What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Detroit should have had the ball... (1 Viewer)

cobalt_27

cobalt_27

Footballguy
...1st down on 6 inch line.

How did every official miss what has been a rule in existence for nearly 30 years?

Awful. That's just terrible. And Caldwell is such an idiot he clearly didn't fight for it either.

 
That's awesome. :lmao: Listening to NFL network. The Lions!!!!

I guarantee the ref had no idea about that rule.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wont say this often, but Ray Lewis is right. There is no accountabilty when it comes to refs and situations like this that are anything near enough to remedy it. Det gets a loss and a consolation letter from the league office.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can't blame Caldwell -- it was under 2 minutes, so it wasn't like he could challenge it or anything.

Still, just awful. NFL should offer a team 5 mil to intentionally lose to Detroit to avoid 0-16. Not enough? Move down, and offer more :P

 
jurb26 said:
I wont say this often, but Ray Lewis is right. There is no accountabilty when it comes to refs and situations like this that are anything near enough to remedy it. Det gets a loss and a consolation letter from the league office.
Click to expand...
The last time the Seahawks got a late game break during a nationally televised game all the refs were fired! :failmary:

 
Huh. Not a rule I've ever heard of. Thught it was a smart play. See guys purposefully knock punts out of bounds all the time.

:shrug:

 
Seriously??? You want the big break on a technicality? Kam made the play. The ball was heading out of bounds, regardless.

Grow a pair.

 
Hooper31 said:
Huh. Not a rule I've ever heard of. Thught it was a smart play. See guys purposefully knock punts out of bounds all the time.

:shrug:
Click to expand...
I agree, I don't get it. Can you imagine that stadium if the refs had called it back as a PF and half the distance to the goal from the point of the foul? Holy cow, what a disaster, it would have been a tsunami. Detroit deserved to lose the ball, Johnsom lost it.

The spirit if the rule is for a wholly different situation, it was a smart play.

 
It's absolutely the rule, the op is right. Noticed it when it happened only because the Steelers did it to the Pats a few years ago.

Illegal use of hands.

Don't have a link but I know it's in the use of hands section of the rules.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
daveR said:
Seriously??? You want the big break on a technicality? Kam made the play. The ball was heading out of bounds, regardless.

Grow a pair.
Click to expand...
No technicality at all. They flagrantly violated a rule directly in front of the ref. Nothing to do with growing a pair, it was Seattle who was bailed out by a stupid play directly in front of a clueless official.

 
daveR said:
Seriously??? You want the big break on a technicality? Kam made the play. The ball was heading out of bounds, regardless.

Grow a pair.
Click to expand...
No i want a break on a rule that should have been called. Wilson runs around for 15 second with no holding calls 4 or 5 times and then get a call in the endzone. And as far as punt returners punching the ball out of bounds that is not counted as a penalty its a safety.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Hooper31 said:
Huh. Not a rule I've ever heard of. Thught it was a smart play. See guys purposefully knock punts out of bounds all the time.

:shrug:
Click to expand...
I agree, I don't get it. Can you imagine that stadium if the refs had called it back as a PF and half the distance to the goal from the point of the foul? Holy cow, what a disaster, it would have been a tsunami. Detroit deserved to lose the ball, Johnsom lost it.

The spirit if the rule is for a wholly different situation, it was a smart play.
Click to expand...
Chancellor made a great play. Seattle deserved the win.

 
fantasycurse42 said:
daveR said:
Seriously??? You want the big break on a technicality? Kam made the play. The ball was heading out of bounds, regardless.

Grow a pair.
Click to expand...
No technicality at all. They flagrantly violated a rule directly in front of the ref. Nothing to do with growing a pair, it was Seattle who was bailed out by a stupid play directly in front of a clueless official.
Click to expand...
BS The ball was heading OB. No way anything else could have happened.

 
Section 4: Illegal Bats and Kicks

Article 1: Illegal Bat. It is an illegal bat if:

(a) a player of either team bats or punches a loose ball in the field of play toward his opponent’s goal line; or

(b) a player of either team bats or punches a loose ball (that has touched the ground) in any direction, if it is in either end

zone; or

© an offensive player bats a backward pass in flight toward his opponent’s goal line.

Penalty: For illegal batting or punching the ball: Loss of 10 yards. For enforcement, treat as a foul during a backward

pass or fumble (see 8-7-7). If the foul is by the defense, it is an automatic first down.

 
BobbyLayne said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Hooper31 said:
Huh. Not a rule I've ever heard of. Thught it was a smart play. See guys purposefully knock punts out of bounds all the time.

:shrug:
Click to expand...
I agree, I don't get it. Can you imagine that stadium if the refs had called it back as a PF and half the distance to the goal from the point of the foul? Holy cow, what a disaster, it would have been a tsunami. Detroit deserved to lose the ball, Johnsom lost it.The spirit if the rule is for a wholly different situation, it was a smart play.
Click to expand...
Chancellor made a great play. Seattle deserved the win.
Click to expand...
Then KJ Wright made a terrible play 1 second later. That's how dumb that logic is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
daveR said:
fantasycurse42 said:
daveR said:
Seriously??? You want the big break on a technicality? Kam made the play. The ball was heading out of bounds, regardless.

Grow a pair.
Click to expand...
No technicality at all. They flagrantly violated a rule directly in front of the ref. Nothing to do with growing a pair, it was Seattle who was bailed out by a stupid play directly in front of a clueless official.
Click to expand...
BS The ball was heading OB. No way anything else could have happened.
Click to expand...
Yes/No - did he swat the ball out of bounds?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's really inexcusable that the referees didn't call it for what it was. Whether you agree with the rule or not is irrelevant. Referees are paid to know the rule book inside and out and it couldn't be more obvious that the ball was intentionally batted out of bounds. Tough break for the Lions

 
ESPN making a whole lot of something out of a whole lot of nothing. Detroit lost this game by playing ####ty not a bad call.

 
daveR said:
fantasycurse42 said:
daveR said:
Seriously??? You want the big break on a technicality? Kam made the play. The ball was heading out of bounds, regardless.

Grow a pair.
Click to expand...
No technicality at all. They flagrantly violated a rule directly in front of the ref. Nothing to do with growing a pair, it was Seattle who was bailed out by a stupid play directly in front of a clueless official.
Click to expand...
BS The ball was heading OB. No way anything else could have happened.
Click to expand...
So what? If a guy clips a player or blocks in the back even though it's nowhere near the actual runner or impactful to the play they still enforce the penalty... Because that's their job. You don't get to pick which calls you make based on what you expect would have happened anyway.

 
BobbyLayne said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Hooper31 said:
Huh. Not a rule I've ever heard of. Thught it was a smart play. See guys purposefully knock punts out of bounds all the time. :shrug:
Click to expand...
I agree, I don't get it. Can you imagine that stadium if the refs had called it back as a PF and half the distance to the goal from the point of the foul? Holy cow, what a disaster, it would have been a tsunami. Detroit deserved to lose the ball, Johnsom lost it.The spirit if the rule is for a wholly different situation, it was a smart play.
Click to expand...
Chancellor made a great play. Seattle deserved the win.
Click to expand...
Chancellor made a great play. Wright didn't, he deserved a flag. Can't start picking and choosing when to uphold the rules because someone else made a great play.

 
fantasycurse42 said:
daveR said:
fantasycurse42 said:
daveR said:
Seriously??? You want the big break on a technicality? Kam made the play. The ball was heading out of bounds, regardless.

Grow a pair.
Click to expand...
No technicality at all. They flagrantly violated a rule directly in front of the ref. Nothing to do with growing a pair, it was Seattle who was bailed out by a stupid play directly in front of a clueless official.
Click to expand...
BS The ball was heading OB. No way anything else could have happened.
Click to expand...
Yes/No - did he swat the ball out of bounds?
Click to expand...
That's the point. It made no difference whatsoever.

 
If the refs blew the call, they blew the call and there's no excuses for not knowing/enforcing the rules of the game. That said, why was that established as the rule in the first place? What is the rule trying to prevent in that situation? Because penalizing Seattle for that particular play would have felt really ticky-tack.

I hope there's a better answer out there than either "It doesn't matter why" or "Because that's the rule".

 
BobbyLayne said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Hooper31 said:
Huh. Not a rule I've ever heard of. Thught it was a smart play. See guys purposefully knock punts out of bounds all the time.

:shrug:
Click to expand...
I agree, I don't get it. Can you imagine that stadium if the refs had called it back as a PF and half the distance to the goal from the point of the foul? Holy cow, what a disaster, it would have been a tsunami. Detroit deserved to lose the ball, Johnsom lost it.The spirit if the rule is for a wholly different situation, it was a smart play.
Click to expand...
Chancellor made a great play. Seattle deserved the win.
Click to expand...
No they didn't. They look awful. Both teams should've lost.

 
Apparently an "illegal bat" is NOT a reviewable play.

That, like many rule related items in the NFL, makes no sense.

 
daveR said:
fantasycurse42 said:
daveR said:
fantasycurse42 said:
daveR said:
Seriously??? You want the big break on a technicality? Kam made the play. The ball was heading out of bounds, regardless.

Grow a pair.
Click to expand...
No technicality at all. They flagrantly violated a rule directly in front of the ref. Nothing to do with growing a pair, it was Seattle who was bailed out by a stupid play directly in front of a clueless official.
Click to expand...
BS The ball was heading OB. No way anything else could have happened.
Click to expand...
Yes/No - did he swat the ball out of bounds?
Click to expand...
That's the point. It made no difference whatsoever.
Click to expand...
So answering a yes/no question is too hard here?

I'll help you out; yes he did, which is a penalty and automatic first down. Arguing against what we all saw as factual with our own eyes can be a lot of things, but correct certainly isn't one of them.

 
Ted Lange as your Bartender said:
If the refs blew the call, they blew the call and there's no excuses for not knowing/enforcing the rules of the game. That said, why was that established as the rule in the first place? What is the rule trying to prevent in that situation? Because penalizing Seattle for that particular play would have felt really ticky-tack.

I hope there's a better answer out there than either "It doesn't matter why" or "Because that's the rule".
Click to expand...
Result of the Holy Roller. Look it up.

 
jurb26 said:
fantasycurse42 said:
Hooper31 said:
Huh. Not a rule I've ever heard of. Thught it was a smart play. See guys purposefully knock punts out of bounds all the time.

:shrug:
Click to expand...
It is a rule, regardless if you've heard of it or not.
Click to expand...
I love when people think that because they don't know something it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
Not at all. I'm no blind homer. Sounds like Detroit got screwed. I was just commenting that it was news to me. Guessing that's true for most in this case.

 
fantasycurse42 said:
daveR said:
Seriously??? You want the big break on a technicality? Kam made the play. The ball was heading out of bounds, regardless.

Grow a pair.
Click to expand...
No technicality at all. They flagrantly violated a rule directly in front of the ref. Nothing to do with growing a pair, it was Seattle who was bailed out by a stupid play directly in front of a clueless official.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's a technicality. If he had attempted to catch & carry the ball out, it's a touchback. If he had chested it out, it's a touchback. If he let's it go, it's a touchback. If he uses his head to knock it out, it's a touchback. Because he used his hand, you want the ball 6" from the goal line. You don't want football, you want legalistic BS.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Ted Lange as your Bartender said:
If the refs blew the call, they blew the call and there's no excuses for not knowing/enforcing the rules of the game. That said, why was that established as the rule in the first place? What is the rule trying to prevent in that situation? Because penalizing Seattle for that particular play would have felt really ticky-tack.

I hope there's a better answer out there than either "It doesn't matter why" or "Because that's the rule".
Click to expand...
Result of the Holy Roller. Look it up.
Click to expand...
 
daveR said:
fantasycurse42 said:
daveR said:
Seriously??? You want the big break on a technicality? Kam made the play. The ball was heading out of bounds, regardless.

Grow a pair.
Click to expand...
No technicality at all. They flagrantly violated a rule directly in front of the ref. Nothing to do with growing a pair, it was Seattle who was bailed out by a stupid play directly in front of a clueless official.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's a technicality. If he had attempted to catch & carry the ball out, it's a touchback. If he had chested it out, it's a touchback. If he let's it go, it's a touchback. If he uses his head to knock it out, it's a touchback. Because he used his hand, you want the ball 6" from the goal line. You don't want football, you want legalistic BS.
Click to expand...
How many times do we see a 3rd and 20 result in a 1st down because of a hold on a WR the QB wasn't even looking to throw to?

Moral of the story: a penalty is a penalty regardless of the impact on the play. HTH.

 
KJ was obviously going for style points and trying to grab the ball one handed, but it bounced off his hand when he couldn't make the one-handed grab, not intentional batting. Kappa.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Ted Lange as your Bartender said:
If the refs blew the call, they blew the call and there's no excuses for not knowing/enforcing the rules of the game. That said, why was that established as the rule in the first place? What is the rule trying to prevent in that situation? Because penalizing Seattle for that particular play would have felt really ticky-tack.

I hope there's a better answer out there than either "It doesn't matter why" or "Because that's the rule".
Click to expand...
Result of the Holy Roller. Look it up.
Click to expand...
Oddly enough, this play was shown during the halftime show (after replaying the Raiders last play pitch effort @Chicago from yesterday).
 
daveR said:
fantasycurse42 said:
daveR said:
Seriously??? You want the big break on a technicality? Kam made the play. The ball was heading out of bounds, regardless.

Grow a pair.
Click to expand...
No technicality at all. They flagrantly violated a rule directly in front of the ref. Nothing to do with growing a pair, it was Seattle who was bailed out by a stupid play directly in front of a clueless official.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's a technicality. If he had attempted to catch & carry the ball out, it's a touchback. If he had chested it out, it's a touchback. If he let's it go, it's a touchback. If he uses his head to knock it out, it's a touchback. Because he used his hand, you want the ball 6" from the goal line. You don't want football, you want legalistic BS.
Click to expand...
Is no different than if a defender on the opposite side of the field with nothing to do on the actual play had been called for defensive holding or something. Again, you don't get to pick and choose when rules are enforced because it fits the notion of what you think or expect would happen anyway.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
daveR said:
fantasycurse42 said:
daveR said:
Seriously??? You want the big break on a technicality? Kam made the play. The ball was heading out of bounds, regardless.

Grow a pair.
Click to expand...
No technicality at all. They flagrantly violated a rule directly in front of the ref. Nothing to do with growing a pair, it was Seattle who was bailed out by a stupid play directly in front of a clueless official.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's a technicality. If he had attempted to catch & carry the ball out, it's a touchback. If he had chested it out, it's a touchback. If he let's it go, it's a touchback. If he uses his head to knock it out, it's a touchback. Because he used his hand, you want the ball 6" from the goal line. You don't want football, you want legalistic BS.
Click to expand...
More than anything he wants you to express some emotion. By getting a rise out of you he experiences some form of high. Why? Only he knows.

 
It was pretty obvious as well since he was near the back of the end zone by himself. Either they didn't know the rule or somehow didn't see it. I'm guessing just blew the call or lack of call. The refs should be disciplined for their game deciding flub.

 
Hooper31 said:
daveR said:
fantasycurse42 said:
daveR said:
Seriously??? You want the big break on a technicality? Kam made the play. The ball was heading out of bounds, regardless.

Grow a pair.
Click to expand...
No technicality at all. They flagrantly violated a rule directly in front of the ref. Nothing to do with growing a pair, it was Seattle who was bailed out by a stupid play directly in front of a clueless official.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's a technicality. If he had attempted to catch & carry the ball out, it's a touchback. If he had chested it out, it's a touchback. If he let's it go, it's a touchback. If he uses his head to knock it out, it's a touchback. Because he used his hand, you want the ball 6" from the goal line. You don't want football, you want legalistic BS.
Click to expand...
More than anything he wants you to express some emotion. By getting a rise out of you he experiences some form of high. Why? Only he knows.
Click to expand...
:lmao:

For pointing out factual information

 
Ted Lange as your Bartender said:
If the refs blew the call, they blew the call and there's no excuses for not knowing/enforcing the rules of the game. That said, why was that established as the rule in the first place? What is the rule trying to prevent in that situation? Because penalizing Seattle for that particular play would have felt really ticky-tack.

I hope there's a better answer out there than either "It doesn't matter why" or "Because that's the rule".
Click to expand...
I think the point of the rule is that if there is a loose ball in the end zone teams have to try to recover it. The defense cant just intentionally bat it out of the endzone to prevent the offense from recovering it. But I'm guessing.

FWIW I am a college and HS basketball official. Refs are human and miss calls. Looks like the backjudge froze or wasnt sure he saw what he saw or whatever. But the rule is clear. He HAS to make that call there. Inexcusable given the ramifications for the teams. In basketball an official would likely suffer from loss of future assignments/post season play.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I t doesn't matter if he is purposely knocking it out or not It is still a penalty. Oh I was trying to stop him from getting to my QB and my hand got entangled in his pads and I dragged him down accidentally.

 
daveR said:
fantasycurse42 said:
daveR said:
fantasycurse42 said:
daveR said:
Seriously??? You want the big break on a technicality? Kam made the play. The ball was heading out of bounds, regardless.

Grow a pair.
Click to expand...
No technicality at all. They flagrantly violated a rule directly in front of the ref. Nothing to do with growing a pair, it was Seattle who was bailed out by a stupid play directly in front of a clueless official.
Click to expand...
BS The ball was heading OB. No way anything else could have happened.
Click to expand...
Yes/No - did he swat the ball out of bounds?
Click to expand...
That's the point. It made no difference whatsoever.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

Also 49ers have scored like three points the last three weeks and might win two games this year.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ministry of Pain
Did anyone in Redraft pair Justin Fields with Anthony Richardson? What are your current options as you move forward?
Replies
10
Views
670
tickle
tickle
T
Travdogg's 3 round mock draft
2
Replies
77
Views
2K
travdogg
T
Capella
*Capella’s Soon-to-Be Extremely Wrong Over/Under predictions 2023 bay-bee* 🦄 🙏🏈💸
Replies
24
Views
926
Pip's Invitation
Pip's Invitation

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top