The Game Ball Thread: Wk 11 vs Bills

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
Brady had a tough night, with tons of pressure and complex D looks. He also made a few....very questionable throws.
But there was one play that stood out ot me as vintage Brady. It was (I think)the play right before The Whistle of Our Discontent.

Brady hits Amendola as he comes across the middle, but man what a perfect throw. Amendola catches it arms fully outstretched. Not like a circus catch or anything. But, at the same time, Amendola is blanketed by really tight coverage. If the ref had thrown a flag for PI (if the pass had been dropped) I'm not even sure I would have agreed with the call. Brady threw an amazingly precise pass to the one spot where Amendola could catch it...any further ahead, and it's off his finger tips. Any further back, and the pass is broken up. It was a big 1st down play, if I recall.

And then it was Buffalo Steamered by the refs on the next play.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,237
I've only seen the short video segment posted above, but I'm guessing the official started to back into the sideline when he saw the play was coming in his direction. That's fairly common; the sideline official wants to have as much view as possible of any borderline out of bounds play. Stand on the sideline and there's a chance his view can get blocked by a player being blocked out of bounds.

The problem is that the official simply screwed up. I don't think there's a rational explanation for it. And had that been Belichick on the sideline and the Bills QB throwing the ball, ESPN-iots would be screaming for loss of draft picks and a 10 year suspension.
 

loshjott

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2004
15,001
Silver Spring, MD
Which is a buyable excuse if you ignore the fact that the ball itself never came close to crossing the out of bounds line, and the official was in no position to see that one way or the other. Brady was moving toward the sideline but he threw across his body back into the field of play. Where Amendola caught it was further from the line than where Brady threw it from, and he caught it moving away from the sideline.

Now that I see this video I'm realizing Amendola almost assuredly gets tackled immediately if the whistle isn't blown. Watching last night, even with the replays, I thought he'd be able to keep running, but this angle shows different. So, all in all, the Pats probably got an extra 15 yards from the inadvertent whistle.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,930
Maine
Now that I see this video I'm realizing Amendola almost assuredly gets tackled immediately if the whistle isn't blown. Watching last night, even with the replays, I thought he'd be able to keep running, but this angle shows different. So, all in all, the Pats probably got an extra 15 yards from the inadvertent whistle.
It would depend on whether he could slip the clutches of the defender. In that gif, you can almost see when the whistle was blown based on the defender's actions. He's in full chase/coverage mode until the last step (just before the ball hits Amendola's hands) when he appears to straighten up and stop pursuit. If he doesn't pull up, Amendola still appears to have at least half a step on him. If Amendola gets away from him, he's got 15-20 yards of clear field in front of him. Big unanswerable if.
 

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,717
Now that I see this video I'm realizing Amendola almost assuredly gets tackled immediately if the whistle isn't blown. Watching last night, even with the replays, I thought he'd be able to keep running, but this angle shows different. So, all in all, the Pats probably got an extra 15 yards from the inadvertent whistle.
Yeah, the tv announcers going on about how Dola would have had a TD was silly. Sure, there's a chance he makes a great move or two or what have you, but the more likely thing is he's tackled a few yards past where he caught the ball.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
Yeah, the tv announcers going on about how Dola would have had a TD was silly. Sure, there's a chance he makes a great move or two or what have you, but the more likely thing is he's tackled a few yards past where he caught the ball.
The gif makes it look like it could have been a pretty short YAC play, but the opposite angle (camera behind Brady just as he's throwing the pass) shows the defender clearly being thrown off by Amendola's move, or slipping. He might have caught him, but might not have.
Easy TD? Probably not. Getting 29 yards on the play (pass plus penalty) seemed to be close to the 'average exoenctancy' of that play, but a good (not great) move by Amendola's gets more than that I think.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
59,352
San Andreas Fault
I've only seen the short video segment posted above, but I'm guessing the official started to back into the sideline when he saw the play was coming in his direction. That's fairly common; the sideline official wants to have as much view as possible of any borderline out of bounds play. Stand on the sideline and there's a chance his view can get blocked by a player being blocked out of bounds.

The problem is that the official simply screwed up. I don't think there's a rational explanation for it. And had that been Belichick on the sideline and the Bills QB throwing the ball, ESPN-iots would be screaming for loss of draft picks and a 10 year suspension.
Couldn't the ref have gone back behind Brady but stayed in bounds (toward the Pats goal line a ways) if the action was coming toward him and he didn't want to get in the way? Because of what he did/where he went OOB, the big blubbering coach got in his way and caused the whole mess. New thought, if a coach sees a big play developing, say with the QB running toward the sideline like Brady was, why not try to cause mayhem by running onto the field. Do a Dicky Moegle, or whoever the guy was that ran out from the bench and tackled him. Moegle was awarded the touchdown though.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,614
Couldn't the ref have gone back behind Brady but stayed in bounds (toward the Pats goal line a ways) if the action was coming toward him and he didn't want to get in the way? Because of what he did/where he went OOB, the big blubbering coach got in his way and caused the whole mess. New thought, if a coach sees a big play developing, say with the QB running toward the sideline like Brady was, why not try to cause mayhem by running onto the field. Do a Dicky Moegle, or whoever the guy was that ran out from the bench and tackled him. Moegle was awarded the touchdown though.
Wow. A Dicky Moegle reference..... Memorialized in some Scholastic Book Club book I read in 6th grade (along with Wrong-Ways Roy Riegel and Jim Marshall)


OT: I thought the XFL should have alloted each team 5 or 6 helmetless guys on the sidelines who were *allowed* to tackle a runner if he crossed some line with 2 or 3 feet of the sideline but still in bounds. Would encourage staying in bounds and made the XFL a real alternative to the NFL, not just shitty football with more edgy stadium music.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,237
Couldn't the ref have gone back behind Brady but stayed in bounds (toward the Pats goal line a ways) if the action was coming toward him and he didn't want to get in the way? Because of what he did/where he went OOB, the big blubbering coach got in his way and caused the whole mess. New thought, if a coach sees a big play developing, say with the QB running toward the sideline like Brady was, why not try to cause mayhem by running onto the field. Do a Dicky Moegle, or whoever the guy was that ran out from the bench and tackled him. Moegle was awarded the touchdown though.
Officials are not supposed to worry about coaches standing on the white sideline. Also, officials are taught to stay out of the play, both for their safety and to avoid causing any impact to the game. Standing on the sideline could result in the official being knocked over just as Brady is being pushed or tackled out of bounds, which may make it impossible for him to accurately spot the ball.

To your last question: the NFL rules allow officials to award teams with whatever they deem fit for "palpably unfair acts". Ryan running onto the field during the play would clearly qualify as such. That's why Moegle was awarded the TD.

EDIT: And to add a quote from our buddy Volin:

The official was line judge Gary Arthur, and it hasn’t been an easy season for him. In Week 1, Arthur was trampled by a Ravens player on a punt against the Broncos and suffered gruesome injuries: nine broken ribs, a broken collarbone, and a partially collapsed lung.
Fill article here:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/11/24/monday-night-football-officials/Gkecqt95j5tpE30ntKHaJM/story.html
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
15,122
UWS, NYC
I kind of felt at the time that giving the Pats the yards for the reception was an in-the-moment make-up call by the refs.

Fact is, the whistle was inadvertently blown clearly before Amendola made the catch, meaning according to rule, the play was dead then and the down should've been replayed. I am sure that is something the booth in New York could have confirmed if they reviewed the replay looking for that. I think giving the Pats the 14 yards for the catch was an intentional hedge against the "if he caught it he could've gone all the way" problem... And then the extra 15 yards for Rex's interfering with the referee was the separate consequence of his self-inflicted buffoonery.

Perhaps that's why Belichick appeared so understanding when the referee was describing the situation to him. While he lost the possible opportunity for a longer gain from Amendola, he was satisfied with not losing the play altogether as, by rule, probably should've happened once the ref screwed up.
 

troparra

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2007
1,921
Michigan
The official was line judge Gary Arthur, and it hasn’t been an easy season for him. In Week 1, Arthur was trampled by a Ravens player on a punt against the Broncos and suffered gruesome injuries: nine broken ribs, a broken collarbone, and a partially collapsed lung.
Jesus Christ. I think we have our answer on the inadvertent whistle - PTSD.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
On that 2 seconds:
@MikePereira
Not that it really makes a difference, but the clock should have stopped on that last play. He went out untouched.

I think Pereira's statement here is actually misusing a rule - and he actually missed the applicable one. In the rules on when to blow a ball dead, and award forward progress there's a clause (clause e) that basically says 'if the player is on the ground and not attempting to advance the ball' - the definition for 'advance' in the rulebook is a little vague, but it does mention movement toward the goal line.

So I think the ruling is actually correct - the receiver is down as soon as his butt hits the ground and he starts moving backwards (before he reaches the side line) - it certainly feels wrong though.

My gameball goes to Butler - he's quietly become a very good corner. My downvote goes to Nink - not because he had a bad game (he didn't) but because he seemed to get through the offensive line about every 5 plays and then completely whiff on Taylor - it could have been so much more.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,546
Malcolm Butler is so good it hurts. I remember a bunch of us said we had illusions of granduer that his play would catapult him into a solid corner with upside because we had heard good things and seen some good things in one whole quarter of an NFL game against a below average receiver. And now, 10 games through the season, I'd rather have Butler than Darrelle Revis, who has clearly lost a step and gets banged up every week.
Meanwhile Butler's out-of-nowhere Super Bowl hero counterpart Chris Matthews was just signed to Baltimore's practice squad. It would be an extremely tough road to a repeat if it turned out our guy was the flash in the pan.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,150
I think Pereira's statement here is actually misusing a rule - and he actually missed the applicable one. In the rules on when to blow a ball dead, and award forward progress there's a clause (clause e) that basically says 'if the player is on the ground and not attempting to advance the ball' - the definition for 'advance' in the rulebook is a little vague, but it does mention movement toward the goal line.
I haven't been able to find that--can you link it?
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,987
AZ
No doubt that he intended to blow the whistle. The question that needs answering is why.
Probably need someone with a more sophisticated understanding of seven man mechanics to analyze what he thought he saw. This was the line judge. His responsibilities as I understand them are 90 percent done once the ball is snapped, except like QB past the LOS, ineligible down field on his side, and maybe boundary running plays. Maybe he gets some responsibilities for screens and wide out play inside the legal contact zone, but I assume receiver responsibility gets passed off to the three deep guys very close to the LOS.

I wonder when a QB out of the pocket throws the ball away if the line judge usually has the whistle. That would be the only explanation I could see. Brady clearly been coached when out of the pocket and on the run to make a non-grounding throw away all night either five yards short of his receiver's feet or out of bounds. Maybe the guy just anticipated what he had seen 10 times already that night, which would explain the timing on the whistle -- he waited until it left Brady's hands and it looked like a casual flip throw away.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,749
What a fucking gutsy, gutsy game.

AGAIN.

My game ball goes to Sheard, who made a difference and finally seems healthy. Secondary ball goes to Mayo, who played better than he has all year.

This team has mental toughness in spades.
Last night's performance was incredible. Not because they dominated another opponent. But rather, because they took a bunch of haymakers, got bloodies and battered, and still got up and beat an inspired and talented team by a touchdown.

They showed they could win on a night when their offense wasn't performing like a Ferrari. And that may be huge come playoff time.

I thought Tavon Wilson had a heck of a game, as did Butler. Sheard was a difference-maker as well. James White only had 4 touches, but sure made the most of them. His TD was the biggest play of the game, IMO.

I'd give a half a game ball to Tom Brady, because he had no time to throw. One horrible mistake when, ironically, he had time to throw, but he got clobbered all night long and made enough plays. Most of his incompletions were simply throwaways when he was pressured and had nobody open. The O-line almost got him killed last night, but he showed real toughness.
 

GeorgeCostanza

tiger king
SoSH Member
May 16, 2009
7,286
Go f*ck yourself
I'd give a half a game ball to Tom Brady, because he had no time to throw. One horrible mistake when, ironically, he had time to throw, but he got clobbered all night long and made enough plays. Most of his incompletions were simply throwaways when he was pressured and had nobody open. The O-line almost got him killed last night, but he showed real toughness.
The dart to Amendola when he got absolutely destroyed by the blitzer, while seeing it coming, was awe inspiring. He didn't bail out on the throw, stepped into it, knowing the punishment he was about to get.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,389
The fact that Brady kept his composure and kept grinding really impressed me. He was fully willing to throw the ball into the ground instead of making bad decisions and pick his spots. Most other quarterbacks would have lost it after the first quarter and started making mistakes or be a gunslinger.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,529
“@Fred_Kirsch: Guess who it’s rumored to have given the Bills a pep talk in their hotel Sunday night? Hint: he works for ESPN.”
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,150
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/10_Rule7_BallInPlay_DeadBall_Scrimm.pdf

(bolding mine)

(e) when a runner is out of bounds, or declares himself down by falling to the ground, or kneeling, and making no effort to advance; or
Thanks. I'm having trouble getting to that link, but is there another part that says the clock continues to run? What's the lead-in to that?

EDIT: Got it to load. I does say that ball is dead when runner does that. Why are guys like Mike Pereira and Jim D (former ref) wrong about this on twitter?
 
Last edited:

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,499
deep inside Guido territory
Why do they have such stupid rules for going out of bounds? What's the difference between running forward, sideways, or backwards? If you're out of bounds, the clock should stop and not start again until the next snap no questions asked.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,150
Why do they have such stupid rules for going out of bounds? What's the difference between running forward, sideways, or backwards? If you're out of bounds, the clock should stop and not start again until the next snap no questions asked.
The point is that the official didn't rule on that. He ruled that Watkins "gave himself up" in bounds. The going out of bounds part has no bearing on it.

Now, that was a wrong interpretation of Watkins' actions I think, because he clearly was trying to get OOB, but that's not what official ruled on.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
Thanks. I'm having trouble getting to that link, but is there another part that says the clock continues to run? What's the lead-in to that?

EDIT: Got it to load. I does say that ball is dead when runner does that. Why are guys like Mike Pereira and Jim D (former ref) wrong about this on twitter?
They're wrong because they're applying the wrong rule - they're arguing about whether he was touched before he went out of bounds. I'm saying it was irrelevant.

Gene Steratore (the ref who made the call) said: (from http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/11/24/steratore-says-watkins-gave-himself-up-on-final-play/)

What we had as far as the last play with Buffalo’s reception was that the receiver gave himself up voluntarily in the field of play,” Steratore said. “When that occurs and we deem that the runner, which he would have been after he maintained possession after his reception, he was now a runner, had given himself up in the field of play. Then fact that he scoots out of bounds is not as important. We wound the clock. It was a judgment call by that head linesman that he felt like he gave himself up in the field of play. It’s not a reviewable play. So winding the clock or stopping the clock is not something we review. So, in his judgment, he deemed that the runner gave himself up in the field of play voluntarily, which does put him down by contact in the field, so he wound [the clock].
The argument they go on to make is that Watkins wasn't giving himself up, but Steratore's interpretation matches how the rule is actually written - he was on the ground and not attempting to advance the ball. According to the rule, that's giving yourself up.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,946
“@ZoandBertrand: . @scottzolak was told that Ray Lewis gave a speech to the Bills Sunday Night prior to the Pats game”
What we wouldn't give for a tape of that speech. It could go down as the most incoherent pep talk ever.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,614
They're wrong because they're applying the wrong rule - they're arguing about whether he was touched before he went out of bounds. I'm saying it was irrelevant.

Gene Steratore (the ref who made the call) said: (from http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/11/24/steratore-says-watkins-gave-himself-up-on-final-play/)



The argument they go on to make is that Watkins wasn't giving himself up, but Steratore's interpretation matches how the rule is actually written - he was on the ground and not attempting to advance the ball. According to the rule, that's giving yourself up.
Ben Volin, via an unnamed source in the NFL referees union, says the crew fucked it up 5 ways to sunday.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/11/24/monday-night-football-officials/Gkecqt95j5tpE30ntKHaJM/story.html

I keep thinking about that ex-ref Balz guy in Indy who tried to paint some ball deflating scheme years in the making, who had an axe to grind. I wonder if someone doesn't like Gene S.
 

loshjott

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2004
15,001
Silver Spring, MD
The ref's explanation was that the player gave himself up by sitting down before going out of bounds. He didn't need to be touched since he gave himself up, like a QB sliding or taking a knee. Play was over before the player went out of bounds, same as if he'd been tackled in bounds then gotten up and stepped out of bounds.
 

MuppetAsteriskTalk

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2015
5,416
From the Globe article cited upstream:

"The touchdown also should not have counted because when a player is so far in the backfield, as Hughes was, officials are supposed to whistle the play dead and assess the penalty. But they let the play stand."


Is that true? I thought they only had to blow it dead if the offsides player is unabated to the QB? Hughes was 20 yards away and in no danger of hitting Brady.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,150
That's true, however the Bills had also not completed their subs (another player was running off field at snap) so if official had delayed the snap, that player would have gotten off and possibly, Hughes would have been close enough to Brady causing a whistle.

Which, of course, means it would have been 1st and goal from 3. Someone can dig out the numbers but the expected points on 1st and goal from 6 and 1st and goal from 3 gotta be pretty close.

EDIT: Found numbers.
1st and goal from 6: 5.22 points.
1st and goal from 3: 5.66 points
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,614
From the Globe article cited upstream:

"The touchdown also should not have counted because when a player is so far in the backfield, as Hughes was, officials are supposed to whistle the play dead and assess the penalty. But they let the play stand."

Is that true? I thought they only had to blow it dead if the offsides player is unabated to the QB? Hughes was 20 yards away and in no danger of hitting Brady.
I couldn't tell if that was the line of thinking or if it had something to do with the substitution issues cited in the story. Mike f'n Pereira tweeted about it. Is he forbidden from talking to reporters by his TV contract? And here Volin goes with the anonymous source from an organization that probably shouldn't be trashing one of its own yet is. I'm obviously influenced by my utter lack of regard for Ben Volin (and his high regard for Lester Munson), but something is off.
 

MuppetAsteriskTalk

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2015
5,416
I think the article was also wrong about Chandler making a simulated substitution. Here is what the rulebook says:

OFFENSIVE SUBSTITUTIONS Article 5The following are applicable to any offensive substitute who is entering the game:

OFFICIAL NFL PLAYING RULES 23

(a) He must move onto the field of play or the end zone as far as the inside of the field numerals prior to the snap to be a legal substitution. If he does not, and is on the field of play or end zone at the time of a legal snap, he is an illegal substitute.

(b) If he approaches the huddle and communicates with a teammate, he is required to participate in at least one play before being withdrawn. Violations of this rule may be penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct. Note:

The intent of the rule is to prevent teams from using simulated substitutions to confuse an opponent, while still permitting a player(s) to enter and leave without participating in a play in certain situations, such as a change in a coaching decision on fourth down, even though he has approached the huddle and communicated with a teammate. Similarly, if a player who participated in the previous play leaves the playing field by mistake, and returns to the playing field prior to the snap, he is not required to reach the inside of the field numerals, provided that the defense has the opportunity to match up with him. However, a substitute (i.e., someone who did not participate in the previous play) is required to reach the inside of the field numerals.
Chandler never approached the huddle nor did he communicate with a teammate.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
You have lots of ex-officials clearly stating that the "gave up" interpretation is wrong.

Mike Carey, Jim D, Football Zebras, etc...

Sideline play runs out clock. Although the inadvertent whistle is inexcusable, it is at least understandable. It is a mistake for which there is no eraser. However, a breakdown at the end of the game left ESPN announcer Mike Tirico lamenting, “What a screwed up night of plays and officiating this was. Wow!”

Wide receiver Sammy Watkins caught the ball for the Bills near the sideline. With two seconds on the clock, he did what any player in that situation would do: go for the sideline at the sacrifice of gaining additional yardage. Watkins fell out of bounds, but second-year head linesman Ed Walker ruled that Watkins had surrendered himself as down and not advancing. Steratore in the post-game interview:

What we had as far as the last play with Buffalo’s reception was that the receiver gave himself up voluntarily in the field of play. When that occurs and we deem that the runner, which he would have been after he maintained possession after his reception, he was now a runner, had given himself up in the field of play. Then fact that he scoots out of bounds is not as important. We wound the clock. It was a judgement call by that head linesman that he felt like he gave himself up in the field of play. It’s not a reviewable play. So winding the clock or stopping the clock is not something we review. So, in his judgement, he deemed that the runner gave himself up in the field of play voluntarily, which does put him down by contact in the field, so he wound [the clock].

Where to begin?

This could not possibly be “down by contact” without any defensive contact, rather it is a “declared dead ball” in the absence of a down-by-contact, out-of-bounds, incomplete-pass or other similar ruling.

The surrender technique is when a player essentially gives up on the play — either by taking a knee or remaining on the ground without any effort to advance. In referee’s parlance, an “advance” can be backward, particularly in a sideline play where lateral yardage is gained just as much as goal-ward yardage. As long as the runner is voluntarily ceding territory in the advance, his forward progress spot moves back with him. If the position of the ball is moving, there is no way that the runner has given up an opportunity to advance. He is retreating, not surrendering.

A surrendered player is also not subject to be tackled, but a player heading for the sideline must be touched down or contacted, whichever is appropriate, in order to keep the ball in bounds. A player pushed backwards out of bounds may also be ruled “in bounds” if the forward progress spot is in the field of play.

While replay can intervene in a clock operator error (if the error is more than two seconds at the expiration of the half and many other caveats), there is no review to rule the ball dead at :02 when Watkins goes out of bounds. Since the signal is to wind the clock, the clock operator did not make an error. If the side judge determined that Watkins should be ruled out of bounds, and if he noted there was time remaining on the clock, the two officials could add the time back in a conference. Also, if the side judge and head linesman had conflicting signals, and the stoppage wins out in conference, it appears the rule will allow the stop signal to be reviewed.

The explanation of this play, though, has made the error worse, because it is not rooted in an applicable rule or sensible in any semblance of basic football time-management strategy. It is a perversion of the rules to cover for Walker at best. It is a complete lack of reasoning or a misapplication of the rules at worst.

Either way, it erodes the confidence the fans and teams have in the crews’ abilities which damns the 2015 season as a lost cause for officiating.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,529
“@SportsCenter: CLARIFICATION: We were referencing the numerous replays and length of MNF. It didn’t come across. That’s our mistake. We’ll be better.”


It took you almost 16 hours to come up with this. GJGE ESPN.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,930
Maine
“@SportsCenter: CLARIFICATION: We were referencing the numerous replays and length of MNF. It didn’t come across. That’s our mistake. We’ll be better.”


It took you almost 16 hours to come up with this. GJGE ESPN.
If they'd just fucking use words, there wouldn't be a need to clarify in the first place. Fucking stupid hieroglyphic emoticon bullshit.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
I understand that. But there are different rules on whether the clock stops on how you actually go out of bounds. That's the stupid part.
It's all about forward progress, if your forward progress is stopped the play is over and if you are going backwards out of bounds then your forward progress was stopped on the field and the clock should keep running.
I assumed that was the reason the side judge wound the clock even though no Pat actually stopped the progress. This gave himself up thing doesn't make any sense.
I'd bet all refs will be getting a letter telling them in similar situations they are to say the runner is out of bounds.
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
7,158
“@SportsCenter: CLARIFICATION: We were referencing the numerous replays and length of MNF. It didn’t come across. That’s our mistake. We’ll be better.”


It took you almost 16 hours to come up with this. GJGE ESPN.
My level of disdain for ESPN continues to increase, which is pretty remarkable, given the low regard I already hold it in
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
32,021
Alexandria, VA
Why do they have such stupid rules for going out of bounds? What's the difference between running forward, sideways, or backwards? If you're out of bounds, the clock should stop and not start again until the next snap no questions asked.
It's all about forward progress, if your forward progress is stopped the play is over and if you are going backwards out of bounds then your forward progress was stopped on the field and the clock should keep running.
That's not quite right. You can give up forward progress to stop the clock: e.g. if you turn and run sideways/backward for the sideline, forward progress has stopped and is abdicated and you get clock stoppage when you go out of bounds.

What you can't do is "double-dip": be awarded forward progress for the yardage but also be awarded a clock stoppage when you're pushed backward and out of bounds. In that case, since you're ruled "down" at the point of forward progress--which was in bounds--then the clock winds.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Game ball to Patricia for deciding to go with Wilson and Chung on the slot WRs...and not Melvin. The safety-CB distinction is irrelevant in this case given how piss poor Melvin is at his job. Why he's still on the roster is a mystery. The first time I saw that guy play was when the Pats were torching him in the divisional playoff game last year and nothing he's done since then has been inconsistent with that. Does he have pictures of Bill with farm animals?
 
Last edited:

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
44,202
Here
ESPN wrote a clarification tweet? Huh...

The Ray Lewis thing is a total joke. I understand former players are going to get called in to do those kinds of things sometimes, but maybe hold off the week you're broadcasting that particular game? ESPN and Ray Lewis can french kiss my grundle.
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,888
Washington, DC
It's all about forward progress, if your forward progress is stopped the play is over and if you are going backwards out of bounds then your forward progress was stopped on the field and the clock should keep running.
I assumed that was the reason the side judge wound the clock even though no Pat actually stopped the progress. This gave himself up thing doesn't make any sense.
I'd bet all refs will be getting a letter telling them in similar situations they are to say the runner is out of bounds.
That's not right, the rule book specifically says that there is no forward progress when a runner goes backwards on his own accord (AR7.6), and that forward progress only comes into play to determine the ending of a play if the runner was stopped by the other team.