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

[davearm]

The notion that the ref didn't know the rule is quite absurd.

Did the announcing team question the play? I thought they automatically went to the "touchback" call and made no mention of it being subjective for the ref.

I don't recall Tirico or Gruden saying anything about it. Not that those two guys' grasp of the rules is particularly relevant.

 

[ragnarok628]

Question: Was Wright touching the ball, legally or not, was that what establishes SEA possession? Why is it SEA ball?

SEA never gained possession. It's SEA ball by rule: when a fumble goes out of the end zone it's a touchback.

By rule, you say?

Well that sounds a mighty lot like a technicality and I don't take up with technicalities, no sir!

In seriousness though, people ITT really are making the argument that the game should *not* be played by the rules as written? No problem with the idea that SEA can get a turnover without actually gaining possession of the football, well that's just the rules.That rule about fumbling out of the endzone, that one is A-OK to seahawk fans. But that *other* rule about not being allowed to bat the ball, well that's dumb we shouldn't enforce that one. Seems to me like the best answer for everybody regardless of allegiances would be if the refs go ahead and enforce all the rules as written and let the WTF moments pop up where they may instead of sitting on flags.

 

[RBM]

at calling it a technicality.

Um, what would you call it? .

A penalty

 

[davearm]

The notion that the ref didn't know the rule is quite absurd.

If he knew the rule and didn't call it that's even worse. I had the exact same angle but a few hundred feet further away and it was obvious that he tipped the ball intentionally out.

I don't think it's even worse, but I also disagree with the judgement the guy made.

This is the fundamental problem people aren't getting over from what I can see.

The ref actually made the *right call* by his judgment which is to not call a penalty. Was it the right judgment call? No. Did he execute the rules correctly based on his assessment? Yes.

But people are on a witchhunt so it won't really matter.

Yep all the official has to say is, "I didn't see it that way" regarding the intent.

Intent is a really difficult thing for these guys to judge, especially in real time at the speed these guys are going.

Of course, if the speed of the game is too fast for a guy to get calls right consistently, then he's not going to keep his reffing job for long.

 

[CalBear]

Cal lost a game on this rule last year; got called for illegal batting on an onsides kick attempt that went out of bounds. Arizona recovered the ensuing onsides kick and won on a Hail Mary throw.

That sucked.

It should have been called.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It was a good non-call, people are getting whipped up by ESPN and twitter. Let it go.

Even the officials and opposing team are admitting it was a mistake.

Does anyone have an example of where this penalty has been called in this situation? I can't recall it.

Not exactly this situation, but I know I watched Alex Smith against the Saints when he was playing with the 49ers bat the ball back through the endzone for a safety rather than let it get picked up by the Saints for a TD - I know they called a batted ball then.

Found the game:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=300920025

3rd and 5 at SF 15(13:32 - 1st) A.Smith Aborted. D.Baas FUMBLES at SF 15, ball out of bounds in End Zone, SAFETY. Penalty on SF-A.Smith, Illegal Bat, declined

Wow, excellent memory. Ok yes, that is a similar situation, albeit not exactly the same as you say.

 

[GroveDiesel]

So now we have the Holy Roller AND the Holy #### Roller.

Common sense says that there is no way the Lions even deserve the ball back. The Seahawks should not be punished for making a great play and batting the ball out of the end zone was actually a great play as was Chancellor's play.

Just another rule in the NFL that is flat out stupid. Of course, the guy should have grabbed the ball and run out of the back of the end zone.

How? He grabs the ball and steps out, it's a touchback. He grabs the ball and goes down in the end zone, it's a touchback He tries to grab the ball and it goes out, it's a touchback. He intentionally bats it out, it's a penalty.

Player has admitted he didn't know the rule. Wilson said they got fortunate with the call. NFL has said the refs missed it. How is it a great play?

The difference between all of those other scenarios and what happened last night is that in every single one of your scenarios, the defender has control/possession of the ball. The rule is put into place to try to force each team to gain possession of the ball and not incentivize one team to just hit the ball without having possession.

 

[Godsbrother]

The notion that the ref didn't know the rule is quite absurd.

If he knew the rule and didn't call it that's even worse. I had the exact same angle but a few hundred feet further away and it was obvious that he tipped the ball intentionally out.

I don't think it's even worse, but I also disagree with the judgement the guy made.

This is the fundamental problem people aren't getting over from what I can see.

The ref actually made the *right call* by his judgment which is to not call a penalty. Was it the right judgment call? No. Did he execute the rules correctly based on his assessment? Yes.

But people are on a witchhunt so it won't really matter.

It isn't a witchhunt -- people are only pointing out the refs blew it. The defender clearly and purposely batted the ball out of the endzone and the ref didn't call it.

I have no dog in this fight but in this case the Lions got hosed.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So now we have the

Ok, this plus Henry's post are persuading me.

 

[PhantomJB]

IMO the real culprit here is Jim Caldwell.

A head coach who is all over the rule book should have immediately protested to the referee. That would have forced the referee to caucus with the linesman/back judge to clarify the call.

A caucus would have forced the linesman to clearly state to the referee that it was his judgement the batting was unintentional (even though any reasonable person watching live or on replay would disagree).

Because the linesman's judgment was never questioned (when it mattered), either due to protest, outcry or automatic review, there was no second chance to get it right. So the linesman was able to take the easy way out in terms of a non-call vs. being overtly responsible for a game-changing play.

But ultimately it's Caldwell's responsibility to lobby questionable calls on behalf of his team. In the moment. When it counts. He missed that opportunity.

 

[spider321]

Change the rule.

That play should be a touchback.

 

[davearm]

IMO the real culprit here is Jim Caldwell.

A head coach who is all over the rule book should have immediately protested to the referee. That would have forced the referee to caucus with the linesman/back judge to clarify the call.

A caucus would have forced the linesman to clearly state to the referee that it was his judgement the batting was unintentional (even though any reasonable person watching live or on replay would disagree).

Because the linesman's judgment was never questioned (when it mattered), either due to protest, outcry or automatic review, there was no second chance to get it right. So the linesman was able to take the easy way out in terms of a non-call vs. being overtly responsible for a game-changing play.

But ultimately it's Caldwell's responsibility to lobby questionable calls on behalf of his team. In the moment. When it counts. He missed that opportunity.

Your points about Caldwell are well taken. The real culprit is still the official that booted the call.

 

[davearm]

Change the rule.

That play should be a touchback.

Disagree. Requiring both teams to make an effort to recover a loose ball in the endzone, and not just bat it OOB to gain possession, is a good rule.

 

[zftcg]

Change the rule.

That play should be a touchback.

Change the other rule.

That play should NOT be called a touchback.

The notion that if you fumble it out of bounds at the 1 you keep the ball but if it goes out of the back of the endzone you turn it over is silly. The defense should have to recover a fumble in order for there to be a change of possession.

 

[zftcg]

IMO the real culprit here is Jim Caldwell.

A head coach who is all over the rule book should have immediately protested to the referee. That would have forced the referee to caucus with the linesman/back judge to clarify the call.

A caucus would have forced the linesman to clearly state to the referee that it was his judgement the batting was unintentional (even though any reasonable person watching live or on replay would disagree).

Because the linesman's judgment was never questioned (when it mattered), either due to protest, outcry or automatic review, there was no second chance to get it right. So the linesman was able to take the easy way out in terms of a non-call vs. being overtly responsible for a game-changing play.

But ultimately it's Caldwell's responsibility to lobby questionable calls on behalf of his team. In the moment. When it counts. He missed that opportunity.

That's expecting a lot from a guy who has been legally dead for three years.

 

[Da Guru]

Will Goodell make an statement about Bat-Gate?

 

[zftcg]

So now we have the

I'm confused. Is that a defense of Wright? Because if the point of the rule is to incentivize the D to gain possession, than he clearly violated both the spirit and letter of it.

 

[zftcg]

Will Goodell make an statement about Bat-Gate?

Not until after a multi-million dollar "independent" investigation. And then he'll do whatever the hell he feels like.

 

[JuniorNB]

It was a good non-call, people are getting whipped up by ESPN and twitter. Let it go.

So a blatant violation of the rules shouldn't be called? It was a horrible non-call. And an example of referees not knowing the rules of the game they're paid to officiate.

If you want to argue that it's a dumb rule, I'm all ears. In fact, I bet it'll be changed for next year.

Blatant? How about practice and custom? How many times have you seen a ball batted in NFL games without a call? Can you count them?

The NFL is out of control with bs calls. DB puts his hand on a receiver on a cut and they call defensive holding. The ref may call it.... or the ref may not call it. Now we're going to add batted balls to calls that the refs may... or may not call at their discretion? On top of the Daily FF scandals?

The batted ball rule makes total sense if the player is trying to push the ball forward to gain scrimmage yards.

http://prod.www.raiders.clubs.nfl.com/media-vault/videos/The-Holy-Roller/7e2c18ca-0ee1-4777-9798-265bfa0d11f8

Otherwise I have no idea how they will enforce this rule.

You're arguing the rule. Which is fine. Like I said, they probably will change it in the offseason.

Any loose ball batted out of the end zone, either side or the back, is a penalty. Ball is rewarded to the other team at the spot of the fumble. It's a clear rule and it was violated. It's not even arguable.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It was a good non-call, people are getting whipped up by ESPN and twitter. Let it go.

So a blatant violation of the rules shouldn't be called? It was a horrible non-call. And an example of referees not knowing the rules of the game they're paid to officiate.

If you want to argue that it's a dumb rule, I'm all ears. In fact, I bet it'll be changed for next year.

Blatant? How about practice and custom? How many times have you seen a ball batted in NFL games without a call? Can you count them?

The NFL is out of control with bs calls. DB puts his hand on a receiver on a cut and they call defensive holding. The ref may call it.... or the ref may not call it. Now we're going to add batted balls to calls that the refs may... or may not call at their discretion? On top of the Daily FF scandals?

The batted ball rule makes total sense if the player is trying to push the ball forward to gain scrimmage yards.

http://prod.www.raiders.clubs.nfl.com/media-vault/videos/The-Holy-Roller/7e2c18ca-0ee1-4777-9798-265bfa0d11f8

Otherwise I have no idea how they will enforce this rule.

You're arguing the rule. Which is fine. Like I said, they probably will change it in the offseason.

Any loose ball batted out of the end zone, either side or the back, is a penalty. Ball is rewarded to the other team at the spot of the fumble. It's a clear rule and it was violated. It's not even arguable.

Ok, I'm listening.... you may be right after all.

 

[CalBear]

Change the rule.

That play should be a touchback.

Change the other rule.

That play should NOT be called a touchback.

The notion that if you fumble it out of bounds at the 1 you keep the ball but if it goes out of the back of the endzone you turn it over is silly. The defense should have to recover a fumble in order for there to be a change of possession.

Agreed. (Even though Cal beat Oregon on the touchback rule in 2007).

 

[Mr. Soup Nazi]

IMO the real culprit here is Jim Caldwell.

A head coach who is all over the rule book should have immediately protested to the referee. That would have forced the referee to caucus with the linesman/back judge to clarify the call.

A caucus would have forced the linesman to clearly state to the referee that it was his judgement the batting was unintentional (even though any reasonable person watching live or on replay would disagree).

Because the linesman's judgment was never questioned (when it mattered), either due to protest, outcry or automatic review, there was no second chance to get it right. So the linesman was able to take the easy way out in terms of a non-call vs. being overtly responsible for a game-changing play.

But ultimately it's Caldwell's responsibility to lobby questionable calls on behalf of his team. In the moment. When it counts. He missed that opportunity.

First of all, he's a Back Judge, not a linesman.Second, any request for discussion likely is ignored as there was one covering official and he had the best view. No one on the crew will overrule him.

Finally, since the rule includes a judgement of intent, it is not reviewable.

 

[JohnnyU]

The intent was as plain as the nose on your face. The ref needs to be suspended or fired.

 

[5Rings]

You can always count on the 12th man coming through for Seattle.

 

[Mr. Soup Nazi]

The intent was as plain as the nose on your face. The ref needs to be suspended or fired.

He will probably be disciplined but any suspension will be short and he wouldn.t be fired simply for this.

 

[SWC]

i have designed a trick play which is something that i know a thing or four million about and it involves a player intentionally looking like he is batting a ball out of the end zone but it is really a brown sock that he has filled with crumpled up programs and then when everyone starts fighting about the rule he grabs the ball and goes the other way for the longest fake out batted ball using a brown sock play in the history of the universe and nfl play take that to the bank bromigos and remember who came up with it when you see it happen

 

[JuniorNB]

It was a good non-call, people are getting whipped up by ESPN and twitter. Let it go.

So a blatant violation of the rules shouldn't be called? It was a horrible non-call. And an example of referees not knowing the rules of the game they're paid to officiate.

If you want to argue that it's a dumb rule, I'm all ears. In fact, I bet it'll be changed for next year.

Blatant? How about practice and custom? How many times have you seen a ball batted in NFL games without a call? Can you count them?

The NFL is out of control with bs calls. DB puts his hand on a receiver on a cut and they call defensive holding. The ref may call it.... or the ref may not call it. Now we're going to add batted balls to calls that the refs may... or may not call at their discretion? On top of the Daily FF scandals?

The batted ball rule makes total sense if the player is trying to push the ball forward to gain scrimmage yards.

http://prod.www.raiders.clubs.nfl.com/media-vault/videos/The-Holy-Roller/7e2c18ca-0ee1-4777-9798-265bfa0d11f8

Otherwise I have no idea how they will enforce this rule.

You're arguing the rule. Which is fine. Like I said, they probably will change it in the offseason.

Any loose ball batted out of the end zone, either side or the back, is a penalty. Ball is rewarded to the other team at the spot of the fumble. It's a clear rule and it was violated. It's not even arguable.

Ok, I'm listening.... you may be right after all.

It's a rule in the rulebook. Rules should be adhered to. Are we in agreement?

 

[Mr. Soup Nazi]

i have designed a trick play which is something that i know a thing or four million about and it involves a player intentionally looking like he is batting a ball out of the end zone but it is really a brown sock that he has filled with crumpled up programs and then when everyone starts fighting about the rule he grabs the ball and goes the other way for the longest fake out batted ball using a brown sock play in the history of the universe and nfl play take that to the bank bromigos and remember who came up with it when you see it happen

If the Dolphins don't call you today they will only have themselves to blame.

 

[Da Guru]

IMO the real culprit here is Jim Caldwell.

A head coach who is all over the rule book should have immediately protested to the referee. That would have forced the referee to caucus with the linesman/back judge to clarify the call.

A caucus would have forced the linesman to clearly state to the referee that it was his judgement the batting was unintentional (even though any reasonable person watching live or on replay would disagree).

Because the linesman's judgment was never questioned (when it mattered), either due to protest, outcry or automatic review, there was no second chance to get it right. So the linesman was able to take the easy way out in terms of a non-call vs. being overtly responsible for a game-changing play.

But ultimately it's Caldwell's responsibility to lobby questionable calls on behalf of his team. In the moment. When it counts. He missed that opportunity.

That's expecting a lot from a guy who has been legally dead for three years.

Caldwell is a horrible game day coach. Half the time Caldwell does not know what is going on with his own team and the game clock. So you really expect him to know what happened on that play..as usual he just stood there looking dumbfounded.

 

[ghostguy123]

I am glad they didnt call a penalty there, and would hope they would never call the penalty on that in any part of a game, not just in the end.

The rule is in place for illegal "batting". He didn't exactly bat the ball, he stuck out his hand and ever so gently bumped it.

Exactly how far does a ball need to travel to be considered having been "batted" anyway? Cause this ball went like 2 feet before it was out of the endzone.

Calling that penalty and handing Detroit the ball at the 1 inch line would have been absurd. Batted ball?? He really BATTED that ball?? If anything he just ran into it with his hand while he was running out the back of the endzone.

 

[Anarchy99]

He purposefully hit the ball out of bounds. Case closed.

 

[ghostguy123]

He purposefully hit the ball out of bounds. Case closed.

he purposely bumped the ball every so slightly faster to the spot where it was already 100% without a doubt heading and would have been there in a split second anyway.

The rule is the rule.

But within the rules are judgement calls to see if the rule was really broken.

Did this players actions cause anything that wasn't assuredly about to happen anyway? Nope.

Apparently in this case the ref made a judgement call based on the fact that the player did absolutely nothing to change what was the inevitable outcome of the ball going out of the back of the endzone.

Thank christ a game didnt get handed to a team because a player nudged a ball like that in that exact scenario.

 

[SWC]

i have designed a trick play which is something that i know a thing or four million about and it involves a player intentionally looking like he is batting a ball out of the end zone but it is really a brown sock that he has filled with crumpled up programs and then when everyone starts fighting about the rule he grabs the ball and goes the other way for the longest fake out batted ball using a brown sock play in the history of the universe and nfl play take that to the bank bromigos and remember who came up with it when you see it happen

If the Dolphins don't call you today they will only have themselves to blame.

i would run the first ever trick play where we launch ole stompy nintendokan sue into the sun first thing take that to the bank bromigo

 

[Dismattle]

I must be honest,, I didnt rerad the whole thread..

But as per ESPN, and one of the ex-NFL Officials,,

The rule is touched.. IF touched by a player, it is a foul! Possession goes to the opposing team (1/2 the distance)

Its pretty obviously touched or a Hollywood award touched..

(imo) Its next man up for the backjudge! Old Ref steps down to College (on probationary period)

 

[JuniorNB]

I am glad they didnt call a penalty there, and would hope they would never call the penalty on that in any part of a game, not just in the end.

The rule is in place for illegal "batting". He didn't exactly bat the ball, he stuck out his hand and ever so gently bumped it.

Exactly how far does a ball need to travel to be considered having been "batted" anyway? Cause this ball went like 2 feet before it was out of the endzone.

Calling that penalty and handing Detroit the ball at the 1 inch line would have been absurd. Batted ball?? He really BATTED that ball?? If anything he just ran into it with his hand while he was running out the back of the endzone.

He most certainly batted it out of bounds. In fact, he was so so proud of himself for doing it. He turned ands was looking for high fives. I'm not saying he's dumb for not knowing the rule. I bet 90% of the players don't know that rule. In fact, a referee crew didn't know the rule. But to deny that he batted it out of bounds shows an eyesight problem.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

If anything he just ran into it with his hand while he was running out the back of the endzone.

 

[biju]

The notion that the ref didn't know the rule is quite absurd.

If he knew the rule and didn't call it that's even worse. I had the exact same angle but a few hundred feet further away and it was obvious that he tipped the ball intentionally out.

I don't think it's even worse, but I also disagree with the judgement the guy made.

This is the fundamental problem people aren't getting over from what I can see.

The ref actually made the *right call* by his judgment which is to not call a penalty. Was it the right judgment call? No. Did he execute the rules correctly based on his assessment? Yes.

But people are on a witchhunt so it won't really matter.

It isn't a witchhunt -- people are only pointing out the refs blew it. The defender clearly and purposely batted the ball out of the endzone and the ref didn't call it.

I have no dog in this fight but in this case the Lions got hosed.

And I agree the call was wrong. You don't need to have zero dogs to know the call was wrong. Like I said, it won't matter because people are just going to continue to argue over it. Call it a witchhunt or not, it's kind of a same thing here.

 

[daveR]

Part of effective officiating is know when to make a call. This is a good no-call situation.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Part of effective officiating is know when to make a call. This is a good no-call situation.

Then why is the league saying they messed up the call?

 

[ragnarok628]

if it was really going to go out no matter what, then the smart player would just let it go out instead of committing a penalty. Why is everyone so quick to excuse this guy for not knowing how to play football? that's like, his entire job. We see this all. the. time. in the NFL where players will commit an unnecessary penalty which cancels out a positive play for their team. This is exactly what happened here (most likely; that ball is not 100% certain to have gone out of bounds) and the flag obviously should have been thrown. The ref deliberately did not enforce the rule which is pretty f'ed up

 

[TDorBust]

This sure is a thread about the Detroit-Seattle game, isn't it?

It's too bad their aren't others where two people could slapfight it out.

In short, Detroit got screwed, but there's a lot of blame to be put on doing almost nothing offensively until that last drive.

How do you think Russell Wilson has all those "come back" wins of his? Doesn't matter when you do it, all that matters is that you do it before the clock expires.

Playing poor for 59 mins does not mean you should be required to be screwed by a call in the last minute of the game to lose....

Its like saying the Seahawks should have purposely been screwed by the Refs at the end of the NFC Championship game last year because they looked horrible basically all game.

 

[JuniorNB]

Part of effective officiating is know when to make a call. This is a good no-call situation.

Then why is the league saying they messed up the call?

Even Pete Carroll admitted they got a bad call that went their way. But God forbid a Seattle fan ever admits it.

 

[TDorBust]

I have no "skin in the game", but it's a bad rule.

According to the rule, Seattle should have been punished for making a great defensive play.

Well really the bad rule is that fumbling out of the end zone is a touchback for the defence....

For 110 yards if the offence fumbles out of bounds its a spotted where its fumbled (including their own end zone where it becomes a safety). Yet magically when you get down to score a touchdown and have driven 70/80/90 yards it all of a sudden flips where the defence does not have to recover the fumble but can instead just push the ball out of bounds.

So in the end the rule should really always be that the offence gets the ball at the location of the fumble unless the defence recovers in bounds.

 

[Jeremy]

Leon Lett would have loved to have some of you officiating that famous Thanksgiving game. "Well Leon, by rule it's the Dolphins ball, but that block was such a darned impressive play, we're going to award your team the ball anyway. We don't want you to lose on a "technicality".

 

[Henry Ford]

I am glad they didnt call a penalty there, and would hope they would never call the penalty on that in any part of a game, not just in the end.

The rule is in place for illegal "batting". He didn't exactly bat the ball, he stuck out his hand and ever so gently bumped it.

Exactly how far does a ball need to travel to be considered having been "batted" anyway? Cause this ball went like 2 feet before it was out of the endzone.

Calling that penalty and handing Detroit the ball at the 1 inch line would have been absurd. Batted ball?? He really BATTED that ball?? If anything he just ran into it with his hand while he was running out the back of the endzone.

I'm pretty sure this is the dumbest possible defense of this call.

 

[Jeremy]

Perhaps the biggest injustice in all of this is the fans were denied a Pete Carroll hissy fit for the ages. My god, it would have been glorious!

 

[Jeremy]

I am glad they didnt call a penalty there, and would hope they would never call the penalty on that in any part of a game, not just in the end.

The rule is in place for illegal "batting". He didn't exactly bat the ball, he stuck out his hand and ever so gently bumped it.

Exactly how far does a ball need to travel to be considered having been "batted" anyway? Cause this ball went like 2 feet before it was out of the endzone.

Calling that penalty and handing Detroit the ball at the 1 inch line would have been absurd. Batted ball?? He really BATTED that ball?? If anything he just ran into it with his hand while he was running out the back of the endzone.

I'm pretty sure this is the dumbest possible defense of this call.

Points for creativity, though.

 

[TDorBust]

Change the rule.

That play should be a touchback.

Why?

I think all those plays should result in the offence retaining the ball at where it was fumbled. Why is there 110 yards of the defence needing to recover the ball and then 10 yards where magically the rules change?

Yes the offence own end zone is counted above it just happens when the ball is spotted in the end zone it becomes a safety.

 

[Manster]

Man, I'm glad I didn't watch this #### show

 

[Anarchy99]

Well, your honor, that person was going to die anyway, so I shouldn't be charged with murder.

Look, the rule is stupid on two fronts (hitting it on purpose being a penalty . . . and the defense getting the ball on a touch back). I'f guys want to knock the ball around and create a scrum, I am all in favor of it. If it helps your team by hitting it out of bounds, that should be considered good strategy.

Given that is not the case, SEA hitting the ball out of the end zone should have been called a penalty. For those saying the ball was 100% going out of bounds anyway, how many times have we seen a punt, kickoff, loose ball, etc. take a crazy bounce and hop the completely opposite direction? Where the ball was mos likely going to end up is not part of the rule.

If Calvin Johnson had a breakaway catch and run for 79 yards and then dropped or spun the ball half an inch before he got into the end zone as time expired, would people be saying he should get credit for a TD when the ball never broke the plane of the end zone? Cause that would have been close enough and the refs should just look the other way. In this example, Johnson doing something stupid is just as stupid as Wright doing something stupid.