Ed Hillel said:Also:
There are as many reasons to hate a man as there are ways for refs to blow a game-ending call.
Ed Hillel said:Also:
SeoulSoxFan said:
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.SeoulSoxFan said: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."
riboflav said:
So something needs to be "overt?" What the hell? Does the rule book say "overt?"
Gosh this just warms my heart.singaporesoxfan said:
https://twitter.com/rcolvin3/status/651241565545975808
Oh, BB knew the rule long, long ago and has already practiced it.
singaporesoxfan said:
https://twitter.com/rcolvin3/status/651241565545975808
Oh, BB knew the rule long, long ago and has already practiced it.
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...SeoulSoxFan said: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."
Delonte James Jr. said: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.
jimbobim said:
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
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.Domer said:Are all of these ESPN talking heads living on a planet where illegal batting is some obscure rule? Everyone has seen it before, right?
Delonte James Jr. said: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.
Pats will be blamed once the investigation is finished.SeoulSoxFan said:@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.
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.singaporesoxfan said:
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.
Ed Hillel said: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.
It should be common knowledge for refs, though.amarshal2 said: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 literally laughed out loud.ngruz25 said: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 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 said: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.
nailed it.ngruz25 said: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.
Domer said: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.)
jtn46 said: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.
Oh, the refs blew it no doubt. And you can blame Caldwell too as it's his job to know obscure rules.Ed Hillel said:It should be common knowledge for refs, though.
Ed Hillel said: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.
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 said:
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
Turrable said:
This whole thing seems really stupid
Yeah, but that's the game now. The rule is archaic.riboflav said:
You can't punch the ball loose, correct? That's also a rule in basketball. Btw, Chancellor did indeed punch the ball loose.
Clearly he didn't know the rule, otherwise he would have actually grabbed it and gone down for the touchback right?Turrable said: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
Turrable said:
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
Ed Hillel said:Yeah, but that's the game now. The rule is archaic.
Deathofthebambino said: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.
Domer said: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.)
It's only illegal if the ball is actually in the endzone. Otherwise, batting it backwards is legal.Deathofthebambino said: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.Deathofthebambino said: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.
Yes, exactly.8slim said: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.
Ed Hillel said:It's only illegal if the ball is actually in the endzone. Otherwise, batting it backwards is legal.
8slim said: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.