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

there is no need for an etymology lesson.

sure there is...the name Wrecks Cryan is derived from the ancient pre-Latin root RECTUMUS SCUMBAGGIUS INFERIORE...

Did the Biffs coaching staff bring this up just after seeing the replay? looked like they just walked off the field without any questions. Coaches are always up in arms when they think the refs got something wrong, not in this case, maybe I missed something....

robbomango said:

Did the Biffs coaching staff bring this up just after seeing the replay? looked like they just walked off the field without any questions. Coaches are always up in arms when they think the refs got something wrong, not in this case, maybe I missed something....

Click to expand...

They were definitely not happy about it.

Ken Canin said:

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. They've just thrown out the rule book here.

Click to expand...

You're incorrect. Quit digging.

Ken Canin said:

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.

Click to expand...

They are not ignoring any rule, and everybody in the country knows what it means save an ever-shrinking minority in this forum.

That rule specifically states the conditions by which a player must go trough to declare himself down. However, Watkins was not declaring himself down. You're allowed to fall down in the NFL and you're allowed to dive for the sidelines without it being considered declaring yourself down.

That rule simply does not apply in a situation where a player is falling backwards catching a ball and desperate to stop the clock by going to the sidelines.

We've spent 2,000 hours talking about 2 seconds.

Ken Canin said:

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).

Click to expand...

You're correct that's how the rule reads.

Taking it one step at a time.

"An official shall declare the ball dead ... when a runner declares himself down by: ..."

So a runner would declare himself down by meeting the following conditions.

1. "falling to the ground"

He did that

2. "and clearly making no immediate effort to advance"

And he did that assuming advance means forward which it does by definition. Both conditions are met. Any attempt to further claim he is trying to advance amounts to asking the ref to read the mind of the player. If it was say a bad snap where the QB jumped on the ball then the play would be called dead because we know the QB is not trying to advance. But we only know in either case their intent by reading their mind. In theory, rules that require a ref to know the players intent are bad rules, because you can't know it for sure, so refs are supposed to judge actions not intent. The actions are outlined above and both are met. That's why even accidental hits to the head are penalties, the ref isn't supposed to call intent, just actions.

So we know the refs should interpret the rule sans intent. The only relevant question left is whether "advance" can only mean forward. The dictionary says yes. However that is not what the rule makers intended it to mean, that is not how it's ever been called, and that's not how players and refs understand the rule. The rule book is just a contract between the players and officials on how the game should be played. In effect, saying the dictionary definition must apply is changing that contract in a way neither party agreed, or understood it to mean. You could probably parse words in any rule or contract and say you think it means something nobody really thought it meant. And technically you would be right because words and phrases can mean multiple things.

Whether it's the CBA, or a rulebook, or a law the only way to correctly interpret anything is to look at at from that perspective. Looking at the CBA the words did actually say that Goodell can suspend people for integrity of the game. Of course by looking at how that was understood when it was written it's clear that didn't apply to other things that had separate punishments spelled out. And "law of the shop" is just saying that's not in practice how that clause has been used or understood ever. So we only get to the meaning of that not through a dictionary definition, but through looking at how it was used and understood.

Now I've seen some other people switch gears from interpreting definitions to interpreting common use and intent whenever it suits them but IMO you must always look at the intent and use of a rule (or CBA, or law) to correctly understand it. So in this case I think the clock should have stopped even though I agree words shouldn't be able to be defined however one wants. But I think they're really just defining it how it's used and was intended to be used. And there's a good deal of evidence showing that is indeed how "advance" has historically been used in the NFL.

Bobsyouruncle said:

You're correct that's how the rule reads.

The only relevant question left is whether "advance" can only mean forward. The dictionary says yes. However that is not what the rule makers intended it to mean, that is not how it's ever been called, and that's not how players and refs understand the rule....And there's a good deal of evidence showing that is indeed how "advance" has historically been used in the NFL.

Click to expand...

I agree with your analysis if, in fact, your claim is correct that the word "advance" has historically been used in the NFL to include backwards or sideways motion. Can you adduce any specific evidence to support your claim? Has Rule 7, section 2, article 1(d)(1) been interpreted to allow a live ball after a runner has voluntarily fallen to the ground and clearly made no effort to immediately forward advance?

(By the way, "in advance of" is defined in the usual way, Rule 3, section 13, article 2: "a point nearer the goal line of the defense").

Bobsyouruncle said:

Any attempt to further claim he is trying to advance amounts to asking the ref to read the mind of the player.

Click to expand...

Yeahhhhh.... no.

Does it take mind reading to know what Watkins was trying to accomplish by rolling out of bounds? Can you point to a single instance where a player gave himself up in the field of play and there was any dispute about what his intentions were?

You guys are writing a lot of words.

aluminum seats said:

You guys are writing a lot of words.

Click to expand...

It's like some attorney trying to argue, "Yes, Your Honor, the sign does say, 'no urinating on the fence' but my client wasn't urinating on the fencing, he was urinating on the post!"

The intentions of the rule are patently obvious. The intentions of the player are patently obvious. The relation between the rule and the players intentions is patently obvious. Do we really need every rule to explicitly state every single possible variation?

Ken Canin said:

I agree with your analysis if, in fact, your claim is correct that the word "advance" has historically been used in the NFL to include backwards or sideways motion. Can you adduce any specific evidence to support your claim? Has Rule 7, section 2, article 1(d)(1) been interpreted to allow a live ball after a runner has voluntarily fallen to the ground and clearly made no effort to immediately forward advance?

(By the way, "in advance of" is defined in the usual way, Rule 3, section 13, article 2: "a point nearer the goal line of the defense").

Click to expand...

Fumble recoveries and muffed punts are one example where the player dives down then sometimes gets up and moves sideways or backwards first.

I think I saw one last week where the QB tripped also, then jumped back up and went backward to complete the drop.

Oswlek said:

Yeahhhhh.... no.

Does it take mind reading to know what Watkins was trying to accomplish by rolling out of bounds? Can you point to a single instance where a player gave himself up in the field of play and there was any dispute about what his intentions were?

Click to expand...

No, but that's because it's rare, and when it does happen the intentions are typically obvious as well- like MJD falling in the field of play before the end zone to continue running the clock. However, the fact that we can judge intentions easily doesn't mean the rule requires it, or that it's even necessary.

Let's say the play was one like the MJD play where he wanted to stop the clock. If we use intentions the same play becomes giving himself up and the clock should run because we know the intent. Two identical plays having separate calls based on intent is generally avoided in the rules.

But there's no reason to go down that rabbit hole. Based off how advance has been used moving sideways is advancing, so in either case the clock should stop regardless of the players intent. IMO

Bobsyouruncle said:

But there's no reason to go down that rabbit hole.

Click to expand...

The point is that there is no rabbit hole. The intent is clear on all parties and it is patently obvious that Watkins' actions aren't according to that rule.

Bobsyouruncle said:

Fumble recoveries and muffed punts are one example where the player dives down then sometimes gets up and moves sideways or backwards first.

I think I saw one last week where the QB tripped also, then jumped back up and went backward to complete the drop.

Click to expand...

In the case of the fumble recovery, for example, the runner is in fact intending to advance forward after recovering the fumble. Similarly for the punt return example. These are instances where the runner is attempting to move the ball forward, that is, attempting to advance. The QB example is presumably similar, although Rule 7(2)(1)(d)(1) seems to connote voluntarily falling rather than involuntarily, but that is not germane to this issue.

Thus, Rule 7(2)(1)(d)(1) would not cause these to be ruled a dead ball even under the standard meaning of "advance" because in these examples the runner is intending to advance. As such, these examples do not support your claim that historically the term "advance" in the NFL Rules has included advancing sideways or backwards.

I suppose you could argue that in those instances the runner is not making an "immediate effort to advance", but that would not be correct: the effort is immediate, even if the advance itself does not come until later.

Do you have any instance where a player (a) WHO DOES NOT INTEND TO ADVANCE FORWARD and who (b) VOLUNTARILY FALLS WITHOUT CONTACT is ruled not to have declared a dead ball under Rule 7(2)(1)(d)(1)?

Ken Canin said:

In the case of the fumble recovery, for example, the runner is in fact intending to advance forward after recovering the fumble. Similarly for the punt return example. These are instances where the runner is attempting to move the ball forward, that is, attempting to advance. The QB example is presumably similar, although Rule 7(2)(1)(d)(1) seems to connote voluntarily falling rather than involuntarily, but that is not germane to this issue.

Thus, Rule 7(2)(1)(d)(1) would not cause these to be ruled a dead ball even under the standard meaning of "advance" because in these examples the runner is intending to advance. As such, these examples do not support your claim that historically the term "advance" in the NFL Rules has included advancing sideways or backwards.

I suppose you could argue that in those instances the runner is not making an "immediate effort to advance", but that would not be correct: the effort is immediate, even if the advance itself does not come until later.

Do you have any instance where a player (a) WHO DOES NOT INTEND TO ADVANCE FORWARD and who (b) VOLUNTARILY FALLS WITHOUT CONTACT is ruled not to have declared a dead ball under Rule 7(2)(1)(d)(1)?

Click to expand...

The rule doesn't include the runners intentions, it's irrelevant. Not that that helps your case.

Bobsyouruncle said:

The rule doesn't include the runners intentions, it's irrelevant. Not that that helps your case.

Click to expand...

Rule 7(2)(1)(d)(1) requires that a fallen runner not make an immediate effort to advance for the ball to be dead. If the runner is not intending to advance, then he is not making an effort to advance, and vice versa, by definition. However, if it is clearer, you can disregard the references to intent in my previous post.

Thus, in the examples you gave to support your claim that Rule 7(2)(1)(d)(1) has historically been interpreted to mean that "advance" can mean "advance backwards", the runner is in fact making an effort to advance forward. Therefore, these examples do not support the claim that "advance" can mean "advance backward".

I can't believe I'm even writing "advance backward." You cannot advance backward, nor retreat forward, nor rise lower, nor descend higher, except in very bizarre, artificial situations that don't apply. I'm not even sure "advance backward" is grammatical, but if it is, neither you nor anyone else has put forth any evidence that this is what the rules intend by the word.

Ken Canin said:

Rule 7(2)(1)(d)(1) requires that a fallen runner not make an immediate effort to advance for the ball to be dead. If the runner is not intending to advance, then he is not making an effort to advance, and vice versa, by definition. However, if it is clearer, you can disregard the references to intent in my previous post.

Thus, in the examples you gave to support your claim that Rule 7(2)(1)(d)(1) has historically been interpreted to mean that "advance" can mean "advance backwards", the runner is in fact making an effort to advance forward. Therefore, these examples do not support the claim that "advance" can mean "advance backward".

I can't believe I'm even writing "advance backward." You cannot advance backward, nor retreat forward, nor rise lower, nor descend higher, except in very bizarre, artificial situations that don't apply. I'm not even sure "advance backward" is grammatical, but if it is, neither you nor anyone else has put forth any evidence that this is what the rules intend by the word.

Click to expand...

If you think "advance backward" is nonsense then don't claim the examples I gave of someone going backward are actually an attempt to advance. You can't have it both ways. I'm using the rule you posted. It didn't say to judge the runners intent. I gave several specific conditions where those two conditions were met yet the call has never been made that the runner was giving up.

Bobsyouruncle said:

If you think "advance backward" is nonsense then don't claim the examples I gave of someone going backward are actually an attempt to advance. You can't have it both ways. I'm using the rule you posted. It didn't say to judge the runners intent. I gave several specific conditions where those two conditions were met yet the call has never been made that the runner was giving up.

Click to expand...

A runner who has fallen and then moves backward while trying to recover a fumble and gain yards is attempting to advance forward, even if he is going backward at the time. He is attempting to avoid being tackled and advance forward later. That is the sense in which a runner moving backward is attempting to advance: his backward motion is a prerequisite to his attempt to advance foward.

By contrast, in the play at issue, the runner is not attempting to advance the football forward, he is only attempting to go out of bounds.

Of course, by the same token one could argue that even Watkins is attempting to take the ball "forward" insofar as he is attempting for his team to advance it on the next play, but that seems to take the reasoning too far.

On another note, if anyone has the full Blandino interview transcript where he argues the clock should have been stopped, I would be interested. I only read excerpts, e.g. at NFL admits officials mishandled final two seconds of Bills-Patriots - CBSSports.com , but those excerpts to my eye do not seem coherent.

Blandino says in the excerpt: "A player can certainly give himself up - a runner going to the ground and making no attempt to advance - but you certainly want to give that player the opportunity to get out of bounds, especially inside of two minutes."

It sounds like Blandino (based, again, on this excerpt) is arguing that a different rule should apply inside the two minute warning, which can't be right. Perhaps there is more analysis.

Even if Blandino's analysis is correct, it would be desirable to get some specific, coherent explanation of exactly why it is correct, which surely even those who agree with Blandino would also agree that the excerpt quoted does not provide.