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

[jrry32]

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 get that the thread is about McAulay, and it feels inappropriate that he can call and get them to initiate a review after all that time has passed, but if I'm being frank, I think the goal should be getting the call right. So if he's right and it results in the call being the right one, I'm not going to make a stink. My issue here is that I believe the call was the wrong one, and if the call is right according to the rules they need to change the rule.

 

[XXXIVwin]

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.

Agreed, that's a separate whole layer to this thing that's definitely controversial.

Most NFL observers (who aren't Rams fans) think the NFL ultimately made the correct ruling.

The fact that McAulay CALLED them to alert them to their mistake is unusual to say the least.

Here's an interesting segment about it.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CRhfhQG6Ykg

 

[XXXIVwin]

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.

I know we're getting all "Crime scene CSI" with our level of microscopic details here, but if you can stomach it, you could try watch a frame by frame analysis of Turner's movements AFTER the ball hits the ground.

Yes, initially Turner starts following the ball. I'll concede that valid point.

But Turner starts slowing down a split-second before the whistle blows. He looks away BEFORE the whistle blows. Feel free to re-watch on slo-mo and see what you think. The photo I posted above is a split-second BEFORE the whistle.

He comes to a complete stop just about simultaneously with the whistle.

So my admittedly subjective interpretation of what Turner was thinking was, "oh that might be a loose ball, better check it out, aw shit that ball is dead" and THEN the whistle blows. When I look at the video, it sure looks to me that Turner starts giving up on the play a split-second BEFORE the whistle blew. And yes, I'd concede that the whistle "confirmed his assumption."

Don't make me post a super slo-mo clip of Turner because you know I'm stubborn enough to do it.

And thanks for being respectful in this debate. I gotta admit as a Rams fan it's painful to think Charbonnet deserves the benefit of the call.

I haven't yet found a really good clip that includes audio of the whistle, but here's a mediocre quality one. Gotta turn up the volume so the timing of the whistle can be heard.


View: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DSb35ykDy-0/

 

[majrleaged]

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.

I don't agree. Charbonnet proximity to the ball doesn't make the turning over the call on the field correct. There was no scramble, no urgency. If he was on the other side of the field he wouldn't gone all the way over to pick it up. The refs would have picked it up because EVERYONE THOUGHT THE PLAY WAS OVER. The rule used to give them 2 points was when there is a scrum for a loose ball. When players believe there was a fumble. Not one of the players or the officials thought there was a loose ball. Not one. Not even Charbonnet. You can see it by his body language. So your argument, doesn't work. On top of that, there was not inconclusive evidence that the pass was backwards. So there shouldn't even be a discussion about this part of the play.


You say all you want is for the call to be right, but the act of review is based on outside intervention. The changing of the call on the field is questionable. The rule used to give them a score was misused.

I can't even imagine how you think they got it right, but hey, it's only my opinion. Lets hope the Rams are better next year and get the calls Go Rams.

 

[jrry32]

I know we're getting all "Crime scene CSI" with our level of microscopic details here, but if you can stomach it, you could try watch a frame by frame analysis of Turner's movements AFTER the ball hits the ground.

Yes, initially Turner starts following the ball. I'll concede that valid point.

But Turner starts slowing down a split-second before the whistle blows. He looks away BEFORE the whistle blows. Feel free to re-watch on slo-mo and see what you think. The photo I posted above is a split-second BEFORE the whistle.

He comes to a complete stop just about simultaneously with the whistle.

So my admittedly subjective interpretation of what Turner was thinking was, "oh that might be a loose ball, better check it out, aw shit that ball is dead" and THEN the whistle blows. When I look at the video, it sure looks to me that Turner starts giving up on the play a split-second BEFORE the whistle blew. And yes, I'd concede that the whistle "confirmed his assumption."

Don't make me post a super slo-mo clip of Turner because you know I'm stubborn enough to do it.

And thanks for being respectful in this debate. I gotta admit as a Rams fan it's painful to think Charbonnet deserves the benefit of the call.

I haven't yet found a really good clip that includes audio of the whistle, but here's a mediocre quality one. Gotta turn up the volume so the timing of the whistle can be heard.


View: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DSb35ykDy-0/

I understand. I did watch frame by frame to try and confirm it. I perceive it differently. Kobie's head turns when the whistle sounds. That's when he stops. The best video I've been able to find is the NFL's video on Youtube:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C4lCi_dC6g


The whistle begins around the 0:06 mark. Kobie's head turns immediately. I assume it's the whistle that causes him to stop and look away.

 

[SWAdude]

All this talk and it is objectively obvious.

At the very most a ref blew a whistle and the play was dead and the league wanted to cover for that egregious mistake other than admitting fault.

No matter how any rule is interpreted to favor play to continue, there is no sport that a play is allowed to continue after an official has stopped play.

The entire field stopped playing including the refs.

My head is not in the sand.

 

[XXXIVwin]

I understand. I did watch frame by frame to try and confirm it. I perceive it differently. Kobie's head turns when the whistle sounds. That's when he stops. The best video I've been able to find is the NFL's video on Youtube:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C4lCi_dC6g


The whistle begins around the 0:06 mark. Kobie's head turns immediately. I assume it's the whistle that causes him to stop and look away.

I'll acknowledge we're splitting hairs here. And it's really, really, close.

I'll stand by my assertion that Kobe was SLOWING DOWN as soon as he saw the ball hit the ground.

When I see the slo-mo, I see him accelerating when the ball is in the air, then hesitating for a step when he can't see the ball, then slowing down when he sees the ball is on the ground. He's clearly leaning backward as his body is slowing down.

We all know a big guy like Kobe can't stop on a dime. Not surprisingly, he takes 4 steps before coming to a complete stop. To my eye, he comes to a complete stop almost simultaneously to the whistle. But I maintain that he was slowing down for 3 or 4 steps prior to the whistle.

So yeah, I guess we can split hairs about which tenth of a second he arrived at a complete "stop". You might be right about the head turn aspect, I dunno. But it sure looks to me like he was slowing down BEFORE the whistle.

But hey, it's so close that I can see how people might view it differently.

 

[Merlin]

Rams need to teach their DBs this year in camp to fucking lay out opposing players after the whistle blows.

 

[XXXIVwin]

I don't agree. Charbonnet proximity to the ball doesn't make the turning over the call on the field correct. There was no scramble, no urgency. If he was on the other side of the field he wouldn't gone all the way over to pick it up. The refs would have picked it up because EVERYONE THOUGHT THE PLAY WAS OVER. The rule used to give them 2 points was when there is a scrum for a loose ball. When players believe there was a fumble. Not one of the players or the officials thought there was a loose ball. Not one. Not even Charbonnet. You can see it by his body language. So your argument, doesn't work. On top of that, there was not inconclusive evidence that the pass was backwards. So there shouldn't even be a discussion about this part of the play.


You say all you want is for the call to be right, but the act of review is based on outside intervention. The changing of the call on the field is questionable. The rule used to give them a score was misused.

I can't even imagine how you think they got it right, but hey, it's only my opinion. Lets hope the Rams are better next year and get the calls Go Rams.

Believe me, as a Ram fan I'd prefer to think they got it wrong. I'm just trying to be true to a sense of integrity.

We've already re-hashed a bunch of these specific points on this thread... each individual point is awfully damn close.

As far as whether or not the pass was a lateral, THAT part was pretty darn conclusive. The replay was conclusive on that, it definitely was NOT a forward pass.

Bottom line, I sure as hell wish the Rams won that game!

 

[XXXIVwin]

there is no sport that a play is allowed to continue after an official has stopped play.

....except for the NFL.

People can debate whether or not the rule is shitty and should be changed. There's a whole history of controversial plays that led to the "inadvertent whistle" rule.

For better or worse, the NFL had a rule for the 2025 season that a play could be overturned AFTER an incorrect whistle. So yeah, maybe it's a shitty rule, but that's what was in the rulebook for this game.

I bet they will address this rule in the offseason, because otherwise, as the funny post from @Merlin mentioned, guys aren't gonna respect the whistle anymore.

 

[I like Rams]

Didn't McAuley also say that a penalty against Dedich that cost us getting a td taken away, should have not been a penalty? Why not call them then and correct it? This cherry picking bullshit is just that. Bullshit. What happened should never have happened, it shows bias if anything.

 

[Mojo Ram]

Separation of church and state.

Separation of the NFL and the TV networks.

 

[Snaz]

....except for the NFL.

People can debate whether or not the rule is shitty and should be changed. There's a whole history of controversial plays that led to the "inadvertent whistle" rule.

For better or worse, the NFL had a rule for the 2025 season that a play could be overturned AFTER an incorrect whistle. So yeah, maybe it's a shitty rule, but that's what was in the rulebook for this game.

I bet they will address this rule in the offseason, because otherwise, as the funny post from @Merlin mentioned, guys aren't gonna respect the whistle anymore.

Where did this rule change?

NFL Rulebook

Rule 7. Ball in Play, Dead Ball, Scrimmage
Section 2 - Dead Ball
Article 1. Dead Ball Declared
(o) when an official sounds the whistle erroneously while the ball is still in play, the ball becomes dead immediately.
(2) If the ball is a loose ball resulting from a fumble, backward pass, or illegal forward pass, the team last in possession may elect to put the ball in play at the spot where possession was lost or to replay the down.
___________________________________

From what I saw, the whistle blew, and this rule should apply. How do you see it differently?
The rulebook clearly states the Ball is Dead as soon as the whistle blew.
And if so they replay the down.

So the post whistle pick up by the RB is moot. This is straight out of the rulebook.
Show me where it says they can overturn it after a whistle?

The search for whistle come up 20 times not one addresses your issue.

Also,
Section 4 - Non-Reviewable Plays
The following aspects of plays are not reviewable:
1. Whether an erroneous whistle sounded;

Ball Dead Immediately
Official sounding whistle 7-2-1(o), 7-2-2

So all this did he pick it up or not is moot. The whistle blew, the play was dead,
Instead of awarding two points it should have been a do-over. If in fact it was a backward pass.

 

[SWAdude]

I have read all the rules on this season changing play and there would be so many games and season changing plays this season alone if they reviewed the play and yes, it was a turn over and because the player still ran into the end zone 99 yards after the recovery but the whistle blown so no player tried to tackle the guy but its a touchdown would have been ruled.

But it never happened.

Why is this the only play in question?

 

[Snaz]

I have read all the rules on this season changing play and there would be so many games and season changing plays this season alone if they reviewed the play and yes, it was a turn over and because the player still ran into the end zone 99 yards after the recovery but the whistle blown so no player tried to tackle the guy but its a touchdown would have been ruled.

But it never happened.

Why is this the only play in question?

This one specifically because an employee of the TV crew made a call to NY NFL and they made the change.

 

[Karate61]

I'll just add this tidbit.

All the refs felt the play was over, reinforced by the whitsle being blown.
All the players felt the play was over - they were all heading for the sidelines. Even Charbonnet nonchalantly pics up the ball and has no clue he just scored.
The broadcasters felt the play was over.
All of us fans thought the play was over.

Who cares if "technically" it wasn't over. It wasn't played that way by anybody. Just leave it as called on the field...incomplete!

This replay officiating in this case basically turned something into what it wasn't. Not f'ing fair...to anyone!

 

[XXXIVwin]

Where did this rule change?

NFL Rulebook

Rule 7. Ball in Play, Dead Ball, Scrimmage
Section 2 - Dead Ball
Article 1. Dead Ball Declared
(o) when an official sounds the whistle erroneously while the ball is still in play, the ball becomes dead immediately.
(2) If the ball is a loose ball resulting from a fumble, backward pass, or illegal forward pass, the team last in possession may elect to put the ball in play at the spot where possession was lost or to replay the down.
___________________________________

From what I saw, the whistle blew, and this rule should apply. How do you see it differently?
The rulebook clearly states the Ball is Dead as soon as the whistle blew.
And if so they replay the down.

So the post whistle pick up by the RB is moot. This is straight out of the rulebook.
Show me where it says they can overturn it after a whistle?

The search for whistle come up 20 times not one addresses your issue.

Also,
Section 4 - Non-Reviewable Plays
The following aspects of plays are not reviewable:
1. Whether an erroneous whistle sounded;

Ball Dead Immediately
Official sounding whistle 7-2-1(o), 7-2-2

So all this did he pick it up or not is moot. The whistle blew, the play was dead,
Instead of awarding two points it should have been a do-over. If in fact it was a backward pass.

I'm not sure exactly where it is in the rulebook, but I think it's part of the Replay Review rules. It's referred to as an exception for an "inadvertent whistle."

I'm neither attacking nor defending the rule, I'm just pointing out it exists. Below, here's what chatGPT has to say about it:

The “inadvertent whistle / dead-ball” exception on the Charbonnet 2-point try is basically a replay fairness patch.

Why the exception was created

Before the change, if an official blew the play dead (e.g., ruled “incomplete pass”) and replay later showed it was actually a backward pass / fumble, the defense (or offense) could be robbed of a clear recovery simply because everyone stopped when they heard the whistle.


That exact problem blew up in Chargers–Broncos (Week 2, 2008): Ed Hochuli ruled Jay Cutler’s fumble an incomplete pass and whistled it dead; replay showed it was a fumble, but (at the time) the Chargers still couldn’t be awarded the recovery because the whistle had killed the play. It became notorious enough that the league revisited the rule the following offseason.

So the league built in the concept of awarding a recovery if it happens in “immediate continuing action” after a play was wrongly ruled dead.


What the rule actually says (the key language)


In the replay rules/casebook, when an “incomplete” ruling is changed to a loose ball (fumble/backward pass), the ball can be awarded to the team that clearly recovered it in the immediate continuing action.


And yes, it explicitly contemplates this even in edge contexts like a Try (extra point / 2-point attempt).


That’s why the whistle didn’t automatically kill Seattle’s chance on the Charbonnet play: replay treated the whistle as part of an incorrect dead-ball ruling and then asked, “Was there a clear recovery in immediate continuing action?”

Has it been frequently invoked?

Not frequently in a “fans notice it” way. It’s invoked mainly in a pretty narrow replay scenario:

• on-field ruling makes it dead (often “incomplete”)
• replay changes it to a loose ball
• there’s a clear recovery essentially right away (“immediate continuing action”)

Rules analysts and officiating outlets described the Seahawks/Rams try as a rare example of this kind of replay ruling showing up in such a high-leverage moment.