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

PatsDeb said:

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.

Click to expand...

........a good chunk of that time was assisted by the same officials who ran their skirts off down the field to make sure your qb could hike the ball with buffalo offsides no? 25 seconds worth of clock blown plus how many huddles to decide calls.

the officiating was FUBAR

Billsfanonapatsforum said:

........a good chunk of that time was assisted by the same officials who ran their skirts off down the field to make sure your qb could hike the ball with buffalo offsides no? 25 seconds worth of clock blown plus how many huddles to decide calls.

the officiating was FUBAR

Click to expand...

Ah, no, this was when the Bills got the ball back and then ran out the clock. The Pats punted right after the 2 minute warning. The officiating was bad all around for sure, but during that two minutes you also got a stop to measure on a 2nd & 1, when I don't think the Pats complained about the spot. They wanted the clock to keep running and that stop helped the Bills (or should have).

QuantumMechanic said:

FootballZebras begs to differ:

Steratore crew defeated in Monday night game | Football Zebras

Click to expand...

My god is that the refs name? I kept looking for Skeletor plotting against He-Man on the field every time I heard his name.

XLIX said:

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

Click to expand...

The rule does not use the phrase "surrendering". Therefore, analysis (including in some of your previous posts on this point") based on whether a player "surrenders" is irrelevant to the question of the interpretation of the rule in this case.

Billsfanonapatsforum said:

........a good chunk of that time was assisted by the same officials who ran their skirts off down the field to make sure your qb could hike the ball with buffalo offsides no? 25 seconds worth of clock blown plus how many huddles to decide calls.

the officiating was FUBAR

Click to expand...

yep...just re-checked to make sure...wide right

TheBostonStraggler said:

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.

Click to expand...

Given that we've often seen players catch the ball on an out and go straight out of bounds without making an attempt to go forward, your position cannot be correct.

The officials screwed up.

Deus Irae said:

Given that we've often seen players catch the ball on an out and go straight out of bounds without making an attempt to go forward, your position cannot be correct.

The officials screwed up.

Click to expand...

That's not the same thing. The section of the rule here does not apply to your example.
The Bill player is fine if he stays on his feet and goes out of bounds going backward. He is fine if he lunges backward and lands on the ground out of bounds. He can do either voluntary action and it will cause the clock to stop.
But the Bill's player failed in his attempt and instead initially landed in bounds. At that point according to the rule posted here you now need to make an attempt to advance the ball else the ball is dead where you first landed (the bill player moved about a 1/4 to a 1/2 yard backward to make that next move).
This has nothing to do with forward progress or being pushed, tackled, diving for a catch.

I've seen comments by 3 former refs (not associated with ESPN ) that said the clock should have stopped. I'm satisfied their explanations are correct based on their explanation of his secondary movement after hitting in bounds being. They said that is an attempt to advance the ball. I assumed, incorrectly, advancing the ball is limited to trying to move the ball forward.

Fyi, I'm ok with him moving backward from the ground but still stop the clock. But the rule with its 'attempt to advance the ball' (with advance = move it forward) was compelling.

TheBostonStraggler said:

I'm satisfied their explanations are correct based on their explanation of his secondary movement after hitting in bounds being. They said that is an attempt to advance the ball.

Click to expand...

That is an attempt to move the ball, not to advance the ball.

To advance means to move forward, in ordinary usage. Just look at any dictionary, "advance", first definition "move forward".

These rules are straightforward and intended to be read by ordinary people. There is no secret society privy to unwritten meanings of words. Having secret meanings of words that are different from their actual meanings would defeat the whole purpose of having a rulebook.

"Advance" means "move forward". It does not mean "move sideways". Had the NFL wanted to redefine "advance" to mean "move" they would either have just written "move" instead of "advance" or they would have included a redefinition of "advance" in the rulebook.

Why do you think the NFL has a rulebook? I think it is to inform players, coaches, and refs of the rules of the game. If the words in that rulebook had unknown, unwritten meanings that were different from their usual meanings, and if nobody could know those meanings unless they were a "former ref", then the rulebook would not serve its function of informing players and coaches of its meaning.

Ken Canin said:

That is an attempt to move the ball, not to advance the ball.

To advance means to move forward, in ordinary usage. Just look at any dictionary, "advance", first definition "move forward".

These rules are straightforward and intended to be read by ordinary people. There is no secret society privy to unwritten meanings of words. Having secret meanings of words that are different from their actual meanings would defeat the whole purpose of having a rulebook.

"Advance" means "move forward". It does not mean "move sideways". Had the NFL wanted to redefine "advance" to mean "move" they would either have just written "move" instead of "advance" or they would have included a redefinition of "advance" in the rulebook.

Why do you think the NFL has a rulebook? I think it is to inform players, coaches, and refs of the rules of the game. If the words in that rulebook had unknown, unwritten meanings that were different from their usual meanings, and if nobody could know those meanings unless they were a "former ref", then the rulebook would not serve its function of informing players and coaches of its meaning.

Click to expand...

Do a search and see the former refs comments. They said that is what they would consider an attempt to advance. Conversely I haven't seen one, except the ones from the crew that ref'd the actual game, say he had to move the ball forward (maybe they are out there but I haven't seen it).

It seems reasonable to me that if former refs from several different corners say that is an attempt to advance then that is what has been considered an attempt to advance. However, if that is not the case and you have some counter explanation from people in the know?? I am listening.

TheBostonStraggler said:

It seems reasonable to me that if former refs from several different corners say that is an attempt to advance then that is what has been considered an attempt to advance. However, if that is not the case and you have some counter explanation from people in the know?? I am listening.

Click to expand...

If you are going to argue from authority, then go with the explanation of the actual officiating team. They have more up-to-date versions of the rules and more people checking their analysis than a lone blogger. So, if you argue from authority, the official referees' explanation has greater authority than an ex-ref's authority.

If you want to argue logically, from the rule book, then the only question is whether "advance" means the same thing in the rule book as it does in the dictionary. Neither you nor these unnamed uncited bloggers have stated why they believe the rulebook's definition of "advance" should be different from the dictionary's.

So, your argument fails under either the "argument from authority" rationale or the "analysis from the rulebook" rationale.

Philosophically, it's a terrible precedent to start saying the rulebook means the exact opposite of what it says, based on no evidence.

TheBostonStraggler said:

That's not the same thing.

Click to expand...

It is the same thing. You people keep looking at the wrong part of the rules. What happened here was an official who's still relatively new to the NFL, and who came from the college ranks, made a call based upon college rules, and the rest of the crew didn't catch the mistake in time.

DaBruinz said:

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

Click to expand...

I wouldn't let him work on my lawnmower.

... And the NFL has now admitted what many of us have been saying...

The Watkins play should have resulted in a clock stoppage:

“He is down in bounds, but he’s not contacted,” Blandino said as he showed video of the play. “He’s attempting to get out of bounds, you want to give that player the opportunity to get out of bounds, and really, that’s what should have happened.”

Click to expand...

NFL admits Sammy Watkins got out of bounds with two seconds left

Deus Irae said:

... And the NFL has now admitted what many of us have been saying...

The Watkins play should have resulted in a clock stoppage:



NFL admits Sammy Watkins got out of bounds with two seconds left

Click to expand...

I had absolutely no doubt that that was coming. Hey, I warned people about how foolish they would look, but they just wouldn't listen....

But... but.... but....... wait! The 5 or so people in here who quoted the "attempt to advance the ball" rule know so much more than Mike Pereira! And Jim Daopoulos! And every single national commentator in the country! And the former VP of NFL Officiating! And the current VP of NFL Officiating!

Ken Canin said:

If you are going to argue from authority, then go with the explanation of the actual officiating team. They have more up-to-date versions of the rules and more people checking their analysis than a lone blogger. So, if you argue from authority, the official referees' explanation has greater authority than an ex-ref's authority.

Click to expand...

And the league office trumps them all. So, by your own logic, the wrong call was made.

Deus Irae said:

... And the NFL has now admitted what many of us have been saying...

The Watkins play should have resulted in a clock stoppage:



NFL admits Sammy Watkins got out of bounds with two seconds left

Click to expand...

Yeah, this statement was pretty much inevitable. The ref blew that call. Any objective observer knew it from pretty much the moment it was made. We've all seen guys get out of bounds without being contacted while making no effort to advance. Hundreds of times even, every year, and it's always resulted in a clock stoppage. This is basic NFL-101 stuff. To argue otherwise, you have to either reinvent 'giving yourself up' so that everyone who's ever gone to the ground making a catch is inherently doing so (absurd), and/or you have to reinvent attempting to advance so that everyone who ever ran directly to the sideline without any forward trajectory was downing themselves in bounds (also absurd).

None of it adds up at all, and frankly I think it's incredibly stupid that this even became a debate in the first place. I have no idea how this became a contested topic on this forum, when the rulebook itself, common sense, all NFL precedent, and every official who's commented on the subject all agree that the clock should have stopped. This is one of those times where I'd really like a chance to check out some alternate reality where the Pats lost a one-score game in which the clock ran under the exact same circumstances. There would be nobody here arguing that it was the right call.

The refs blew the call. The Patriots benefitted from it. This isn't a hill worth dying on. We don't have to defend the call, especially since the one that went against the Pats earlier was even more egregious and had a greater impact on the game. On the net, we still got screwed even with this particular screwup working to our advantage.

Ken Canin said:

That is an attempt to move the ball, not to advance the ball.

To advance means to move forward, in ordinary usage. Just look at any dictionary, "advance", first definition "move forward".

These rules are straightforward and intended to be read by ordinary people. There is no secret society privy to unwritten meanings of words. Having secret meanings of words that are different from their actual meanings would defeat the whole purpose of having a rulebook.

"Advance" means "move forward". It does not mean "move sideways". Had the NFL wanted to redefine "advance" to mean "move" they would either have just written "move" instead of "advance" or they would have included a redefinition of "advance" in the rulebook.

Why do you think the NFL has a rulebook? I think it is to inform players, coaches, and refs of the rules of the game. If the words in that rulebook had unknown, unwritten meanings that were different from their usual meanings, and if nobody could know those meanings unless they were a "former ref", then the rulebook would not serve its function of informing players and coaches of its meaning.

Click to expand...

So when a receiver catches the ball and runs directly out of bounds, you think the clock is supposed to run since he didn't move forward? If that's the case, refs have been blowing that call 99.99% of the time for the past couple decades at least.

XLIX said:

And the league office trumps them all. So, by your own logic, the wrong call was made.

Click to expand...

In the context of the discussion about argument from authority, which had been relied upon by a prior poster, yes. And as I mentioned above, this argument a terrible precedent: the league officials are arguing that a written rule can be interpreted by them to mean the exact opposite of its written text (i.e., "advance" now means "move backwards").

This mode of interpretation - ignoring the written text of the rule - is good for the refs and the league office but bad for the players. It's good for the refs and league office because it gives them complete power to make up rule interpretations however they want. They are not constrained by a book. It's bad for the players and for the game because now nobody can know what a rule actually means.

BradyFTW! said:

So when a receiver catches the ball and runs directly out of bounds, you think the clock is supposed to run since he didn't move forward? If that's the case, refs have been blowing that call 99.99% of the time for the past couple decades at least.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't follow your logic. How would interpreting the word "advance" to mean "move forward" lead to the result you indicate? Please quote the rule you are relying on.

BradyFTW! said:

So when a receiver catches the ball and runs directly out of bounds, you think the clock is supposed to run since he didn't move forward? If that's the case, refs have been blowing that call 99.99% of the time for the past couple decades at least.

Click to expand...

Yup. And any time a player retreats to avoid a tackle the whistle should blow immediately since the player is no longer trying to advance the ball.

It is patently obvious what Watkins was trying to do and how it relates to the rule in question, there is no need for an etymology lesson.