**Official NFL 2015-16 Week 4 'Kaep'-in' Off Q1 Thread**

[emperus]

Honestly, this is why the Patriots win and teams like the Lions don't.

I PROMISE YOU BILL BELICHECK KNOWS THAT RULE...CAUSE WE PRACTICED IT IN OUR SITUATIONAL PRACTICES... #wedabest #chesswhileyouplaycheckers
https://twitter.com/rcolvin3/status/651241565545975808?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

 

[emperus]

How would the offense have recovered it? There wasn't a Lion player within five to ten yards when the ball was batted.

It doesn't matter whether they could have recovered it or not. It's illegal and a penalty and was not at the discretion of the referee not to be called because he felt it didn't hurt anything. But, on this particular play, there was someone in the vicinity and if you've played or watched enough football , you'd know corralling a loose football isn't an easy thing. So, knocking it out and ending the play, saved the defense from having to corral it. Advantage defense and the thing the rule was made to prevent.

 

[tmc]

as i said long time before - all sports are fixed. it is just the way it is.

the goal is NOT to decide who is the best, but to provide entertainment, generate revenue, etc.

once that is accepted, the rest just makes sense! watch it like a movie (but the difference is that, here the "good" (i.e., your) guy doesn't always win) LOL!

 

[akugami]

How would the offense have recovered it? There wasn't a Lion player within five to ten yards when the ball was batted.

Football players are extremely athletic. They can get there quick. Corralling a football is not as easy as it seems sometimes. Watch enough games and you can see times where an easy looking ball on the ground squirts around when a player tries to grab it.

Who is to say the ball won't squirt out, and a Lions player recovers the fumble for a TD? It may be highly unlikely but you can't say the chance is zero.

 

[Imported]

Agree, it was a good non-call as enforcing the penalty would have been looking at the letter of the law rather than the spirit. The result would have been completely contrary to what actually happened in the play, as a non-fan of either team I think it was the correct decision.

They look at the letter of the law when it comes to catches.. same should apply here.

 

[emperus]

Agree, it was a good non-call as enforcing the penalty would have been looking at the letter of the law rather than the spirit. The result would have been completely contrary to what actually happened in the play, as a non-fan of either team I think it was the correct decision.

And what spirit of this law did you divine?

 

[lupi]

How would the offense have recovered it? There wasn't a Lion player within five to ten yards when the ball was batted.

Not saying in this instance they would have, but the player running to the ball doesn't know how close they are which is why he batted it out of bounds. And so that doesn't happen, along with not letting the defense use that process to advance the ball, is why it's a penalty.

 

[dainthomas]

This whole thing is crap. Blame your idiot receiver for trying to be the hero and score instead of getting the first down on the 1. That punch-out by Chancellor was effing incredible.

The guy could have fallen on the ball, but he didn't because he didn't think it mattered. And contrary to what all the loudmouths on here say, 99% did not know the rule before that happened. Jon Gruden sure didn't. And he coached an NFL team to a Superbowl win. Pretty sure he's way more familiar with the rulebook than you people.

 

[Retro Rob]

This whole thing is crap. Blame your idiot receiver for trying to be the hero and score instead of getting the first down on the 1. That punch-out by Chancellor was effing incredible.

Did you even WATCH the entire play?

Megatron HAD the TD...even when Chancellor hit him. The problem was Megatron didn't secure the football. Had he secured it, Megatron would have still scored even with Chancellor hitting him.

The guy could have fallen on the ball, but he didn't because he didn't think it mattered.

You're obviously a moron, or a seahawks fan. Both are one in the same.

 

[emperus]

This whole thing is crap. Blame your idiot receiver for trying to be the hero and score instead of getting the first down on the 1. That punch-out by Chancellor was effing incredible.
.

We already know you're an idiot. You went on a crusade on Brady over "rules", yet this rule is crap? lol.

The guy could have fallen on the ball, but he didn't because he didn't think it mattered. And contrary to what all the loudmouths on here say, 99% did not know the rule before that happened. Jon Gruden sure didn't. And he coached an NFL team to a Superbowl win. Pretty sure he's way more familiar with the rulebook than you people.

What does anything above have to do with the Seahawks getting away with a terrible non-call? The way your brain works... is baffling.

Btw, I did know it was illegal when it happened last night. Was puzzled why no one said anything about it. Like I said earlier something similar happened to the patriots a couple of years back. I believe it was a defensive player that "batted" a Patriots fumble backwards that the defense recovered. The refs awarded the Pats the ball back because of the fact it was batted. (I could be wrong about the particulars but not the batting part).

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-england...-have-recent-history-with-illegal-bat-penalty

 

[dainthomas]

What does anything above have to do with the Seahawks getting away with a terrible non-call? The way your brain works... is baffling.

And what did they supposedly get away with last night? The game would have ended exactly the same if he'd just fallen on it. What did he gain by batting it out of bounds? The only reasonable conclusion is that he didn't know it was against the rules, which makes sense since the officials and announcers didn't either. (But you apparently did, lol :biggrin.

And for the record, you have less than zero credibility to talk about any other team breaking rules. The fact that you can't comprehend how laughable it is just proves what a hack you are.

Matt Miller

✔ @nfldraftscout
Hey, guess what? Don't fumble on the one yard line and this illegal bat BS never comes up.
8:40 PM - 5 Oct 2015

Adam Hoge

✔ @AdamHoge
If called correctly, everyone would be upset about a bad rule that protects the fumbling team and would have robbed Kam of a great play.
9:23 PM - 5 Oct 2015

 

[Childs]

lol He could have easily grabbed it. I'm surprised he didnt...usually defensive players go for the ball when they shouldnt and screw themselves, like Leon Lett. It was so deliberate I assumed it was a good play. I watched the condensed version of the game and didnt even know this was an issue until today. Just goes to show that only the Patriots can benefit from technicalities. :biggrin:

 

[emperus]

And what did they supposedly get away with last night? The game would have ended exactly the same if he'd just fallen on it. What did he gain by batting it out of bounds? The only reasonable conclusion is that he didn't know it was against the rules, which makes sense since the officials and announcers didn't either. (But you apparently did, lol :biggrin.

And for the record, you have less than zero credibility to talk about any other team breaking rules. The fact that you can't comprehend how laughable it is just proves what a hack you are.

Honestly, you're one of the worst type of sports fans. It's one thing to be a fan, it's another thing to let the fandom rob you of your basic objectivity.

What did he gain by batting it out of bounds?

Well why don't you let him explain what he gained.

“I wanted to just knock it out out of bounds and not try to catch it and fumble it,” Wright said. “I just tried to make a good play for my team.”

Yeah. OWNED!
If you weren't such a hack you wouldn't be always sounding like an idiot.

 

[waggy]

yeap fucking ref cost the lions that game. pitty that nothing can be done now.

 

[BUTCH1]

Aren't all turnovers reviewed by the main office and officials? It does make you wonder why NONE of them figured the call out.

That's what I thought as well, specially since that was the ONLY game in progress. This is a huge, huge embarrassment for the league and I feel bad for the Lions who hung in there despite not doing jack on offense till that last drive. I was also shocked at how bad Seattle's O-line really is, Wilson took a pounding yesterday.

 

[BUTCH1]

They don't respect the Lions, and as a Lions fan myself, this team doesn't really deserve the respect.

When you go 0-16, and have been losers for the better part of 25 years, you basically are a laughing stock.

Well I'll tell 'ya this much, the Lions earned my respect last night. The defense never gave up and pounded Wilson despite numerous injuries. The Ref's should know the rules and this was not one of those things like the Dez catch where it's based on interpretation of said rules, this was a right in front of your face deal.

 

[BUTCH1]

Agree, it was a good non-call as enforcing the penalty would have been looking at the letter of the law rather than the spirit. The result would have been completely contrary to what actually happened in the play, as a non-fan of either team I think it was the correct decision.

It's not the Ref's "option" on a clear-cut violation, he's supposed to throw the damm flag, period!.

 

[BUTCH1]

This whole thing is crap. Blame your idiot receiver for trying to be the hero and score instead of getting the first down on the 1. That punch-out by Chancellor was effing incredible.

The guy could have fallen on the ball, but he didn't because he didn't think it mattered. And contrary to what all the loudmouths on here say, 99% did not know the rule before that happened. Jon Gruden sure didn't. And he coached an NFL team to a Superbowl win. Pretty sure he's way more familiar with the rulebook than you people.

It is completely IRRELEVANT what coach, fan, player knew about the rule. Fact is it was clearly broken. Yea, great play by Kam, but that does not nullify enforcing the rules.

 

[Childs]

It is completely IRRELEVANT what coach, fan, player knew about the rule. Fact is it was clearly broken. Yea, great play by Kam, but that does not nullify enforcing the rules.

I dunno, its like complaining about a missed PI or hold. Maybe even less so because he clearly could have just grabbed the ball. Its hard to complain about no calls. When the refs pull out something like the tuck rule its worse, because then it feels like the refs are determining the outcome of the game. This would have been in the same category if they called it.

 

[BUTCH1]

I dunno, its like complaining about a missed PI or hold. Maybe even less so because he clearly could have just grabbed the ball. Its hard to complain about no calls. When the refs pull out something like the tuck rule its worse, because then it feels like the refs are determining the outcome of the game. This would have been in the same category if they called it.

The "tuck' call was very iffy (and I'm a Pats fan) but that's how Walt Coleman saw it, it's a judgement call. This was not a judgement call, wright clearly broke the rules and got away with it.

 

[Childs]

The "tuck' call was very iffy (and I'm a Pats fan) but that's how Walt Coleman saw it, it's a judgement call. This was not a judgement call, wright clearly broke the rules and got away with it.

How is the tuck rule a judgement call and batting not? Either they are rules or they are not. Players get away stuff on every play. The ref was looking right at him when he did it and deemed it wasnt intentional. lol He was obviously wrong, but whatever. IMO, that wasnt even the most controversial ref issue of the week.

https://twitter.com/TheCauldron/status/650869790127562752

Dude didnt even get to finish his celebration...should have also been a no call. The less you hear from the refs the better the experience. And I hope you appreciate that gif...took me like an hour to remember which game I saw that in. :biggrin:

 

[emperus]

I dunno, its like complaining about a missed PI or hold. Maybe even less so because he clearly could have just grabbed the ball. Its hard to complain about no calls. When the refs pull out something like the tuck rule its worse, because then it feels like the refs are determining the outcome of the game. This would have been in the same category if they called it.

FYI. The tuck rule was called correctly. Google it. It was a stupid rule, but a rule the refs called correctly. It was changed by the competition committee the following season.

Another thing u probably didn't know. The Patriots had the tuck rule go against them in a game they lost against the Jets earlier that same season.

Jets vs. Patriots (2001)
The tuck rule was called in Week 2 of an NFL regular season match-up on September 23, 2001, between the New England Patriots and the New York Jets.[3] In the waning minutes of the second quarter, Patriots' defensive end Anthony Pleasant apparently forced Jets quarterback Vinny Testaverde to fumble the ball. Patriots' defensive end Richard Seymour made a recovery.[4] The call was overturned upon review and ruled an incomplete with the tuck rule cited. The Jets tied the game with a field goal on that drive, before going on to win 10-3.

Patriots head coach Bill Belichick referred to this game after the subsequent Tuck Rule Game, telling ESPN, "I knew what the ruling should have been because we had dealt with that play a little bit earlier in the year on the other side of it."[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuck_rule

btw, when refs choose what not to call, they are giving one side an unfair advantage and are in fact determining the outcome of the game.

 

[BUTCH1]

FYI. The tuck rule was called correctly. Google it. It was a stupid rule, but a rule the refs called correctly. It was changed by the competition committee the following season.

Another thing u probably didn't know. The Patriots had the tuck rule go against them in a game they lost against the Jets earlier that same season.


btw, when refs choose what not to call, they are giving one side an unfair advantage and are in fact determining the outcome of the game.

Yea, I remember watching that game and thought VT had fumbled it.

 

[Childs]

FYI. The tuck rule was called correctly. Google it. It was a stupid rule, but a rule the refs called correctly. It was changed by the competition committee the following season.

Another thing u probably didn't know. The Patriots had the tuck rule go against them in a game they lost against the Jets earlier that same season.

Yeah, but my point was if it wasnt called no one would have complained. Everyone knows Brady fumbled and the Raiders recovered. Overturning that was more of a travesty than a no call on an obscure rule. Everyone knows Johnson fumbled, and that was the game. No one wants to win or lose a game based on a technicality. I dunno, its like instead of Johnson fumbling they ran a pick play and he coasted into the end zone and scored. You dont really cry that the refs didnt call PI afterwards. Not everything is called.

In general, the refs didnt call a lot of penalties in the game. They let them play all game, so I dont know why anyone would want it to be ticky-tack at the end.

btw, when refs choose what not to call, they are giving one side an unfair advantage and are in fact determining the outcome of the game.

But its subjective and the ref makes a decision in real time. Its not like they gathered together and decided who is going to win the game. Subjective calls are not reviewable. I'm not saying Seattle didnt benefit because it was obviously intentional, but I guess I just dont think its an issue because he could have either done nothing or simply grabbed it. The important part of the play was at the goal line.

 

[BUTCH1]

How is the tuck rule a judgement call and batting not? Either they are rules or they are not. Players get away stuff on every play. The ref was looking right at him when he did it and deemed it wasnt intentional. lol He was obviously wrong, but whatever. IMO, that wasnt even the most controversial ref issue of the week.

https://twitter.com/TheCauldron/status/650869790127562752

Dude didnt even get to finish his celebration...should have also been a no call. The less you hear from the refs the better the experience. And I hope you appreciate that gif...took me like an hour to remember which game I saw that in. :biggrin:

Well your correct in that it "can" be a judgement call on a batted ball. A player might fake trying to scoop up a ball and bat it away on purpose but what happened yesterday was kinda obvious. I'm as baffled at the player not just falling on it or grabbing it as it entered the end zone as a fumble. They have talked about changing the rules anyway, if the defense does not come up with the ball and it goes out of the playing field the ball should be awarded back to the team that fumbled it like it does for the rest of the field of play. Nice dance but that will get you 15 every time, it's called the "No Fun League" for a reason..:awe: