New Report on Seattle's 2 Point Conversion (and this is really bullcrap if true)

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Tano said:
They should have replayed the extra point. That is the main point of this thread.
Click to expand...
It’s strange the NFL feels differently about the inadvertent whistles compared to HS and College. At these levels it’s a kill the play and if no possession, the offense may choose to replay the down.
 
dang said:
JE maturing. A little drawn out but solid position on the “possible” impropriety of a retired referee intervening on a call on the field.
Click to expand...
I also like Jake pointing out the call against the Rams for Justin Dedich for being illegally downfield which was a touchdown, was a bad call and cost the Rams 4 points. McCauley pointed out that was the incorrect call too, but I guess didn't call his buddy Walt Anderson on that one.
 
  • 3Like
  • Thread Winner
Reactions: RamFanWA, David Ray, OnceARam and 2 others
XXXIVwin said:
I'm in the minority on this, but I prefer it when "at the end of the day" the call ends up being the correct one. No matter which team it benefits, the Rams or their opponent.

Am I glad that the Rams beat the Saints in the NFCCG? Sure I am. But it's a bummer that the refs completely screwed up the PI call.

Am I bummed that the Rams lost to the Hawks in large part due to that controversial 2-point call? Of course.

But was it a backwards pass? Yes. Should the ball have been live? Yes. Should Zach have been legally able to recover it in the EZ for a TD? Yes. Did the ref screw up by blowing the whistle early? Yes. Should Rams defenders be coached to go after the ball when there is any question as to whether the ball was a fumble or a lateral or a pass? Yes.

Is it okay that the TV Analyst called the NYC office? I don't know, and I hope they write a rule about that.

That play was damn weird to be sure. But it "should" have been considered a live ball.
Click to expand...
Well then they got it wrong because they blew the whistle calling the play dead. If they didn't blow the whistle then everyone would have know the play wasn't dead and the ball was live the Rams would have had a legitimate chance to recover the ball.

So if being right is all you want, how do you reconsile that. They already blew the call then tacked on another wrong call. Oh I guess 2 wrongs make a right.
 
den-the-coach said:
I also like Jake pointing out the call against the Rams for Justin Dedich for being illegally downfield which was a touchdown, was a bad call and cost the Rams 4 points. McCauley pointed out that was the incorrect call too, but I guess didn't call his buddy Walt Anderson on that one.
Click to expand...
I don't think you can review a penalty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: den-the-coach
They say with that particular play a blown whistle does not mean the play is dead. Which is ridiculous in itself. But if a Rams player blasted Charbonnay when he was picking up the ball he woulda got a personal foul penalty for hitting a player after the whistle.
 
  • 3Like
  • HaHa
  • High Five
Reactions: RamFanWA, jrry32, David Ray and 2 others
I know the fumble overrides a whistle. But when that whistle makes everyone stop playing, at that point how can you justify a play continuing? Charbonnay had no idea he was recovering a fumble. He picked up the ball because he was standing next to it. He fully expected the play to be dead. I guess we just chalk it up to bad luck that the refs made the defense stop playing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jrry32 and OnceARam
Tumak61 said:
I don't think so. They huddle up and sometimes talk about a penalty then pick it up, but it's not something they can review.
Click to expand...
They cannot review, but New York reaches out and tells them to pick it up, or informs them, it was not an infraction.
 
Tumak61 said:
He actually makes a lot of sense.
Click to expand...
If we are going to have an outside replay crew looking for mistakes they should be in a jury room evaluating the feeds without any outside commentary. If the networks can use their broadcasting staff to make lawyerly arguments to the replay crew, the game is over as we know it.

The NFL will be a couple degrees away from the WWE.
 
Last edited:
XXXIVwin said:
Yeah, I guess we can (try) to agree to disagree on this one.

I just re-watched the play a bunch of times (ugh) and it sure looks to me like Charbonnet is making a continuous and immediate effort to get the ball. As soon as it ricochets off his hands, his eyes follow the ball, and he moves to pick it up. He picked it up while the ball was still rolling. He followed the ball immediately, and it was in his hands within 2 seconds of the whistle. Afterward, he made no move toward any ref to give the ball away. He picked up the ball because that's what he'd been coached to do.

Just asking-- by your logic, if just ONE Ram player had made a half-hearted attempt to pick up the ball (as Charbonnet did), then you think it would have been a proper call? From my perspective, that's like penalizing Charbonnet because not a single Ram player was heady enough to do what he did.
Click to expand...
No, that's not at all my logic. Charbonnet wasn't scrambling for the ball. He didn't hustle to get it. It was at most a halfhearted jog. And if you watch Kobie Turner, he was actually scrambling to get out there, but stopped and walked away when the whistle blew.

As I just told you, if the players were scrambling to get the ball when the whistle blew and continued to scramble for it (as if they believed it was a live ball), that would be a different story. I'd support the ruling. That did not happen here.

If Turner had continued to sprint out there and tried to dive on the ball, that would have made things different, particularly if Charbonnet chased after it. But nobody scrambled for it, not even Charbonnet. He went over and picked it up. But he wasn't sprinting over and didn't dive on it. There was no urgeny.
 
  • Thread Winner
Reactions: Tano
snackdaddy said:
I know the fumble overrides a whistle. But when that whistle makes everyone stop playing, at that point how can you justify a play continuing? Charbonnay had no idea he was recovering a fumble. He picked up the ball because he was standing next to it. He fully expected the play to be dead. I guess we just chalk it up to bad luck that the refs made the defense stop playing?
Click to expand...
And what's so frustrating is the play was dead to rights. Verse deflected the screen pass, but even if he didn't, we were going to stop Charbonnet. It's bullshit on every level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: den-the-coach
jrry32 said:
And what's so frustrating is the play was dead to rights. Verse deflected the screen pass, but even if he didn't, we were going to stop Charbonnet. It's bullshit on every level.
Click to expand...
Whether the call was right or wrong is besides the point.

We have broadcasting entities owned by media corporations with valuations >20x that of the NFL (in aggregate) influencing the officiation of games. Might as well give Draft Kings a challenge flag while we are at it.
 
  • Like
  • HaHa
  • Thread Winner
Reactions: Mojo Ram, Tano, David Ray and 1 other person
jrry32 said:
if the players were scrambling to get the ball when the whistle blew and continued to scramble for it (as if they believed it was a live ball), that would be a different story. I'd support the ruling.
Click to expand...
You said if "the players were scrambling" for the ball, you'd support the ruling.

What I'm trying to narrow down is HOW MANY players would have had to scramble for the ball for you to support the ruling.

If Charbonnet ALONE had shown more urgency, and dove on the ball, would you have been supportive of the ruling then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back