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

[monk]

It's completely different ... this play was over the ball was on it's way out of bounds or being recovered by the defender there was no other scenario.

what if Wright tries to recover it but instead it squirts out of his hands and between his legs where Theo Riddick jumps on it? any possibility of that scenario? even the slightest chance? because that was the exact reason Wright batted the ball out of bounds. he didn't want to take the chance he didn't recover it cleanly.

It wouldn't have ... the ball and KJ wright's momentum were heading out of bounds.

KJ Wright himself would disagree with you.

you have no clue what would or wouldn't have happened. we can guess. pretty good chance Seattle either recovers it or it goes out of the end zone while they're trying to recover. very slim chance Detroit recovers that ball. Wright eliminated that chance by illegally batting it out of the end zone. that's a penalty.

There's also a very slim chance that KJ inadvertently hit the ball out of bounds so why are you assuming it was intentional?

A 5 year old child can see it was intentional.

That same child could see that the ball was going out of bounds

 

[monk]

It's completely different ... this play was over the ball was on it's way out of bounds or being recovered by the defender there was no other scenario.

what if Wright tries to recover it but instead it squirts out of his hands and between his legs where Theo Riddick jumps on it? any possibility of that scenario? even the slightest chance? because that was the exact reason Wright batted the ball out of bounds. he didn't want to take the chance he didn't recover it cleanly.

It wouldn't have ... the ball and KJ wright's momentum were heading out of bounds.

KJ Wright himself would disagree with you.

you have no clue what would or wouldn't have happened. we can guess. pretty good chance Seattle either recovers it or it goes out of the end zone while they're trying to recover. very slim chance Detroit recovers that ball. Wright eliminated that chance by illegally batting it out of the end zone. that's a penalty.

There's also a very slim chance that KJ inadvertently hit the ball out of bounds so why are you assuming it was intentional?

Because KJ Wright said it was intentional.

I gues the ref didnt believe him

 

[Anarchy99]

Well, your honor, all those women were going to sleep with me anyway, why are you suggesting I committed a crime?

- Bill Cosby

 

[ragnarok628]

I feel like NFL referees witnessing an action that is expressly disallowed by the rules and purposefully or ignorantly failing to penalize that action is a pretty big deal in general

Didn't the ref later say that it was inadvertent ?

Ok let's add "catastrophic failure of judgement" to the things that are concerning about this issue then.

 

[Da Guru]

Jim Caldwell said it is over..let it go, he will not talk about it nor take any questions about it. Caldwell has also instructed all of his players not to talk about it.

If Caldwell does not really care why should the fans? Caldwell is like "The Walking Dead" on the sidelines. A total zombie.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

It's completely different ... this play was over the ball was on it's way out of bounds or being recovered by the defender there was no other scenario.

what if Wright tries to recover it but instead it squirts out of his hands and between his legs where Theo Riddick jumps on it? any possibility of that scenario? even the slightest chance? because that was the exact reason Wright batted the ball out of bounds. he didn't want to take the chance he didn't recover it cleanly.

It wouldn't have ... the ball and KJ wright's momentum were heading out of bounds.

KJ Wright himself would disagree with you.

you have no clue what would or wouldn't have happened. we can guess. pretty good chance Seattle either recovers it or it goes out of the end zone while they're trying to recover. very slim chance Detroit recovers that ball. Wright eliminated that chance by illegally batting it out of the end zone. that's a penalty.

There's also a very slim chance that KJ inadvertently hit the ball out of bounds so why are you assuming it was intentional?

A 5 year old child can see it was intentional.

That same child could see that the ball was going out of bounds

And that has no relevance about the refs making a mistake in not throwing the flag. The rule says nothing about the rule not applying if it appears the ball is headed out of the end zone.

 

[The General]

It's completely different ... this play was over the ball was on it's way out of bounds or being recovered by the defender there was no other scenario.

what if Wright tries to recover it but instead it squirts out of his hands and between his legs where Theo Riddick jumps on it? any possibility of that scenario? even the slightest chance? because that was the exact reason Wright batted the ball out of bounds. he didn't want to take the chance he didn't recover it cleanly.

It wouldn't have ... the ball and KJ wright's momentum were heading out of bounds.

KJ Wright himself would disagree with you.

you have no clue what would or wouldn't have happened. we can guess. pretty good chance Seattle either recovers it or it goes out of the end zone while they're trying to recover. very slim chance Detroit recovers that ball. Wright eliminated that chance by illegally batting it out of the end zone. that's a penalty.

There's also a very slim chance that KJ inadvertently hit the ball out of bounds so why are you assuming it was intentional?

Because KJ Wright said it was intentional.

The ref didn't know that at the time.

 

[The General]

What is even being argued at this point?

 

[montana_grizzly_bears]

What is even being argued at this point?

People not being able to let something go. I was upset Monday night when it happened. My Lions got screwed again. Woke up Tuesday morning not caring about it anymore. Came back because it was still on the front page and going at 8 pages long. Long story short- League won't do anything to change the outcome of a game after its done, rule will be looked at next off season, something will be done after the fact. Move on and wait for the Lions to go 0-16 again. Maybe Lombardi will get fired before the end of the season and Caldwell will make an appearance on The Walking Dead season Finale.

 

[stbugs]

I want to make clear that I'm not a fan of either team. I also want to make clear that I personally believe that in a vacuum the Seahawks deserved to win the game. I think Cam made a great play and that the rule is weird at best. With that being said---the rule is still the rule--and I find it very interesting that the official had a CLEAR view of the play and still called it the way he did--especially with Riddick right there behind him reminding him that the bat out of bounds is not a legal play.

Are we sure that's what he said?

http://sportszoa.com/breaking/theo-riddick-the-smartest-man-during-mnf-controversial-play/

Sure looked that way to me. Again--I just posted my opinion/thought. I'm not looking to debate my opinion/thought because it's not based on anything but a weird rule and what my eyes see.

I'm not disputing that Riddick realized the ref's mistake, but I'm not seeing it from that video. He throws his hands up in the air and then looks down, which seems more consistent with, "I can't believe we just blew this game". What he doesn't do is immediately run up to the back judge and start making any kind of "throw the flag" gesture.

You would assume if Riddick immediately grasped the significance of what just happened, he would have been hopping up and down, screaming at the ref, alerting the coaches, etc. And maybe he was doing that off camera. But I don't see it in that clip.

I think you are correct. It's a huge leap to think Riddick was complaining about the call. He doesn't even look at the ref next to the goal post. He first appears to start raising his hands when he thinks Calvin has a TD, then he raises his hands in more of OMG/crap we just lost/WTF just happened type of motion. He doesn't even look at that ref when he raises his hands in the back of the end zone. This is one of those you can read too much into things if you want a certain outcome.

Personally, I think it was a bad call, but I also think it is a really stupid rule that in this case would have made the outcome of the game wrong in the spirit of the rule.

Also, for the folks that talk about the rule book and the refs bad call, how many times has this call been made in the past 10 years? I am not talking about calling safeties on punters because those automatically get called safeties. I just wonder if anyone on that field really knew that rule or remembered the whole punter/QB take a safety to close out the game.

 

[ragnarok628]

it's a bigger issue than Seahawks/Lions. If you can't rely on the refs to know and enforce the rules then that's an issue across the league. This is a majorly blown call and we haven't heard anything about the repercussions if any and whether anything is going to be put into place some way to recover from this kind of mistake in the future. This is important even for those who don't really care about the fate of the Seahawks and/or Lions, such as myself.

 

[Moonlight]

Jim Caldwell said it is over..let it go, he will not talk about it nor take any questions about it. Caldwell has also instructed all of his players not to talk about it.

If Caldwell does not really care why should the fans? Caldwell is like "The Walking Dead" on the sidelines. A total zombie.

Detroit is used to being walked over. Most passion organization shows is related to keeping their Turkey game.

Otherwise quietly into the night.

 

[matttyl]

It's completely different ... this play was over the ball was on it's way out of bounds or being recovered by the defender there was no other scenario.

what if Wright tries to recover it but instead it squirts out of his hands and between his legs where Theo Riddick jumps on it? any possibility of that scenario? even the slightest chance? because that was the exact reason Wright batted the ball out of bounds. he didn't want to take the chance he didn't recover it cleanly.

It wouldn't have ... the ball and KJ wright's momentum were heading out of bounds.

KJ Wright himself would disagree with you.

you have no clue what would or wouldn't have happened. we can guess. pretty good chance Seattle either recovers it or it goes out of the end zone while they're trying to recover. very slim chance Detroit recovers that ball. Wright eliminated that chance by illegally batting it out of the end zone. that's a penalty.

There's also a very slim chance that KJ inadvertently hit the ball out of bounds so why are you assuming it was intentional?

A 5 year old child can see it was intentional.

That same child could see that the ball was going out of bounds

So if the same situation had happened in a soccer game, or a basketball game and the ball was going to go out of bounds (off the opposing team in this case) and you tap it out saying "it was going to go out anyway", still your ball? No, of course not. The fact that he touched it matters here.

 

[The General]

it's a bigger issue than Seahawks/Lions. If you can't rely on the refs to know and enforce the rules then that's an issue across the league. This is a majorly blown call and we haven't heard anything about the repercussions if any and whether anything is going to be put into place some way to recover from this kind of mistake in the future. This is important even for those who don't really care about the fate of the Seahawks and/or Lions, such as myself.

The ref knowing that rule and calling it correctly would have had just as many people saying how stupid it is the next day. This highlights more the ridiculousness of the rule book.

Try explaining what is a catch these days.

 

[zftcg]

I want to make clear that I'm not a fan of either team. I also want to make clear that I personally believe that in a vacuum the Seahawks deserved to win the game. I think Cam made a great play and that the rule is weird at best. With that being said---the rule is still the rule--and I find it very interesting that the official had a CLEAR view of the play and still called it the way he did--especially with Riddick right there behind him reminding him that the bat out of bounds is not a legal play.

Are we sure that's what he said?

http://sportszoa.com/breaking/theo-riddick-the-smartest-man-during-mnf-controversial-play/

Sure looked that way to me. Again--I just posted my opinion/thought. I'm not looking to debate my opinion/thought because it's not based on anything but a weird rule and what my eyes see.

I'm not disputing that Riddick realized the ref's mistake, but I'm not seeing it from that video. He throws his hands up in the air and then looks down, which seems more consistent with, "I can't believe we just blew this game". What he doesn't do is immediately run up to the back judge and start making any kind of "throw the flag" gesture.

You would assume if Riddick immediately grasped the significance of what just happened, he would have been hopping up and down, screaming at the ref, alerting the coaches, etc. And maybe he was doing that off camera. But I don't see it in that clip.

I think you are correct. It's a huge leap to think Riddick was complaining about the call. He doesn't even look at the ref next to the goal post. He first appears to start raising his hands when he thinks Calvin has a TD, then he raises his hands in more of OMG/crap we just lost/WTF just happened type of motion. He doesn't even look at that ref when he raises his hands in the back of the end zone. This is one of those you can read too much into things if you want a certain outcome.

I've heard numerous people mention Riddick complaining to the ref, so I assume that must be based on something. I just don't think it's based on that video. Anyone have a cite for where the Riddick story came from? Has he been quoted anywhere talking about his reaction?

 

[Henry Ford]

What is even being argued at this point?

Apparently whether it was the correct call or not. And whether there was only a slim chance that something actually happened that we already know actually happened

 

[The General]

What is even being argued at this point?

Apparently whether it was the correct call or not. And whether there was only a slim chance that something actually happened that we already know actually happened

Seems like most people know the rule now. Nobody knew it before. Also seems like most know that the guy pushing OB had no impact on the play as well.

Lions got hosed by a no call of a dumb rule didn't impact the game.

If the ref called it the hot take would be about how stupid the NFL rule book is.

 

[davearm]

Jim Caldwell said it is over..let it go, he will not talk about it nor take any questions about it. Caldwell has also instructed all of his players not to talk about it.

If Caldwell does not really care why should the fans? Caldwell is like "The Walking Dead" on the sidelines. A total zombie.

I haven't really followed Caldwell's quotes so I'll take you at your word.

But if he said he's not going to talk about it, it certainly isn't because he doesn't really care.

 

[davearm]

it's a bigger issue than Seahawks/Lions. If you can't rely on the refs to know and enforce the rules then that's an issue across the league. This is a majorly blown call and we haven't heard anything about the repercussions if any and whether anything is going to be put into place some way to recover from this kind of mistake in the future. This is important even for those who don't really care about the fate of the Seahawks and/or Lions, such as myself.

The ref knowing that rule and calling it correctly would have had just as many people saying how stupid it is the next day.This highlights more the ridiculousness of the rule book.

Try explaining what is a catch these days.

The significance of this play was going to bring a ton of attention to the rule, no matter if it was applied correctly or not.

Having the play not be called correctly only compounds the problem. Now there are two issues, not one -- bad rule *and* bad application.

 

[ragnarok628]

it's a bigger issue than Seahawks/Lions. If you can't rely on the refs to know and enforce the rules then that's an issue across the league. This is a majorly blown call and we haven't heard anything about the repercussions if any and whether anything is going to be put into place some way to recover from this kind of mistake in the future. This is important even for those who don't really care about the fate of the Seahawks and/or Lions, such as myself.

The ref knowing that rule and calling it correctly would have had just as many people saying how stupid it is the next day.This highlights more the ridiculousness of the rule book.

Try explaining what is a catch these days.

a catch is a catch except when it's not it's not that hard =P

but in all seriousness i don't think this rule is really that stupid. It makes a degree of sense to require players to 'play the ball' rather than bat it away and take advantage of the rule that you somehow can get a turnover without actually recovering the football. Myself i'm with Harstad that the actual stupid part of how the rules work is that the defense gets the ball in this situation (barring dumb penalty (or with dumb penalty but without ref calling the penalty)).

also, if the ref knew and correctly called the rule sure it would have been the same discussion as to whether the rule is dumb or not but since they did blow it there is a whole other aspect two it. Davearm is right there are two real issues here.

 

[monk]

What is even being argued at this point?

Apparently whether it was the correct call or not. And whether there was only a slim chance that something actually happened that we already know actually happened

Seems like most people know the rule now. Nobody knew it before. Also seems like most know that the guy pushing OB had no impact on the play as well.

Lions got hosed by a no call of a dumb rule didn't impact the game.

If the ref called it the hot take would be about how stupid the NFL rule book is.

Yep exactly and everyone would be complaining what a stupid rule it is and shouldn't been called it that situation.

 

[ragnarok628]

here's why the batting rule is not dumb:

assuming the out of bounds line is not a factor, a turnover should happen when one team gains possession of the live football from the other team. Because the field is not infinite, the out of bounds presents a wrinkle since the ball dies when it hits the ground out of bounds. In the case of a fumble, the team that dropped the ball 'posessed' it at the time it died, so there's no turnover. This is not ideal, ideally you want a team to recover. The fumble out of bounds is an edge case, a rule that explains what happens in the situation where the ball can't be recovered. However the presence of the edge case rule presents an opportunity to the offensive team (in the case of most of the area of play) or defensive team (in the endzone) where it would incentivize players to elect *not* to recover the football and instead bat it out of bounds. Given that an NFL player can bat a football quite a ways if they've a mind to, this would extend the area of the field subject to the 'fumble out of bounds edge case' to include a whole lot of real estate; any fumble remotely near the sidelines would just be batted out of bounds if there was any doubt of a clean recovery. So how do you prevent this? you just make it illegal to bat the football.

Now, it's not a perfect solution, but the main imperfection in it is that there is some degree of subjectivity in that the referee has to judge the intent of the player; was the contact that drove the ball out of bounds inadvertant or not? But the idea behind it, that the players must attempt to recover the football rather than bat it away makes perfect sense to me.

 

[zftcg]

What is even being argued at this point?

Apparently whether it was the correct call or not. And whether there was only a slim chance that something actually happened that we already know actually happened

Seems like most people know the rule now. Nobody knew it before. Also seems like most know that the guy pushing OB had no impact on the play as well.

Lions got hosed by a no call of a dumb rule didn't impact the game.

If the ref called it the hot take would be about how stupid the NFL rule book is.

I doubt it. If the refs had called it correctly the hot take would have been how Wright is the new Leon Lett (I'm thinking of the Thanksgiving play vs the Dolphins, not the Don Beebe play). Everyone would have said, "All he had to do was fall on it or let it bounce out of bounds, and instead he committed a penalty that gave the Lions the game."

Yes, the rule is obscure (obviously, since no one on the field recognized it) but, as others have pointed out, there is a rationale behind it, and Wright's play is a perfect illustration of that rationale. When a fumble is loose, the rules require you to make a play on it, not prevent others from making a play.

Also, the reason this has become such a big story is because it's yet another example of poor officiating deciding a game. Yes, mistakes happen, but these types of mistakes seem to happen to the NFL a lot, and the fact that football is the nation's most popular sport just serves to magnify them when they happen.

 

[The General]

it's a bigger issue than Seahawks/Lions. If you can't rely on the refs to know and enforce the rules then that's an issue across the league. This is a majorly blown call and we haven't heard anything about the repercussions if any and whether anything is going to be put into place some way to recover from this kind of mistake in the future. This is important even for those who don't really care about the fate of the Seahawks and/or Lions, such as myself.

The ref knowing that rule and calling it correctly would have had just as many people saying how stupid it is the next day.This highlights more the ridiculousness of the rule book.

Try explaining what is a catch these days.

a catch is a catch except when it's not it's not that hard =Pbut in all seriousness i don't think this rule is really that stupid. It makes a degree of sense to require players to 'play the ball' rather than bat it away and take advantage of the rule that you somehow can get a turnover without actually recovering the football. Myself i'm with Harstad that the actual stupid part of how the rules work is that the defense gets the ball in this situation (barring dumb penalty (or with dumb penalty but without ref calling the penalty)).

also, if the ref knew and correctly called the rule sure it would have been the same discussion as to whether the rule is dumb or not but since they did blow it there is a whole other aspect two it. Davearm is right there are two real issues here.

The dumb part is knocking out of the endzone is bad, knocking out on the sidelines is good.Many of the rules are way over thought.

The old adage I have heard that makes sense is if you ask the people watching the game at a bar if that was a penalty you go with that (avoid the drunk guys in the jerseys), what looks obvious.

Dez Bryant caught the ball, Brady was not tucking the ball, Golden Tate didn't make that catch, etc. The play the other night was obvious I thought.

 

[Old Smiley]

Sometimes, these rules evolve as a reaction to some particular, egregious play. Like maybe somebody once upon a time batted the ball through the endzone from 30 yards out, or some such...

 

[monk]

Sometimes, these rules evolve as a reaction to some particular, egregious play. Like maybe somebody once upon a time batted the ball through the endzone from 30 yards out, or some such...

Right or two players are fighting for a lose ball and one intentionally bats it out to his teams benefit.

 

[ragnarok628]

The dumb part is knocking out of the endzone is bad, knocking out on the sidelines is good.

i didn't go back to reread the batting rules but isn't batting a recoverable ball out of bounds always a penalty, sideline or endzone?

 

[The General]

The dumb part is knocking out of the endzone is bad, knocking out on the sidelines is good.

i didn't go back to reread the batting rules but isn't batting a recoverable ball out of bounds always a penalty, sideline or endzone?

Hell I'm probably wrong. I thought you can bat it out on the sidelines.

Anyways sorry Detroit fans felt like they got screwed. Bad call by that ref, don't care for the rule.

 

[Pots]

Is every Seahawks fan this dense? Is it so hard to say, "sure, we got a lucky break on a no call"?

I just don't understand, since the end result stays the same. Some of you guys are funny.

Look at 99% of Pats fans.

 

[DropKick]

What is even being argued at this point?

Apparently whether it was the correct call or not. And whether there was only a slim chance that something actually happened that we already know actually happened

Seems like most people know the rule now. Nobody knew it before. Also seems like most know that the guy pushing OB had no impact on the play as well.

Lions got hosed by a no call of a dumb rule didn't impact the game.

If the ref called it the hot take would be about how stupid the NFL rule book is.

Actually, I would be more like "Good call... You can't bat the ball out of bounds intentionally".

 

[The General]

What is even being argued at this point?

Apparently whether it was the correct call or not. And whether there was only a slim chance that something actually happened that we already know actually happened

Seems like most people know the rule now. Nobody knew it before. Also seems like most know that the guy pushing OB had no impact on the play as well.Lions got hosed by a no call of a dumb rule didn't impact the game.

If the ref called it the hot take would be about how stupid the NFL rule book is.

Actually, I would be more like "Good call... You can't bat the ball out of bounds intentionally".

Nobody knew this rule except you and amateur refs. The storyline would have been dumb arbitrary rule changes outcome of game - like the Dez Bryant catch.

 

[stbugs]

I want to make clear that I'm not a fan of either team. I also want to make clear that I personally believe that in a vacuum the Seahawks deserved to win the game. I think Cam made a great play and that the rule is weird at best. With that being said---the rule is still the rule--and I find it very interesting that the official had a CLEAR view of the play and still called it the way he did--especially with Riddick right there behind him reminding him that the bat out of bounds is not a legal play.

Are we sure that's what he said?

http://sportszoa.com/breaking/theo-riddick-the-smartest-man-during-mnf-controversial-play/Sure looked that way to me. Again--I just posted my opinion/thought. I'm not looking to debate my opinion/thought because it's not based on anything but a weird rule and what my eyes see.

I'm not disputing that Riddick realized the ref's mistake, but I'm not seeing it from that video. He throws his hands up in the air and then looks down, which seems more consistent with, "I can't believe we just blew this game". What he doesn't do is immediately run up to the back judge and start making any kind of "throw the flag" gesture.

You would assume if Riddick immediately grasped the significance of what just happened, he would have been hopping up and down, screaming at the ref, alerting the coaches, etc. And maybe he was doing that off camera. But I don't see it in that clip.

I think you are correct. It's a huge leap to think Riddick was complaining about the call. He doesn't even look at the ref next to the goal post. He first appears to start raising his hands when he thinks Calvin has a TD, then he raises his hands in more of OMG/crap we just lost/WTF just happened type of motion. He doesn't even look at that ref when he raises his hands in the back of the end zone. This is one of those you can read too much into things if you want a certain outcome.

I've heard numerous people mention Riddick complaining to the ref, so I assume that must be based on something. I just don't think it's based on that video. Anyone have a cite for where the Riddick story came from? Has he been quoted anywhere talking about his reaction?

It is based on that video and people reading an article and not looking at that video or just here say over the water cooler. I just don't see how people could interpret that video that way but they did and the legend becomes truth.

 

[jurb26]

There was a guy in the clip of the play, not sure if it's Riddick, who appears to be complaining right after the tip out and looks at the ref with his hands up shrugging.

Seems like he's taking acception to the knock out of bounds but it could also just be frustration of the fumble.

 

[ragnarok628]

listen man we're not gonna hash out the Dez Bryant catch again, but you have to make the rules in a way where they're actually enforceable and you have to define exactly what a catch is with words in order to consistently determine what is and isn't a catch and this BS about polling guys in a bar to see whether something was a catch or not just does not hold water. The rules for catch vs. no catch are not that hard to understand and they're written in a way that takes as much of the subjectiveness out of the decision as possible which frankly is a good thing even if every now and then the technicalities of the rule as written lead to a great athletic effort being called not a catch. The alternative is even more inconsistency and it depends on which ref is working today whether the ball is caught or not and a lot more wrong calls would be made.

Bottom line all the technicalities are there for generally good reasons, and when a player doesn't know the rules and gets bit by those technicalities and it changes the game outcome that's kind of sucky but it's not a reason to call for a removal of reasonable rules like not allowing players to bat the football out of bounds.

 

[stbugs]

There was a guy in the clip of the play, not sure if it's Riddick, who appears to be complaining right after the tip out and looks at the ref with his hands up shrugging.

Seems like he's taking acception to the knock out of bounds but it could also just be frustration of the fumble.

Rid sick is on the bottom and raises his hands when he thinks Calvin scores. He turns around and looks at the spot of the fumble and never looks at the ref at the back of the end zone. The lineman in the back is raising his hands asking about the TD and the other one points to the ground like he thinks the ball was down. I don't see anyone acknowledging the red/batted ball.

 

[The General]

listen man we're not gonna hash out the Dez Bryant catch again, but you have to make the rules in a way where they're actually enforceable and you have to define exactly what a catch is with words in order to consistently determine what is and isn't a catch and this BS about polling guys in a bar to see whether something was a catch or not just does not hold water. The rules for catch vs. no catch are not that hard to understand and they're written in a way that takes as much of the subjectiveness out of the decision as possible which frankly is a good thing even if every now and then the technicalities of the rule as written lead to a great athletic effort being called not a catch. The alternative is even more inconsistency and it depends on which ref is working today whether the ball is caught or not and a lot more wrong calls would be made.

Bottom line all the technicalities are there for generally good reasons, and when a player doesn't know the rules and gets bit by those technicalities and it changes the game outcome that's kind of sucky but it's not a reason to call for a removal of reasonable rules like not allowing players to bat the football out of bounds.

That was a catch by Dez any rule that says otherwise is not constructed well but yeah that horse is beat to death. Thinking more about it the Dez catch though is maybe not as a good comparison to this as the Megatron completing the process catch where it seemed the rule doesn't really fit the situation.

You make great points though and I agree with you about needing to apply rules that don't leave much interpretation for a ref. The nature of the game makes it difficult to have a rule that is going to work in every instance.

 

[zftcg]

it's a bigger issue than Seahawks/Lions. If you can't rely on the refs to know and enforce the rules then that's an issue across the league. This is a majorly blown call and we haven't heard anything about the repercussions if any and whether anything is going to be put into place some way to recover from this kind of mistake in the future. This is important even for those who don't really care about the fate of the Seahawks and/or Lions, such as myself.

The ref knowing that rule and calling it correctly would have had just as many people saying how stupid it is the next day.This highlights more the ridiculousness of the rule book.

Try explaining what is a catch these days.

a catch is a catch except when it's not it's not that hard =Pbut in all seriousness i don't think this rule is really that stupid. It makes a degree of sense to require players to 'play the ball' rather than bat it away and take advantage of the rule that you somehow can get a turnover without actually recovering the football. Myself i'm with Harstad that the actual stupid part of how the rules work is that the defense gets the ball in this situation (barring dumb penalty (or with dumb penalty but without ref calling the penalty)).

also, if the ref knew and correctly called the rule sure it would have been the same discussion as to whether the rule is dumb or not but since they did blow it there is a whole other aspect two it. Davearm is right there are two real issues here.

The dumb part is knocking out of the endzone is bad, knocking out on the sidelines is good.Many of the rules are way over thought.

The old adage I have heard that makes sense is if you ask the people watching the game at a bar if that was a penalty you go with that (avoid the drunk guys in the jerseys), what looks obvious.

Dez Bryant caught the ball, Brady was not tucking the ball, Golden Tate didn't make that catch, etc. The play the other night was obvious I thought.

As long as we're rehashing old arguments, Tate's catch was legit.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I want to make clear that I'm not a fan of either team. I also want to make clear that I personally believe that in a vacuum the Seahawks deserved to win the game. I think Cam made a great play and that the rule is weird at best. With that being said---the rule is still the rule--and I find it very interesting that the official had a CLEAR view of the play and still called it the way he did--especially with Riddick right there behind him reminding him that the bat out of bounds is not a legal play.

I find it strange that the Seahawks (with their qb Wilson who is becomming a darling of the league) get the benefit on a fairly easy call. It's crazy to think that if the lowly Lions were to have somehow won that game--both teams would be 1-3 on the season--and I'm sure the NFL prefers that to not be the case--hence the way that play was officiated. This is nothing more than an opinion, gut instinct, the inner conspiracy theorist in me--so it's not something that I am looking to debate. I'm just posting a thought more than anything.

Refs choke, make mistakes, screw up just like players and everyone else. There's no league wide mandate dictated to the refs to make sure the Seahawks win.Was a bad call of a stupid rule. Sucks to be on the end of that, everyone has been there with their team.

This call in particular was more of a technicality of a dumb rule. Sure you like it when it goes your way like a hold on the other side of the field that has nothing to do with the play taking a TD off the board.

The fumble caused by Kam was the play. No Detroit player was getting the ball.

I agree with you--Kam made a great play and the Seahawks deserved to win. That was the first thing that I did say. However--and this is why I didn't want to start a debate or go back and forth--because my beliefs are gut instinct/conspiracy theorist in nature--but I just generally find it weird that the NBA and NFL (I'm naming these 2 sports because I'm the most familiar with them) leave enough subjectivity/ambiguity in some rules and their enforcement that they can help determine the outcomes of some games. As stupid as the rule is (and I agree with you that it is really stupid)--the rule is clear. It is also clearly evident that the official had a clear view of the ball being batted out. It is also clear that a world class athlete like KJ obviously intentionally batted the ball out. With this being said--the only possible explanations are 1)the official didn't know the rule--which I don't buy for a second. I know a lot of refs miss calls--but they should all know the rules. or 2) selective enforcement of the rule--which is exactly what I believe.

Again--I am not looking to go back and forth--as this is me stating an opinion based on gut instinct. I just find it weird that it seems as though the teams that the major sports would want to win tend to get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to selective enforcement of rules. I just wonder if the game was going in the opposite direction--if the call would have been made. If Detroit was up by 3--with Seattle about to score--I wonder if the refs hold their flags then. My guess is "no"--but that's only a guess. In any case--I appreciate both sides of the discussion and I'm more than aware that my gut instinct/conspiracy theorist point of view isn't a source of "analysis".

 

[Captain Hook]

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.

Yes but not Forward IN the end zone

You can knock the ball out of bounds

You can knock the ball backwards

 

[Not Sleeping]

the Thanksgiving play vs the Dolphins, not the Don Beebe play).

Watching those plays again made this whole thread worthwhile.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

What is even being argued at this point?

Apparently whether it was the correct call or not. And whether there was only a slim chance that something actually happened that we already know actually happened

Seems like most people know the rule now. Nobody knew it before. Also seems like most know that the guy pushing OB had no impact on the play as well.

Lions got hosed by a no call of a dumb rule didn't impact the game.

If the ref called it the hot take would be about how stupid the NFL rule book is.

Actually, I would be more like "Good call... You can't bat the ball out of bounds intentionally".

It's not a stupid rule (addressing the post above you and agreeing with you) because otherwise it would give one team (the defense) a huge advantage. The offense would have to recover the fumble while the defense could simply punch or kick the ball out of bounds and not have to worry about bad bounces, fighting for the ball, diving for it, etc....