New Report on Seattle's 2 Point Conversion (and this is really bullcrap if true)
- Thread starter Tano
- Start date
-
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.
DeaconJones
Rookie
Call 1-800-BUY-CALL. Have your credit card ready. NFL officials are standing by.
So, for the fun of it I called that number [(800) 289-2255].
I would like to advise anyone & everyone NOT to call that number.
If you do, you will know why I advised you NOT to f'ing call!
This seems like really reaching for a scenario to maintain a point. Your scenario really isn't close to what actually happened so I don't find it a compelling argument. The fact is that the whistle DID blow and everyone thought the play was dead INCLUDING the officials until a call from the broadcast booth 100 seconds later. I would guess you have never seen anything like this happen. I know I sure haven't.
In fairness, my "hypothetical scenario" regarding Charbonnet on his back was just to make a separate argument regarding whether or not "the intent" of a player was important to the ruling. So that's a separated side-issue.
The thing that I stubbornly hold on to is that Charbonnet acted in a fundamentally different way than all the other players.
Everyone followed the ball when the ball was still in the air, and Curl almost caught it. But then, as SOON as it touched the ground, 21 of the 22 players stopped playing. ONLY ONE player kept his head in the game.
I've taken the trouble of watching the replay several times (not fun, but just out of my own stubbornness regarding this damn thread!
).Every player (Except one) stopped going for the ball BEFORE the whistle blew. Speights and Turner slowed down and backed of BEFORE the whistle blew. Curl was on the ground and didn't have a chance. Landman was being blocked but showed zero movement toward the ball. On the Seahawks, Kupp didn't show interest, and the TE was down. There was only ONE player, and one player only, who followed the ball for the two second interval after the ball hit the ground and BEFORE the whistle blew. There was one player who thought, "maybe there's a tiny chance this play is still live for some strange reason."
BECAUSE Charbonnet was tracking the ball while it was rolling on the ground, he was the only guy in position to pick it up when the whistle blew. (Landman was being blocked, Curl was on the ground, and Speights and Turner were already slowing down and giving up on the play). So perhaps understandably, Charbonnet continued with his "nonchalant" attitude because he could sense that there were no other players nearby making an attempt at possession.
Which is my long-winded way of saying: EVEN IF THE REFS SWALLOWED THE WHISTLE AND LET THE PLAY CARRY ON, CHARBONNET WAS THE ONLY PLAYER WHO HAD A CHANCE TO GET THE BALL. Charbonnet was the only player following the ball the entire time it was rolling on the ground.
It's bullshit to argue that "if the whistle hadn't blown, the Rams would have had a chance at possession." That's BS-- only Charbonnet would have gotten it because he was the only one tracking the ball while it was on the ground. If you watch the replay closely, you can see that that is true.
The whistle blew (and it was one lone whistle) between the second or third "bounce" of the ball.
Look, I feel like I understand the counter-argument. I'm a Rams fan and I hate the outcome.
Granted it was only like 4 seconds maximum that the ball was rolling on the ground. And the whistle sounded in the middle of the roll. But in those first two seconds of the ball rolling on the ground BEFORE the whistle blew, Charbonnet was the only player still following the play.
If Charbonnet had completely waited to get the ball until AFTER the whistle blew, I might think differently. But he didn't.
Here's two replays, if anyone has the stomach to watch. (Puke!)
Charbonnet was following the play the entire time. Nonchalant, yes, but I'd argue that's in part because no one else was paying attention. He's #26, the intended reciever, and you can see he reacted differently from every other player on the field. Especially for the crucial 2 seconds AFTER the ball hit the ground, and BEFORE the whistle blew.
View: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DSb35ykDy-0/
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcIcHOrmP3s
Last edited:
As you can see, I just made a long-ass argument explaining why I don't think that is the case.
Suppose the refs did the right thing and swallowed the whistle, and no whistle blew until AFTER it was recovered.
There's no doubt in my mind that Charbonnet was the ONLY guy who had a chance to pick it up. Charbonnet was the ONLY guy who was tracking the ball for the brief time (maybe 2 seconds at most) AFTER the ball hit the ground and BEFORE the whistle blew.
It's no fun to watch the replay, but anyone who watches closely will see that Charbonnet was following the ball when literally no one else was.
USUAL DISCLAIMER: Yes, I'm a Rams fan, and have been so for almost 50 years! this play was a heartbreaker. I wish that a Ram player had been the one to recognize it was a live ball.
Come on man. You can see by the way he picked up the ball and walked back to give it to the zebras he was not thinking what you are insinuating. Players pick up dead balls all the time - ESPECIALLY if it is intended for them - and give them to the refs. If he was thinking anything like what you say, he would have made some sort of motion - even a questioning look. But no. He just puts his head down and walks to the official. You don't think he would try to sell it at all if he was tracking the ball to see if there was a chance? You're a very rational person. But that is just silly. There is nothing in those replays or the several I have watched that would back up your assertion. Hell. Even HE said it wasn't the case. And the fact that NO ONE on the field questioned that the play was over and ONLY the media dipshits called it out to NY, makes it that much more egregious.
BTW... Turner was closer to the ball than Charb but he just turned away at the whistle. He was facing the play when the ball hit the ground. Watch his response.
Yeah, I think Rams fans get too wrapped up about focusing on "what Charbonnet was thinking." The point is what he DID.
I'll concede that maybe I overstated that Charbonnet was thinking "maybe it was a live ball."
In my view, even if he just thought, "hey, it's never a bad idea to always pick up the ball", that's good enough for me.
From a Foolio article (granted, your favorite sportswriter):
Afterward, Charbonnet said he didn’t know how the ball ended up in the end zone but he figured it couldn’t hurt to pick it up.
“I had no idea, but I’m always taught to pick up the ball,” Charbonnet said, via the Seattle Times.
Every football player is taught that, from Pop Warner to the pros. But many players fail to do it in the moment. The Seahawks may end up as the No. 1 seed in the NFC playoffs because Charbonnet did what he was taught to do.
Zach Charbonnet on two-point conversion: I had no idea, but I always pick up the ball
Charbonnet made one of the biggest plays of this NFL season without realizing it when it happened.
www.nbcsports.com
And by the way, I have not seen any single replay that EVER shows Charbonnet giving a ball to ANY ref. Charbonnet picked up the ball because of what his COACHES taught him to do. Charbonnet did NOT pick up the ball to be "helpful" or "polite."
So from my point of view, the thought process went like this:
Seattle coaches in training camp: ""Make sure every player picks up the ball in all circumstances, because you never know when a fluke play might occur that benefits our team."
Charbonnet during the play: "I don't know what's going on, but coaches tell me to pick it up."
We don't need for Charbonnet to go on the psychoanalyst's couch and give a split second dissection of exactly what was going through his mind. He picked up the ball because his coaches told him to. End of story. And that was enough to fulfill the "continuing and immediate action" part of the ruling.
And as to your point about Turner... I was stubborn enough to watch it several times. Turner clearly slows down and starts looking AWAY from the ball a split-second BEFORE the whistle blew. Turner was giving up on that before the whistle blows. No doubt in my mind that if the refs swallowed the whistle for another second or two, Charbonnet would have gotten to the ball first.
The image below is a still image from a split-second before the whistle blew. I'll concede that it was truly a SPLIT-SECOND before the whistle, like literally one-tenth of a scecond. But the point is still valid. Turner was SLOWING DOWN BEFORE the whistle blew, as you can can see by how he's leaning backward and putting his weight on his right leg. And he's looking AWAY from the ball. Clearly Charbs is the closest to getting the ball.
And as for the media dipshits, yeah, that's a whole different can of worms altogether.
Last edited:
It wasn't a bad call per say but the whistle blew the play dead. Over turning it was not bad but illegal in the way they did it. It should have been the Seahawks complaining about a bad/missed call not the Rams.
Years, as a matter of fact. Goodell = Kraft.We crossed that Rubicon months ago....
I’m conceding the whistle blown prematurely was the bad call. But it’s part of the game and resolved IMO.
It’s the reported overturning that’s the UNRESOLVED problem.
In fairness, my "hypothetical scenario" regarding Charbonnet on his back was just to make a separate argument regarding whether or not "the intent" of a player was important to the ruling. So that's a separated side-issue.
The thing that I stubbornly hold on to is that Charbonnet acted in a fundamentally different way than all the other players.
Everyone followed the ball when the ball was still in the air, and Curl almost caught it. But then, as SOON as it touched the ground, 21 of the 22 players stopped playing. ONLY ONE player kept his head in the game.
I've taken the trouble of watching the replay several times (not fun, but just out of my own stubbornness regarding this damn thread!
Every player (Except one) stopped going for the ball BEFORE the whistle blew. Speights and Turner slowed down and backed of BEFORE the whistle blew. Curl was on the ground and didn't have a chance. Landman was being blocked but showed zero movement toward the ball. On the Seahawks, Kupp didn't show interest, and the TE was down. There was only ONE player, and one player only, who followed the ball for the two second interval after the ball hit the ground and BEFORE the whistle blew. There was one player who thought, "maybe there's a tiny chance this play is still live for some strange reason."
BECAUSE Charbonnet was tracking the ball while it was rolling on the ground, he was the only guy in position to pick it up when the whistle blew. (Landman was being blocked, Curl was on the ground, and Speights and Turner were already slowing down and giving up on the play). So perhaps understandably, Charbonnet continued with his "nonchalant" attitude because he could sense that there were no other players nearby making an attempt at possession.
Which is my long-winded way of saying: EVEN IF THE REFS SWALLOWED THE WHISTLE AND LET THE PLAY CARRY ON, CHARBONNET WAS THE ONLY PLAYER WHO HAD A CHANCE TO GET THE BALL. Charbonnet was the only player following the ball the entire time it was rolling on the ground.
It's bullshit to argue that "if the whistle hadn't blown, the Rams would have had a chance at possession." That's BS-- only Charbonnet would have gotten it because he was the only one tracking the ball while it was on the ground. If you watch the replay closely, you can see that that is true.
The whistle blew (and it was one lone whistle) between the second or third "bounce" of the ball.
Look, I feel like I understand the counter-argument. I'm a Rams fan and I hate the outcome.
Granted it was only like 4 seconds maximum that the ball was rolling on the ground. And the whistle sounded in the middle of the roll. But in those first two seconds of the ball rolling on the ground BEFORE the whistle blew, Charbonnet was the only player still following the play.
If Charbonnet had completely waited to get the ball until AFTER the whistle blew, I might think differently. But he didn't.
Here's two replays, if anyone has the stomach to watch. (Puke!)
Charbonnet was following the play the entire time. Nonchalant, yes, but I'd argue that's in part because no one else was paying attention. He's #26, the intended reciever, and you can see he reacted differently from every other player on the field. Especially for the crucial 2 seconds AFTER the ball hit the ground, and BEFORE the whistle blew.
View: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DSb35ykDy-0/
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcIcHOrmP3s
Even Charbonet said he only picked up the ball to hand to the official.
Silly hill to die on here.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #135
It being over is not the point most of us are making.
It is that McCauley and the Replay official both need to be fired is the point I am making.
After the week 16 loss I watched the replay, read the rules and decided that I should just get over it.
This thread isn't for relitigating that dubious call. Half the commenters missed the point entirely.
I didn't see that. I'll look it up.
If you can find evidence to document Charbonnet said that in order to give to the referee I'll concede the point. Only quote I've seen attributed to him is:
“I had no idea, but I’m always taught to pick up the ball,” Charbonnet said postgame.
Every article I've seen was that the above statement was about responding to good coaching, not about being fucking polite.
Oh and thanks for the snarky BS commentary. Can always count on you for your restraint.
Last edited:
I have never blamed that 2 point fuck up for the loss. It was just another consequence of Mcvay going ultra conservative after the Rams d got what should have been the game winning interception with 9 mins to go.
He single handedly let the seagulls back in the game and everything that happened after that was just the flow on effect.
.
Last post on this matter for me. It’s not about the call it’s about how it was queued for review.
Reportedly (from a Google search
Meaning it needs to be properly investigated):
According to reportsPrime Video rules analyst Terry McAulay called NFL officiating/
rules analyst Walt Anderson to discuss a missed call during the Seattle Seahawks vs. Los Angeles Rams Week 16 game, directly prompting a review that awarded a key two-point conversion. Without this call, the review likely would not have occurred.
- The Incident: During a Week 16 Thursday night game in the 2025 NFL season, a Seahawks two-point conversion was initially ruled incomplete.
- The Action: Terry McAulay, working as a rules analyst, called Walt Anderson in the league office, triggering a review approximately 100 seconds after the play.
- The Result: The call was reversed to a successful catch and conversion, which proved crucial to the Seahawks' game outcome.
- Controversy: This action highlights concerns regarding the influence of television broadcasters and rules analysts on in-game officiating decisions.
In fairness, my "hypothetical scenario" regarding Charbonnet on his back was just to make a separate argument regarding whether or not "the intent" of a player was important to the ruling. So that's a separated side-issue.
The thing that I stubbornly hold on to is that Charbonnet acted in a fundamentally different way than all the other players.
Everyone followed the ball when the ball was still in the air, and Curl almost caught it. But then, as SOON as it touched the ground, 21 of the 22 players stopped playing. ONLY ONE player kept his head in the game.
I've taken the trouble of watching the replay several times (not fun, but just out of my own stubbornness regarding this damn thread!
Every player (Except one) stopped going for the ball BEFORE the whistle blew. Speights and Turner slowed down and backed of BEFORE the whistle blew. Curl was on the ground and didn't have a chance. Landman was being blocked but showed zero movement toward the ball. On the Seahawks, Kupp didn't show interest, and the TE was down. There was only ONE player, and one player only, who followed the ball for the two second interval after the ball hit the ground and BEFORE the whistle blew. There was one player who thought, "maybe there's a tiny chance this play is still live for some strange reason."
BECAUSE Charbonnet was tracking the ball while it was rolling on the ground, he was the only guy in position to pick it up when the whistle blew. (Landman was being blocked, Curl was on the ground, and Speights and Turner were already slowing down and giving up on the play). So perhaps understandably, Charbonnet continued with his "nonchalant" attitude because he could sense that there were no other players nearby making an attempt at possession.
Which is my long-winded way of saying: EVEN IF THE REFS SWALLOWED THE WHISTLE AND LET THE PLAY CARRY ON, CHARBONNET WAS THE ONLY PLAYER WHO HAD A CHANCE TO GET THE BALL. Charbonnet was the only player following the ball the entire time it was rolling on the ground.
It's bullshit to argue that "if the whistle hadn't blown, the Rams would have had a chance at possession." That's BS-- only Charbonnet would have gotten it because he was the only one tracking the ball while it was on the ground. If you watch the replay closely, you can see that that is true.
The whistle blew (and it was one lone whistle) between the second or third "bounce" of the ball.
Look, I feel like I understand the counter-argument. I'm a Rams fan and I hate the outcome.
Granted it was only like 4 seconds maximum that the ball was rolling on the ground. And the whistle sounded in the middle of the roll. But in those first two seconds of the ball rolling on the ground BEFORE the whistle blew, Charbonnet was the only player still following the play.
If Charbonnet had completely waited to get the ball until AFTER the whistle blew, I might think differently. But he didn't.
Here's two replays, if anyone has the stomach to watch. (Puke!)
Charbonnet was following the play the entire time. Nonchalant, yes, but I'd argue that's in part because no one else was paying attention. He's #26, the intended reciever, and you can see he reacted differently from every other player on the field. Especially for the crucial 2 seconds AFTER the ball hit the ground, and BEFORE the whistle blew.
View: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DSb35ykDy-0/
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcIcHOrmP3s
I understand your interpretation, and you're likely right that Charbonnet gets there first no matter what. That said, I disagree that Turner gave up BEFORE the whistle. Turner does not stop moving towards the ball until the whistle blows. At that point, he stops and walks the other direction. Was Turner moving quickly enough to beat Charbonnet to it with the guy lying in front of him? I don't think so. But he was certainly moving in the direction of the ball until the whistle. The fact that the whistle convinced our guys to stop playing and Charbonnet was not scrambling to recover the ball is dispositive for me. But again, I understand where you're coming from.