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

[dang]

In case this hasn't been posted...


View: https://youtu.be/UVquTiv9qXQ?si=MFA1CF_2Xy-V8-E_

This is getting too big for the NFL to bury. Anything short of a full investigation cannot be allowed due to potential legal and reputational consequences.

Allow the investigation to occur but if this storyline is accurate - I wonder how deep the repercussions will go:
Terry McCauley, Amazon, Walt Anderson, Roger Goodall.

 

[duanevalle22]

I'm over it

Me too....

It was a bad call but refs make bad calls all the time.

No sense in acting like a psycho ex that can't get over it two months after a break up.

Rams will be competing for a Super Bowl this season.... if Stafford stays healthy

 

[RamDino]

And.., let's not forget the illegal man downfield call earlier in the game that cost the Rams 4 points. That call was worse than the 2 point conversion. Rams should have won that game.

 

[duanevalle22]

And.., let's not forget the illegal man downfield call earlier in the game that cost the Rams 4 points. That call was worse than the 2 point conversion. Rams should have won that game.

That was a really bad one. ....

 

[OnceARam]

This is getting too big for the NFL to bury. Anything short of a full investigation cannot be allowed due to potential legal and reputational consequences.

Allow the investigation to occur but if this storyline is accurate - I wonder how deep the repercussions will go:
Terry McCauley, Amazon, Walt Anderson, Roger Goodall.

The integrity of the game is at stake.

 

[Turducken]

The integrity of the game is at stake.

I'm ok with the referees' human error as long as it's authentic in the moment and they keep trying to minimize it prospectively.

I was over the 2 pt reversal before I heard this.

Now I'm getting Spygate vibes.

 

[RAMSinLA]

JE maturing. A little drawn out but solid position on the “possible” impropriety of a retired referee intervening on a call on the field.

JE?

 

[jrry32]

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?

If Charbonnet alone sprinted for the ball and dove on it, I'd accept the ruling. Because it would demonstrate at least one player believed the ball to be live after the whistle. And if Charbonnet sprinted for it, there wasn't a Ram who could have beaten him to the ball.

 

[Gandalf]

As ref fuckups go this was a big one and it affected the seeding and eventual results of the NFCCG and title. So I'm still pissed but on the other hand I'm not gonna act like the fans I detest of other teams who carry around this kind of BS and storyline it when their team comes up short.

Rams weren't good enough to overcome the refs. Hope that changes next year. Fix the fucking defense and it won't matter.

The Rams were good enough to beat Seattle, NE and win the SB. Was Seattle good enough to overcome the Refs had the plays went against them?

 

[Ramstien]

I know I have said this somewhere before, but it bears repeating. The only way these guys could ever get on an NFL field is by officiating the games. They remind me of a song by the Offspring, "Pretty Fly for a White Guy", especially the part where they say the world needs want a bees

 

[LouisvilleRam]

What I noticed during games I watched after this 2 point conversion BS is how many times announcers would say the whistle was blown the play is over during other games

 

[Merlin]

Was Seattle good enough to overcome the Refs had the plays went against them?

They won the title. So yes. They were good enough.

 

[dang]

The Rams were good enough to beat Seattle, NE and win the SB. Was Seattle good enough to overcome the Refs had the plays went against them?

Rams need to figure out how to put some space and keep some space between themselves and their opponents in the course of a game. Don’t let a bad call or a bad play determine the outcome.

 

[kurtfaulk]

Rams need to figure out how to put some space and keep some space between themselves and their opponents in the course of a game. Don’t let a bad call or a bad play determine the outcome.

You mean when your defense gets an interception inside your 10 yard line with 9 mins left in the game and you're up by 16 points, don't go ultra conservative on offense like the game is already won?

That would have been handy.

.

 

[fanotodd]

Sounds like Terry McAulay intervened when he should not have. This is definitely one of the freakiest rulings against our Rams in my 50 years of fandom.

Throughout the season I just had this gut feeling that this was not the Rams year even though they had the talent and team do to so. Way too early for my spydy sense to work on 2026 but logically with health and few key pieces 2026 will be their year.

Had the same gut feeling. The Rams do not handle being frontrunners that well. There were just too many weird things happening when this year’s team should have been running away with it.

Seriously, not one but TWO blocked FGs vs the eagles? The weird calls and issues in both of the last two seahawk games?

It took a Landman punch to beat the Texans and a 90 yard catch and run by Atwell to beat indy. I understand that it is rare for a Rams fan to relax during a game, but there were few games or moments when I KNEW this game was in the bag.

I really wasn’t as worked up losing this year as I was last year. You just KNOW when certain things are happening.

 

[XXXIVwin]

If Charbonnet alone sprinted for the ball and dove on it, I'd accept the ruling. Because it would demonstrate at least one player believed the ball to be live after the whistle. And if Charbonnet sprinted for it, there wasn't a Ram who could have beaten him to the ball.

Yeah, I see where you are coming from, and I accept the internal logic.

Maybe it comes down to a debate between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

From my point of view, it's not important what any player believed in their own mind. For example-- take the hypothetical where the play happened the same way and with the same timing... but Charbonnet fell down on his back in the end zone, then the whistle blew, and then the ball landed on top of him, and he just instinctively held on to it. In my opinion, he should be awarded possession in the EZ even if he had no idea what he was doing or why.

To me... the ball was a live ball when it hit the ground. No one disputes that. Then one single ref screwed up by blowing a whistle. (The line judge did NOT blow the whistle, and was just making the "tipped ball" signal and watching the play).

The 2025 NFL rules allow for an "inadvertent whistle" to be disregarded as long as possession is reclaimed in "immediate and continuing action." And most seem to believe that is exactly what occurred on this play.

From my point of view, the mindset of Charbonnet, or any other player, shouldn't factor in to the equation. Any possession rule which would rely on a player's "intent" would be too difficult to interpret, in my opinion.

But yeah, I think I get where you are coming from and the logic behind it as well. Believe me, I get how ridiculous it was that pretty much everyone assumed the play was dead. But it wasn't. Everyone on the field was wrong, it was a live ball.

 

[XXXIVwin]

One problem… the refs blew the play dead...

The play being called dead prior to anyone possessing the ball obviates any technical rules interpretation.

That’s the bottom line.

In the December 2025 Seahawks-Rams game, the inadvertent whistle rule was invoked to reverse a failed two-point conversion into a successful one by allowing the Seattle Seahawks to retain possession after a backward pass was incorrectly blown dead.

The rule, often referenced through Rule 15 (Instant Replay), Section 2 (Replay Reviews), Article 3 (Awarding Possession), allows for a recovery to be awarded if replay confirms a clear, immediate recovery by a team despite an accidental whistle.
How the Inadvertent Whistle Rule Was Applied:

• The Initial Mistake: During a 2-point attempt, Sam Darnold threw a pass that was deflected backward by a Rams player. An official prematurely blew the whistle, assuming it was an incomplete forward pass, causing players to stop playing.
• The Review: Replay showed the ball was a backward pass, making it a live ball (fumble) even though it touched the ground.
• The Exception: According to rule interpretations, an "inadvertent whistle" does not prevent awarding a recovery if replay confirms "clear possession of a loose ball in immediate continuing action".
• Charbonnet’s Recovery: Because Zach Charbonnet picked up the loose ball in the end zone immediately following the errant whistle, the replay booth overturned the "incomplete pass" ruling and awarded the two-point conversion to the Seahawks.

Experts noted that for this specific rule, whether a whistle is blown is "completely irrelevant" if the recovery is immediate and clear, as Charbonnet’s actions met the criteria for "immediate continuing action".

 

[jrry32]

Yeah, I see where you are coming from, and I accept the internal logic.

Maybe it comes down to a debate between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

From my point of view, it's not important what any player believed in their own mind. For example-- take the hypothetical where the play happened the same way and with the same timing... but Charbonnet fell down on his back in the end zone, then the whistle blew, and then the ball landed on top of him, and he just instinctively held on to it. In my opinion, he should be awarded possession in the EZ even if he had no idea what he was doing or why.

To me... the ball was a live ball when it hit the ground. No one disputes that. Then one single ref screwed up by blowing a whistle. (The line judge did NOT blow the whistle, and was just making the "tipped ball" signal and watching the play).

The 2025 NFL rules allow for an "inadvertent whistle" to be disregarded as long as possession is reclaimed in "immediate and continuing action." And most seem to believe that is exactly what occurred on this play.

From my point of view, the mindset of Charbonnet, or any other player, shouldn't factor in to the equation. Any possession rule which would rely on a player's "intent" would be too difficult to interpret, in my opinion.

But yeah, I think I get where you are coming from and the logic behind it as well. Believe me, I get how ridiculous it was that pretty much everyone assumed the play was dead. But it wasn't. Everyone on the field was wrong, it was a live ball.

It's not about trying to interpret players' SUBJECTIVE intent. For all I know, Charbonnet could be sprinting despite believing the ball is dead. It's about the players CONTINUING to play. That's when a whistle should be disregarded. Nobody continued to play there.

Every person on the field, in the stadium, and apparently in the NFL replay booth believed that the ball was dead and the play was over. It was a total fluke that the ball was moving backwards. Nobody thought it was the case until McAulay was able to review a slow-motion replay.

As for spirit vs. letter of the rule, "immediate and continuing action" is an abstract phrase. What that means is debatable. What I'm saying is that the rule should require at least one player to keep playing. That didn't happen here. And if the rule doesn't require that, it needs to go because it's a shitty rule. Players are taught that when the ref blows the whistle, the play is dead. So if we're going to depart from that practice, it needs to be because the ref screwed up AND players kept playing.

 

[FaulkSF]

In the December 2025 Seahawks-Rams game, the inadvertent whistle rule was invoked to reverse a failed two-point conversion into a successful one by allowing the Seattle Seahawks to retain possession after a backward pass was incorrectly blown dead.

The rule, often referenced through Rule 15 (Instant Replay), Section 2 (Replay Reviews), Article 3 (Awarding Possession), allows for a recovery to be awarded if replay confirms a clear, immediate recovery by a team despite an accidental whistle.
How the Inadvertent Whistle Rule Was Applied:

• The Initial Mistake: During a 2-point attempt, Sam Darnold threw a pass that was deflected backward by a Rams player. An official prematurely blew the whistle, assuming it was an incomplete forward pass, causing players to stop playing.
• The Review: Replay showed the ball was a backward pass, making it a live ball (fumble) even though it touched the ground.
• The Exception: According to rule interpretations, an "inadvertent whistle" does not prevent awarding a recovery if replay confirms "clear possession of a loose ball in immediate continuing action".
• Charbonnet’s Recovery: Because Zach Charbonnet picked up the loose ball in the end zone immediately following the errant whistle, the replay booth overturned the "incomplete pass" ruling and awarded the two-point conversion to the Seahawks.

Experts noted that for this specific rule, whether a whistle is blown is "completely irrelevant" if the recovery is immediate and clear, as Charbonnet’s actions met the criteria for "immediate continuing action".

I still disagree with the immediate recovery by Charbonnet. The ball rolled around for a couple of seconds and handed it to an official.

The entire purpose of the rule is to establish possession immediately after the whistle. The intent was made if a whistle was blown for a loose ball and a scrum was on top of it. Whoever has immediate possession, the ball will be awarded to that team.

There was no scrum and possession wasn’t immediate. Since it was a loose ball, it stays with the offense and they may replay the try.

 

[dang]

JE?

Jacob Ellenboger