Running clock on final play was the incorrect call (merged)

patchick said:

There's room for reasonable disagreement on this. You can say he was down because he gave himself up, based on the letter of the law. Or you can say he wasn't down because he was attempting to continue the play, not end it, which is against the intent and spirit of the law.

Click to expand...

If the roles had been reversed, you'd have zero people on this site accepting that there was even the slightest chance that the player was giving himself up.

I think it's funny that people are making a big deal about the 2 seconds on that reception when that reception should never have even occurred.. Why? Because the refs screwed up on the previous Watkins incompletion/completion. I tried to point this out last night.

On the 1st Watkins sideline reception, it was ruled incomplete, stopping the clock. However, they reviewed the play and declared that it was a reception and that Watkins was down by contact. And when you looked at it, both his knee and elbow were down inbounds. By rule, the game clock should have started the same time as the play-clock. Taylor took nearly 15 seconds off the play clock before snapping the ball. That is 15 seconds that should have also come off the game clock. They'd have run out of time..

Deus Irae said:

If the roles had been reversed, you'd have zero people on this site accepting that there was even the slightest chance that the player was giving himself up.

Click to expand...

Of course. I'm sure there's zero disagreement over in Bills land. In related news, Pats fans think Buffalo got away with roughing Brady, and Bills fans think New England got away with roughing Taylor.

EDIT: One rare point of agreement is that the game was officiated so wildly incompetently that neither side is even arguing the refs were biased. Just hapless.

After reading the rule I assumed "advancing the ball" is trying to move it forward and the call on the field was correct. However, an article by some site says "running sideways or backward is still considered trying to advance the football".
This is the key to the whole question. If his backward motion to get out of bounds (after his butt hits the ground in bounds) is considered advancing -- as the article suggests -- then it was the wrong call on the field. If his backward motion isn't considered advancing the ball then it is the right call.

The question of "what is advancing the football" answers the full question...

TheBostonStraggler said:

After reading the rule I assumed "advancing the ball" is trying to move it forward and the call on the field was correct. However, an article by some site says "running sideways or backward is still considered trying to advance the football".
This is the key to the whole question. If his backward motion to get out of bounds (after his butt hits the ground in bounds) is considered advancing -- as the article suggests -- then it was the wrong call on the field. If his backward motion isn't considered advancing the ball then it is the right call.

The question of "what is advancing the football" answers the full question...

Click to expand...

I think you can consider running 1-2 yards backwards on a 15 yd pass as a net 'advancing of the football' for the play.

So, what was the intent of the rule: 'for the play' or just for the 'last moments of the runner/receiver's possession'

The relevant rule is Rule 7, Section 2, Article 1(d)(1): "An official shall declare the ball dead ... when a runner declares himself down by: ... falling to the ground, or kneeling, and clearly making no immediate effort to advance".

This is the version on the NFL Rules site, 2015 NFL Rulebook | NFL Football Operations . An incorrect version of this rule, with incorrect wording and incorrect numbering, was quoted by another poster in another thread: Bills Post Game Thread | Page 4 | New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard .

Actually quoting the thread makes the issue clear. If the runner went down voluntarily and then clearly made no immediate effort to advance, then the ball is dead and the call is correct.

I do not understand how hundreds of media outlets and multiple posts here can opine about an issue without first of all quoting the correct rule. It's fine to have an opinion, but first, check the rule. Even the officials, in their rambling explanation, did not quote the rule (I agree with the officials' ruling, but not their explanation to the media, which should have quoted or cited the rule).

patchick said:

Of course. I'm sure there's zero disagreement over in Bills land. In related news, Pats fans think Buffalo got away with roughing Brady, and Bills fans think New England got away with roughing Taylor.

EDIT: One rare point of agreement is that the game was officiated so wildly incompetently that neither side is even arguing the refs were biased. Just hapless.

Click to expand...

Everyone knows the drill there. You try to get out of bounds. Watkins clearly made moves in the direction of the sideline.

And Bills fans are, indeed, complaining that the refs were biased.

DaBruinz said:

I think it's funny that people are making a big deal about the 2 seconds on that reception when that reception should never have even occurred.. Why? Because the refs screwed up on the previous Watkins incompletion/completion. I tried to point this out last night.

On the 1st Watkins sideline reception, it was ruled incomplete, stopping the clock. However, they reviewed the play and declared that it was a reception and that Watkins was down by contact. And when you looked at it, both his knee and elbow were down inbounds. By rule, the game clock should have started the same time as the play-clock. Taylor took nearly 15 seconds off the play clock before snapping the ball. That is 15 seconds that should have also come off the game clock. They'd have run out of time..

Click to expand...

The Watkins review was ruled correctly. It's was 4th and 6 ruled incomplete clock stopped. Upon review it was ruled a completed pass and he was never touched by any Pata player and was out of bounds thus clocked was stopped. So it was ruled correctly.

Patsrock said:

The Watkins review was ruled correctly. It's was 4th and 6 ruled incomplete clock stopped. Upon review it was ruled a completed pass and he was never touched by any Pata player and was out of bounds thus clocked was stopped. So it was ruled correctly.

Click to expand...

I didn't say that the review was ruled incorrectly.. I said the Game clock wasn't started properly. And it wasn't.

DaBruinz said:

I didn't say that the review was ruled incorrectly.. I said the Game clock wasn't started properly. And it wasn't.

Click to expand...

It was started properly. Play was out of bounds this clock stayed stopped. Clock was started in the snap. He was never stopped in bounds.

Go to around 4:35 to see the play.

DaBruinz said:

Why am I not surprised that Quantum Mechanic is the one to disagree with you..

Click to expand...

Great, now I'm going to have to write some funny quip to get my positive rating back up.

Bills should have been glad the time ran out because if it didn't on the next Hail Mary play one of our defenders would have tackled Taylor so hard he would have broken both legs and his collar bone. I'm just glad we still have Brady after the pummeling he took. Any other QB would have folded. Lots of ifs but only the only outcome was we won.

Deus Irae said:

Everyone knows the drill there. You try to get out of bounds. Watkins clearly made moves in the direction of the sideline.

And Bills fans are, indeed, complaining that the refs were biased.

Click to expand...

Making a move to the sidelines is not in and of itself a deciding issue. The issue is whether his backward move to the sideline after first and voluntary falling to the ground in bounds constitutes trying to advance the ball.

I don't think there is any question he has to attempt to advance the ball for the clock to stop because he failed to initially fall to the ground out of bounds.

See link below for Mike Pereira and other former ref's thoughts (all agree clock should have stopped):

Referee Gene Steratore's answer for final play in Bills-Patriots is guff

DaBruinz said:

So, you offer up a page of a guy who has never been an official in his life as justification that they got the call wrong??

Click to expand...

That's still more than you've given.

Oh, we also offered up the former VP of officiating and a 10+ year referee. And you've provided....??

NYCPatsFan said:

See link below for Mike Pereira and other former ref's thoughts (all agree clock should have stopped):

Referee Gene Steratore's answer for final play in Bills-Patriots is guff

Click to expand...

They don't quote the rule. They just express their emotions. If you analyze the rule as written, the call, was correct.

DaBruinz said:

I think it's funny that people are making a big deal about the 2 seconds on that reception when that reception should never have even occurred.. Why? Because the refs screwed up on the previous Watkins incompletion/completion. I tried to point this out last night.

On the 1st Watkins sideline reception, it was ruled incomplete, stopping the clock. However, they reviewed the play and declared that it was a reception and that Watkins was down by contact. And when you looked at it, both his knee and elbow were down inbounds. By rule, the game clock should have started the same time as the play-clock. Taylor took nearly 15 seconds off the play clock before snapping the ball. That is 15 seconds that should have also come off the game clock. They'd have run out of time..

Click to expand...

It also took these same incompetent refs 25? seconds to spot the ball, yet for new england they can spot the ball 40yrds? down the field and be out of the way before a buffalo defender can get back.

seriously this could go on for weeks, the officiating sucked, you guys think it sucked we think it sucked. you overcame the handicap, the bills did not.

Ken Canin said:

They don't quote the rule. They just express their emotions. If you analyze the rule as written, the call, was correct.

Click to expand...

I did analyze the rule as written. There is no way Watkins was surrendering himself.

When all the national rules experts are in 100% agreement, I'll take that authority over a minority of fans in the forum of the team that benefitted from the bad call.

The joke of it is, they got the ball back with 2 minutes to go. No matter what else happened in the game, they had two whole minutes to drive the length of the field and score. Granted, no TOs, but they took the first minute+ to go about 18 yards from the 15 yd. line. Then the dinky dunky did-he-go-out-of bounds crap happened. Total clock mismanagement cost the Bills a chance at a win, not whether they should have had time to launch a Hail Mary.

DaBruinz said:

Why am I not surprised that Quantum Mechanic is the one to disagree with you..

Click to expand...

Agree or not Quantum tries to get it right which I find respectable.