is still no, they wouldn't have because the Ram gave himself up and everyone was lining up for the next play. When it happened in real time I was pretty shocked that they let the play go on as it seemed extremely obvious what was happening.


    Since when does a player get to set the ball down...placement for his team to line up and hike without a ref touching? Doesnt happen. That is called cheating. Your argument is now null and void.



    What?! Where does it say the ref wouldn't get to touch it? Players place the ball on the ground to hurry up the action every single game. The players line up while the refs get in there to set the ball. Every. Single. Game.


    And that is why the argument is null and void. Refs didnt do anything because the play was still live. No one single player can deem a plays end unless they lay there and wait to be touched down.or clearly show they have given up. He didnt not. No whistle...no touch...no give up. Just another technicality refs can use to sway power in a game.

    You know how I know its wrong...not that you care but go back and watch the play again. The claimed to given himself up reciever Josh Reynolds looks at bobby pick up the ball after he set it down and clearly looks distrot like he f*** up big time. He had no idea what he was doing. Fumble.


    Refs let potential turnovers play out all the time rather than blow a play dead.
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 91
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • jamescasey1124 wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    jamescasey1124 wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:Thanks, couldn't remember exactly when it was.

    My answer is still no, they wouldn't have because the Ram gave himself up and everyone was lining up for the next play. When it happened in real time I was pretty shocked that they let the play go on as it seemed extremely obvious what was happening.


    Since when does a player get to set the ball down...placement for his team to line up and hike without a ref touching? Doesnt happen. That is called cheating. Your argument is now null and void.



    What?! Where does it say the ref wouldn't get to touch it? Players place the ball on the ground to hurry up the action every single game. The players line up while the refs get in there to set the ball. Every. Single. Game.


    And that is why the argument is null and void. Refs didnt do anything because the play was still live. No one single player can deem a plays end unless they lay there and wait to be touched down.or clearly show they have given up. He didnt not. No whistle...no touch...no give up. Just another technicality refs can use to sway power in a game.

    You know how I know its wrong...not that you care but go back and watch the play again. The claimed to given himself up reciever Josh Reynolds looks at bobby pick up the ball after he set it down and clearly looks distrot like he f*** up big time. He had no idea what he was doing. Fumble.


    I think the refs f’d up as well. They both did. Two wrongs don’t make a right
    LoneHawkFan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 542
    Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:34 am


  • themunn wrote:I watched the game without sound and maybe missed a play here or there so somebody can explain to me when we are talking about?

    Is this the QB sneak that ended up in recovered fumble?


    Last Rams drive. Reynolds caught the ball on the ground, spun and got up, then set the ball on the ground (no whistle had called the play dead nor had he been touched). Wagner then grabbed the ball and the refs signaled Seahawks ball. Then they conferred and decided that Reynolds had given himself up.
    Last edited by Natethegreat on Sun Dec 27, 2020 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Natethegreat
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1935
    Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 8:21 pm


  • Natethegreat wrote:
    themunn wrote:I watched the game without sound and maybe missed a play here or there so somebody can explain to me when we are talking about?

    Is this the QB sneak that ended up in recovered fumble?


    Last Rams drive. Reynolds caught the ball on the ground, spun and got up, then set the ball on the gorund (no whistle had called the play dead). Wagner then grabbed the ball and the refs signaled Seahawks ball. Then they conferred and decided that Reynolds had given himself up.


    This is all correct.
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 91
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    Natethegreat wrote:
    themunn wrote:I watched the game without sound and maybe missed a play here or there so somebody can explain to me when we are talking about?

    Is this the QB sneak that ended up in recovered fumble?


    Last Rams drive. Reynolds caught the ball on the ground, spun and got up, then set the ball on the gorund (no whistle had called the play dead). Wagner then grabbed the ball and the refs signaled Seahawks ball. Then they conferred and decided that Reynolds had given himself up.


    This is all correct.

    Exactly, so can you show me in the rule book were setting the ball on the ground is giving yourself up. Because if that is his intent he should have stayed on the ground till the whistle blew.
    Last edited by Natethegreat on Sun Dec 27, 2020 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Natethegreat
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1935
    Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 8:21 pm


  • themunn wrote:I watched the game without sound and maybe missed a play here or there so somebody can explain to me when we are talking about?

    Is this the QB sneak that ended up in recovered fumble?


    Reciever on rams catches ball and goes to ground because throw was low. Reciever gets up without being touched to set the ball on the ground and runs off. B wags picks it up like ok that was dumb and treats it like a fumble. No whistle blown...no play end until after bobby tried to run off with it.
    jamescasey1124
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 743
    Joined: Mon May 04, 2020 12:36 am


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


  • LoneHawkFan wrote:
    jamescasey1124 wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    jamescasey1124 wrote:
    Since when does a player get to set the ball down...placement for his team to line up and hike without a ref touching? Doesnt happen. That is called cheating. Your argument is now null and void.



    What?! Where does it say the ref wouldn't get to touch it? Players place the ball on the ground to hurry up the action every single game. The players line up while the refs get in there to set the ball. Every. Single. Game.


    And that is why the argument is null and void. Refs didnt do anything because the play was still live. No one single player can deem a plays end unless they lay there and wait to be touched down.or clearly show they have given up. He didnt not. No whistle...no touch...no give up. Just another technicality refs can use to sway power in a game.

    You know how I know its wrong...not that you care but go back and watch the play again. The claimed to given himself up reciever Josh Reynolds looks at bobby pick up the ball after he set it down and clearly looks distrot like he f*** up big time. He had no idea what he was doing. Fumble.


    I think the refs f’d up as well. They both did. Two wrongs don’t make a right


    Agreed. But hey we won.
    jamescasey1124
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 743
    Joined: Mon May 04, 2020 12:36 am


  • 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.
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 91
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • jamescasey1124 wrote:
    LoneHawkFan wrote:
    jamescasey1124 wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:

    What?! Where does it say the ref wouldn't get to touch it? Players place the ball on the ground to hurry up the action every single game. The players line up while the refs get in there to set the ball. Every. Single. Game.


    And that is why the argument is null and void. Refs didnt do anything because the play was still live. No one single player can deem a plays end unless they lay there and wait to be touched down.or clearly show they have given up. He didnt not. No whistle...no touch...no give up. Just another technicality refs can use to sway power in a game.

    You know how I know its wrong...not that you care but go back and watch the play again. The claimed to given himself up reciever Josh Reynolds looks at bobby pick up the ball after he set it down and clearly looks distrot like he f*** up big time. He had no idea what he was doing. Fumble.


    I think the refs f’d up as well. They both did. Two wrongs don’t make a right


    Agreed. But hey we won.


    If we're going to use reactions as "how I know" then McVay sprinting out there immediately to argue that he gave himself up should be a big tip-off that that was the direction he gave the players.
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 91
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 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.


    Except he didn't go head first. He went to the ground making the catch, got up off the ground, and set the ball on the ground. Fumble.
    Seanhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6774
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:04 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.


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


  • Seanhawk 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.


    Except he didn't go head first. He went to the ground making the catch, got up off the ground, and set the ball on the ground. Fumble.

    Bingo.
    pinksheets
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3016
    Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:47 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    jamescasey1124 wrote:
    LoneHawkFan wrote:
    jamescasey1124 wrote:
    And that is why the argument is null and void. Refs didnt do anything because the play was still live. No one single player can deem a plays end unless they lay there and wait to be touched down.or clearly show they have given up. He didnt not. No whistle...no touch...no give up. Just another technicality refs can use to sway power in a game.

    You know how I know its wrong...not that you care but go back and watch the play again. The claimed to given himself up reciever Josh Reynolds looks at bobby pick up the ball after he set it down and clearly looks distrot like he f*** up big time. He had no idea what he was doing. Fumble.


    I think the refs f’d up as well. They both did. Two wrongs don’t make a right


    Agreed. But hey we won.


    If we're going to use reactions as "how I know" then McVay sprinting out there immediately to argue that he gave himself up should be a big tip-off that that was the direction he gave the players.

    Ok or covering up a mistake.
    jamescasey1124
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 743
    Joined: Mon May 04, 2020 12:36 am


  • Fatty Knuckles you agreed with my account of what happened so can you show me in the rule book that placing the ball on the ground is giving yourself up? Reynolds could have given himself up. All he had to do was stay on the ground till the whistle blew.

    He did not do that.

    He was up immediately and then placed the ball on the ground with no whistle blown.

    By the rule book that is a fumble regardless of what his intent was.
    Natethegreat
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1935
    Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 8:21 pm


  • 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?[/quote]
    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.[/quote]

    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.
    vonstout
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 429
    Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:00 pm


  • There is an agenda from the NFL against the Seahawks. The refs are told to make favorable calls against them every game. Make no mistake about it
    Welshers
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 532
    Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:55 pm


  • Natethegreat wrote:Fatty Knuckles you agreed with my account of what happened so can you show me in the rule book that placing the ball on the ground is giving yourself up? Reynolds could have given himself up. All he had to do was stay on the ground till the whistle blew.

    He did not do that.

    He was up immediately and then placed the ball on the ground with no whistle blown.

    By the rule book that is a fumble regardless of what his intent was.


    This.
    JPatera76
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1444
    Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:32 am


  • vonstout wrote: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.[/quote]

    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.[/quote]

    Not in using the Desean clip it isn't.
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 91
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    vonstout wrote: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.


    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.[/quote]

    Not in using the Desean clip it isn't.[/quote]
    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.
    pinksheets
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3016
    Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:47 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • Seanhawk 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.


    Except he didn't go head first. He went to the ground making the catch, got up off the ground, and set the ball on the ground. Fumble.


    Except it wasn't. He made no attempt to advance the ball. It was pretty clear to me in real time, to McVay who clearly instructed them to hurry up like that and to the refs on further discussion. I'm more than willing to say I was wrong if the NFL clarifies this as the wrong ruling but this is the closest comment to a gray area I've seen so far and its only about as dark as the Ram's unis.
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 91
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • pinksheets wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    vonstout wrote: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.


    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.[/quote]
    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.[/quote]

    And again, regardless of the situational changes, what Desean did was nothing whatsoever like what happened today.
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 91
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • Fattyknuckles, how exactly did Reynolds give himself up? Explain it to me. What action gave himself up?
    Natethegreat
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1935
    Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 8:21 pm


  • pinksheets wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    vonstout wrote: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.


    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.[/quote]
    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.[/quote]
    Fact is, his posts themselves don’t argue anything other to just constantly disagree. Then spin the response to disagree again.

    It was a fumble by the rule, and most people agree, most don’t give a damn. In the end this has become a continuous circle of needless arguing of people saying the same $h!t, mutiple people saying it was and 1 person saying it wasnt, but wont actually prove how it wasn’t after they’ve been shown/told numerous I Times how it was.


    Soo in the end who the hell cares now, this kid won’t admit he’s wrong or agree to disagree. He’s gained at least 70% of his post count off this.. well now useless and kind of back and forth childish thread.
    JPatera76
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1444
    Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:32 am


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



    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.


    Except he didn't go head first. He went to the ground making the catch, got up off the ground, and set the ball on the ground. Fumble.


    Except it wasn't. He made no attempt to advance the ball. It was pretty clear to me in real time, to McVay who clearly instructed them to hurry up like that and to the refs on further discussion. I'm more than willing to say I was wrong if the NFL clarifies this as the wrong ruling but this is the closest comment to a gray area I've seen so far and its only about as dark as the Ram's unis.


    What in the hell? Then why are you looking into there being a language change to include going headfirst? It seems you're doing that to support your argument, when that's not what happened...AT ALL.
    Seanhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6774
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:04 pm


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    pinksheets wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    vonstout wrote: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.


    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.[/quote]

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

    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.
    Last edited by pinksheets on Sun Dec 27, 2020 8:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    pinksheets
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3016
    Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:47 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    OrangeGravy wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    OrangeGravy wrote:Because there is no such rule. He set that ball down because he thought he was down by contact. The language of the rule doesn't state setting the ball down while standing up constitutes giving yourself up. If they did call that rule correctly, they need to either change the rule or change how it's written. You can't have officials out there interpreting a player's intent on any call let alone a play where the ball is loose. I guarantee they had a laugh about it after the game. He knows he got away with one there.


    No one was anywhere near him, why would he possibly think he was touched?

    Nobody can convince me that a player would take the chance of putting the ball on the ground on purpose (when there is no rule stating that this action constitutes giving themselves up) and leaving it to the refs to make the call. Not one coach in Football would be preaching that "give up" move. In fact, they would be coaching against that very thing because it's way too risky. He thought he was down. When things are moving that fast and you go to the ground you can't always tell if you've been touched or not. I've seen players get up to advance the ball thinking they weren't touched even when they were. This is the first time I've ever seen someone stand up and set the ball down other than Plaxico spiking the ball in the field of play, which was a fumble. According to this play that should've been a dead ball.


    There's zero chance he thought he was down. No one was near enough to touch him and even if he thought he might have been touched (which I just don't see how he could), what player wouldn't get up and try to get more yards? You use that same example of not realizing you've been touched. The only reason you wouldn't advance the ball is if you knew without a doubt that you were down, or you were giving yourself up. He didn't spike it, or drop it, or flip it, he deliberately set it down and went to line up. It was the right call.



    There's zero reason for him to give himself up. He gets 10 more yards if he runs with the ball. He clearly thought he was down, either due to contact or because of a mental error and forgetting in the pros you aren't down until you are touched. Either way, he didn't give himself up in the middle of the field.
    CPHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3667
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:49 pm


  • Natethegreat wrote:Fattyknuckles, how exactly did Reynolds give himself up? Explain it to me. What action gave himself up?

    This is the only question that matters, and I don't think there's any discussion if this can't be clearly answered by Fattyknuckles.
    pinksheets
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3016
    Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:47 pm
    Location: Seattle


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


    Except he didn't go head first. He went to the ground making the catch, got up off the ground, and set the ball on the ground. Fumble.


    Except it wasn't. He made no attempt to advance the ball. It was pretty clear to me in real time, to McVay who clearly instructed them to hurry up like that and to the refs on further discussion. I'm more than willing to say I was wrong if the NFL clarifies this as the wrong ruling but this is the closest comment to a gray area I've seen so far and its only about as dark as the Ram's unis.


    What in the hell? Then why are you looking into there being a language change to include going headfirst? It seems you're doing that to support your argument, when that's not what happened...AT ALL.


    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.
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 91
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • pinksheets 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.


    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.[/quote]

    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?
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 91
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • pinksheets wrote:
    Natethegreat wrote:Fattyknuckles, how exactly did Reynolds give himself up? Explain it to me. What action gave himself up?

    This is the only question that matters, and I don't think there's any discussion if this can't be clearly answered by Fattyknuckles.


    I've already stated that numerous times.
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 91
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


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

    Image


    Weird, it doesn't look like he is running to line up for the next play because time was of the essence. Almost as if this isn't a remotely good comparison at all.

    The question isn't intent, its what the actual rules are. Yes, he either thought he was touched or the play had been called dead but neither actually happened and he fumbled the ball. Intentional or not. Putting the ball on the ground is not giving yourself up per the rules as far as I am aware.


    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.
    JGreen79
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 900
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:26 pm
    Location: Newberg, Oregon


  • he did not kneel down or slide so he did not give himself up

    just like the kick returner who caught the ball in the endzone and tossed the ball to the ref without taking a knee

    that was also incorrectly overturned (should have been a fumble)
    irfuben32
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 170
    Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:07 am


PreviousNext


It is currently Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:41 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ SEATTLE SEAHAWKS FOOTBALL ]




Information
  • Who is online