Week 4 NFL Game Thread

[SeoulSoxFan]

Also:

 
There are as many reasons to hate a man as there are ways for refs to blow a game-ending call.

 

[Section15Box113]

 
Oh, you cheeky fella:
 
@AroundTheNFL Blandino: “Judgment call on the field. Back judge felt it wasn’t overt. That’s why he didn’t call it on the field."
 
 

 
Yet Blandino also told ESPN that it was cut and dried?
 
Does he mean not reviewable since it was a judgment call?

 

[Ed Hillel]

Not reviewable makes more sense. Still, pretty awful no call on the field. They must not have known the rule because it was plain as day.

 

[amarshal2]

Oh, you cheeky fella:
 
@AroundTheNFL Blandino: “Judgment call on the field. Back judge felt it wasn’t overt. That’s why he didn’t call it on the field."
 

Now this is a blatant lie. It was the definition of overt.

 

[riboflav]

 
So something needs to be "overt?" What the hell? Does the rule book say "overt?"

 
The key that underlies any rule like this is "purposeful," not "overt."

 

[Jed Zeppelin]

 
https://twitter.com/rcolvin3/status/651241565545975808
 
Oh, BB knew the rule long, long ago and has already practiced it.

Gosh this just warms my heart.

BB also continues to be on point about reviewing everything. Game flow is already permafucked with the new flag emphasis on, umm, everything, so it's not like you're slowing the game down much more. Plus, more time for Fanduel ads.

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

 
https://twitter.com/rcolvin3/status/651241565545975808
 
Oh, BB knew the rule long, long ago and has already practiced it.

 
If I lived anywhere near Colvin, I'm sending everything UPS*
 
 
 
*He runs a UPS store. 

 

[nolasoxfan]

Oh, you cheeky fella:
 
@AroundTheNFL Blandino: “Judgment call on the field. Back judge felt it wasn’t overt. That’s why he didn’t call it on the field."

Yeah, Blandino, the self-congratulatory & celebratory fist pump after knocking the ball out of bounds--and done right in front of the refs face--isn't overt at all. Lol...

 

[Senator Donut]

Are all of these ESPN talking heads living on a planet where illegal batting is some obscure rule? Everyone has seen it before, right?

 

[singaporesoxfan]

Who the flying fuck on ESPN just said they can't make this up? Rules source it, under Unfair Acts: http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/unfairacts
 
It's Goodell, so I give zero shot of it happening, but the rule exists that they theoretically could replay this.

 
That rule is meant to target "club action, nonparticipant interference, or emergency" - in other words, something like a fan taking the 12th man thing literally and running on the field to bat the ball away. It's not meant to make up bad calls.

 

[Greg29fan]

https://youtu.be/QFxxhjQZQMk

 

[Dollar]

 
This is just so many levels of stupid. 
 
Gregg Rosenthal ‏@greggrosenthal  3m3 minutes ago
Blandino on @nflnetwork agrees penalty should have been called on Seahawks on batted ball. But says it’s not reviewable.

30 retweets9 favorites
 



 



 

 
Amazing, when you see in this video that Blandino says it is reviewable.

 

[amarshal2]

Are all of these ESPN talking heads living on a planet where illegal batting is some obscure rule? Everyone has seen it before, right?

it was totally obscure in this instance. One person in this game thread knew it was illegal batting because it happened in the end zone (or didn't know and got lucky). Nobody on the broadcast knew. Nobody on the Lions sideline knew. KJ Wright didn't know.

Just because BB probably knew doesn't make it common knowledge.

 

[Turrable]

There should be at least one game every year where both teams get credited with a loss and this should be that game

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

@JasonColeBR And that's a way worse mistake by the officials than the ruling in the Seattle-Green Bay catch/interception debacle by the replacement refs
 
Somehow the Cheatin' Seahawks are involved in both calls. I say an investigation is in order. 

 

[k-factory]

Who the flying fuck on ESPN just said they can't make this up? Rules source it, under Unfair Acts: http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/unfairacts
 
It's Goodell, so I give zero shot of it happening, but the rule exists that they theoretically could replay this.

 
Awesome find. The Ford's should apply pressure on Goodell to reschedule this game from the point of fail.

 

[nolasoxfan]

CheatHawks strike again!

 

[soxhop411]

@JasonColeBR And that's a way worse mistake by the officials than the ruling in the Seattle-Green Bay catch/interception debacle by the replacement refs
 
Somehow the Cheatin' Seahawks are involved in both calls. I say an investigation is in order. 

Pats will be blamed once the investigation is finished.

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

Ray Lewis is not a bright fella.

 

[Brand Name]

 
That rule is meant to target "club action, nonparticipant interference, or emergency" - in other words, something like a fan taking the 12th man thing literally and running on the field to bat the ball away. It's not meant to make up bad calls.

Fair enough, though I guess I (rather liberally) took "nonparticipant interference" to include blown calls, but it seems you are right, given the second section of that rule concerning "when a club registers a complaint concerning judgmental errors or routine errors of omission by game officials". Mea culpa. Though I guess I wonder: Can Goodell, hypothetically, have ruling/review/investigation over a blown call, if he initiates it. The team can't, given the rule, that much is understood.

 

[nolasoxfan]

'It wasn't a blatant bat, it was a tap.'

So, there you have it.

 

[Turrable]

https://twitter.com/PFTCommenter/status/651242949754249217

 

[Section15Box113]

Not reviewable makes more sense. Still, pretty awful no call on the field. They must not have known the rule because it was plain as day.

 
Which brings you to the need for full-time officials.
 
No excuse for them to huddle on the field and not get it right.

 

[Ed Hillel]

it was totally obscure in this instance. One person in this game thread knew it was illegal batting because it happened in the end zone (or didn't know and got lucky). Nobody on the broadcast knew. Nobody on the Lions sideline knew. KJ Wright didn't know.

Just because BB probably knew doesn't make it common knowledge.

It should be common knowledge for refs, though.

 

[jtn46]

Caldwell must be thrilled that the discussion isn't about his team snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and is instead about the refs missing a call.

 

[simplyeric]

A silly technicality should have nullified an inane rule, but was missed by incompetent officials and coaches.

That about sums up this league, and I'll be back next Sunday.

I literally laughed out loud.

And I'll definitely be back next Sunday.

 

[Senator Donut]

it was totally obscure in this instance. One person in this game thread knew it was illegal batting because it happened in the end zone (or didn't know and got lucky). Nobody on the broadcast knew. Nobody on the Lions sideline knew. KJ Wright didn't know.

Just because BB probably knew doesn't make it common knowledge.

I knew the rule and posted about it right away. I phrased it as a question because no one in the broadcast mentioned it, so I started doubting it. I've seen it called before on intentional safeties (declined.)

 

[amarshal2]

A silly technicality should have nullified an inane rule, but was missed by incompetent officials and coaches.

That about sums up this league, and I'll be back next Sunday.

nailed it.

 

[Ed Hillel]

You guys want an inane part of the batting rule it's that "batting" the football from an opponent's hands is illegal. They may want to change that.

 

[shawnrbu]

I knew the rule and posted about it right away. I phrased it as a question because no one in the broadcast mentioned it, so I started doubting it. I've seen it called before on intentional safeties (declined.)

 
 
This is the play I remember.
 
https://youtube.com/watch?v=hmvYwMf4HWA

 

[Turrable]

Caldwell must be thrilled that the discussion isn't about his team snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and is instead about the refs missing a call.

 
Yeah holy shit, anyone who thinks they deserved to win this game is insane
 
Also, would the batting rule count if the LB acted like he was trying to control it but did a shitty acting job? Like "oh let's try and catch this shit OH DAMN it went out of bounds!" Or juggling the ball until he ends up out of bounds? Would it be better if he did a good acting job? This whole thing seems really stupid

 

[amarshal2]

It should be common knowledge for refs, though.

Oh, the refs blew it no doubt. And you can blame Caldwell too as it's his job to know obscure rules.

In summary, I agree with everything you wrote and don't know what my original point was.

 

[riboflav]

You guys want an inane part of the batting rule it's that "batting" the football from an opponent's hands is illegal. They may want to change that.

 
 
You can't punch the ball loose, correct? That's also a rule in basketball. Btw, Chancellor did indeed punch the ball loose.

 

[Ed Hillel]

 
Yeah holy shit, anyone who thinks they deserved to win this game is insane
 
Also, would the batting rule count if the LB acted like he was trying to control it but did a shitty acting job? Like "oh let's try and catch this shit OH DAMN it went out of bounds!" Or juggling the ball until he ends up out of bounds? Would it be better if he did a good acting job? This whole thing seems really stupid

One thing he could also do is put one foot out of bounds and just touch the ball. By extension, the ball is out of bounds. The good old David Patten KO rule.

 

[Turrable]

 
This whole thing seems really stupid

 
And yeah I realize this describes literally the entire sport of football

 

[Ed Hillel]

 
 
You can't punch the ball loose, correct? That's also a rule in basketball. Btw, Chancellor did indeed punch the ball loose.

Yeah, but that's the game now. The rule is archaic.

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

Yeah holy shit, anyone who thinks they deserved to win this game is insane
 
Also, would the batting rule count if the LB acted like he was trying to control it but did a shitty acting job? Like "oh let's try and catch this shit OH DAMN it went out of bounds!" Or juggling the ball until he ends up out of bounds? Would it be better if he did a good acting job? This whole thing seems really stupid

Clearly he didn't know the rule, otherwise he would have actually grabbed it and gone down for the touchback right?

 

[Dollar]

 
Also, would the batting rule count if the LB acted like he was trying to control it but did a shitty acting job? Like "oh let's try and catch this shit OH DAMN it went out of bounds!" Or juggling the ball until he ends up out of bounds? Would it be better if he did a good acting job? This whole thing seems really stupid

 
Nope, it has to be a deliberate batting of the ball.  He could have also just, you know, caught the ball and stepped out of the end zone.  Stupid play by Wright that he was lucky not to be penalized for.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

I agree that Detroit got jobbed, but here's my question.  When a snap goes over a punter's head and into the end zone, aren't they all taught to just kick the ball out of bounds and take the safety?  I've seen it happen a few times, but in that case, wouldn't that result in a penalty on the kicker for illegal batting? 
 
I'm guessing if they called the penalty, the other team would decline it, as they would just get what, five or 10 yards from the previous spot and lose the safety, or maybe they could force the punting team to kickoff following the safety from 5-10 yards further back?  
 
I'm just curious as I don't remember a flag being thrown in the few instances where I've seen a punter kick or bat the ball out of the end zone and take the safety. 

 

[riboflav]

Yeah, but that's the game now. The rule is archaic.

 
I don't know the exact rule. Is it a closed fist as it is in basketball? In basketball, you are, of course, allowed to slap the ball or strip the ball. I'm seriously asking because I don't see many players punch the ball loose with a closed fist in the NFL the way Chancellor did.

 

[singaporesoxfan]

I agree that Detroit got jobbed, but here's my question.  When a snap goes over a punter's head and into the end zone, aren't they all taught to just kick the ball out of bounds and take the safety?  I've seen it happen a few times, but in that case, wouldn't that result in a penalty on the kicker for illegal batting? 
 
I'm guessing if they called the penalty, the other team would decline it, as they would just get what, five or 10 yards from the previous spot and lose the safety, or maybe they could force the punting team to kickoff following the safety from 5-10 yards further back?  
 
I'm just curious as I don't remember a flag being thrown in the few instances where I've seen a punter kick or bat the ball out of the end zone and take the safety. 

 
It's a penalty, but everyone declines it.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

I knew the rule and posted about it right away. I phrased it as a question because no one in the broadcast mentioned it, so I started doubting it. I've seen it called before on intentional safeties (declined.)

 
Welp, that clears up my question. 

 

[Ed Hillel]

I agree that Detroit got jobbed, but here's my question.  When a snap goes over a punter's head and into the end zone, aren't they all taught to just kick the ball out of bounds and take the safety?  I've seen it happen a few times, but in that case, wouldn't that result in a penalty on the kicker for illegal batting? 
 
I'm guessing if they called the penalty, the other team would decline it, as they would just get what, five or 10 yards from the previous spot and lose the safety, or maybe they could force the punting team to kickoff following the safety from 5-10 yards further back?  
 
I'm just curious as I don't remember a flag being thrown in the few instances where I've seen a punter kick or bat the ball out of the end zone and take the safety. 

It's only illegal if the ball is actually in the endzone. Otherwise, batting it backwards is legal.

 

[8slim]

I agree that Detroit got jobbed, but here's my question.  When a snap goes over a punter's head and into the end zone, aren't they all taught to just kick the ball out of bounds and take the safety?  I've seen it happen a few times, but in that case, wouldn't that result in a penalty on the kicker for illegal batting? 
 
I'm guessing if they called the penalty, the other team would decline it, as they would just get what, five or 10 yards from the previous spot and lose the safety, or maybe they could force the punting team to kickoff following the safety from 5-10 yards further back?  
 
I'm just curious as I don't remember a flag being thrown in the few instances where I've seen a punter kick or bat the ball out of the end zone and take the safety. 

Doesn't the rule have to do with who has possession? If you have possession you can bat/kick the ball out of the end zone. If you don't, you can't. I think.

 

[Section15Box113]

If BB's proposal to make everything reviewable had been approved, the Lions would have had the ball. 
And likely won.
 
Therefore, it is the Patriots' fault for failing to push the change through. 
 
They should have explained better. 
They should have argued better.
They should have advocated on all four sides of the board room table.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Oh, and the major difference here is that the offense fumbled it forward, not a high snap on a kick.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Doesn't the rule have to do with who has possession? If you have possession you can bat/kick the ball out of the end zone. If you don't, you can't. I think.

Yes, exactly.

 

[shawnrbu]

If you bat the ball in your own endzone or kick it out of your own endzone, it is a safety. 

 

[singaporesoxfan]

It's only illegal if the ball is actually in the endzone. Otherwise, batting it backwards is legal.

 
 

Doesn't the rule have to do with who has possession? If you have possession you can bat/kick the ball out of the end zone. If you don't, you can't. I think.

 
No, it's a penalty. It's just that every team declines the penalty and takes the safety. (Though maybe BB might find a situation where he'd accept.)

 

[Marciano490]

How hard would it be to pay someone 30k a year to memorize the rule book, watch all the games and buzz down when a rule is violated or not observed?  Seems like it'd be worth it.