Bills Post Game Thread

[XLIX]

He didn't kneel, so this rule only applies if he declared himself down by falling to the ground. We've all seen that done, and this pretty clearly wasn't it.

The clock should've stopped at :02. The Bills got a tough break there. It's fine for us to acknowledge that, although my sympathy is limited given that the refs took 7 points off the board earlier.

That's the exact comment I made that started this whole disaster area.

As I said before, the Patriots lost a touchdown, but the Bills only lost a chance (a slim chance at that) of a touchdown. So even though that isn't a fair exchange, I'll take it.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

The only one who needs to admit anything is you. You are the one who is wrong. Read the rule..



What part of "making no effort to advance" is beyond your comprehension? Sliding on your butt, sideways, is not making an effort to advance.

The only one looking foolish is you. Plain and simple.

Mike Pereira is WRONG and so are you. Just deal with it and go back to whatever troll hole you came from..

Anyone who comes on this board and says "the ESPN expert says" is immediately suspect in the extreme.

 

[Deus Irae]

That's the exact comment I made that started this whole disaster area.

As I said before, the Patriots lost a touchdown, but the Bills only lost a chance (a slim chance at that) of a touchdown. So even though that isn't a fair exchange, I'll take it.

Yep....

Bottom line is that the officials screwed up a lot in that game, that it was a net negative for N.E., and that the Patriots overcame it.

 

[DaBruinz]

That's the exact comment I made that started this whole disaster area.

As I said before, the Patriots lost a touchdown, but the Bills only lost a chance (a slim chance at that) of a touchdown. So even though that isn't a fair exchange, I'll take it.

Now we can add liar to your list because that's not what you said.. Off to the ignore list with you..

 

[DaBruinz]

He didn't kneel, so this rule only applies if he declared himself down by falling to the ground. We've all seen that done, and this pretty clearly wasn't it.

The clock should've stopped at :02. The Bills got a tough break there. It's fine for us to acknowledge that, although my sympathy is limited given that the refs took 7 points off the board earlier.

Clearly you need your eyes checked. He DID fall to the ground.. Backwards, trying to get out of bounds.. He failed to do that as his butt hit in bounds first. Helps to watch the replay from the sidelines..

 

[XLIX]

Mike Pereira, who has gotten many calls wrong (of which I provided one)? Yeah. OK..
Dude, get over yourself.

Seriously, it's OK to admit you made an honest mistake.

You would actually look a lot less foolish if you admitted you made an honest mistake instead of arrogantly thinking you know more about the rules than Pereira, who is the former NFL VP of Officiating, and Daoupolous, who is a former NFL ref with 10 years of experience.

 

[DaBruinz]

@BradyFTW - Disagree all you want, but reality says otherwise.. Go pester someone else with your silliness.

 

[XLIX]

Now we can add liar to your list because that's not what you said.. Off to the ignore list with you..

The very first thing I said on this matter was:

"Way I see it is the Pats were totally robbed of a touchdown, but the Bills were robbed of a Hail Mary, which is a longshot at a touchdown.... so I'll be generous and say let's call it even. "

You're obviously butthurt because you bragged about knowing more about the rules than me but I totally proved you wrong. Just man up and admit you made an honest mistake.

 

[Dr Pain]

Yep....

Bottom line is that the officials screwed up a lot in that game, that it was a net negative for N.E., and that the Patriots overcame it.

Can't believe how little is being made of Rex interfering with a reff during a live play. Belichick would be banned from NFL if he did this. This should be a million dollar fine and a suspension.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Clearly you need your eyes checked. He DID fall to the ground.. Backwards, trying to get out of bounds.. He failed to do that as his butt hit in bounds first. Helps to watch the replay from the sidelines..

Gotta learn to read your own posts, man. You quoted the rule, now read it. Falling to the ground by itself does not mean you're down. He has to fall to the ground as part of declaring himself down. He clearly was not declaring himself down, as evidenced by the fact that he was attempting to get out of bounds. The only way this adds up is if you're claiming that a ball carrier is always down if they fall to the ground. Are you claiming that?

This is funny because I am absolutely 100% certain that you'd be on board with everything I'm saying if it had been the Pats driving down the field in an attempt to tie the game.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Exactly. And since he was not touched, he gets the "roll out of bounds."

The dude obviously was not surrendering himself. That cannot even remotely be debated. He was falling down sideways. Therefore the play is not over until he is touched by a Patriots or goes out of bounds.

That statement is false (shout out to PatChick for the research). Again the rule states the play is dead when the call carrier "declares himself down by falling to the ground and making no effort to advance".

So he clearly does not get to roll out of bounds unless it is an effort to advance the ball. Since your video clearly shows he is not trying to advance the ball, as his angle is slightly backwards, your statement is wrong. To touch yourself down in bounds and then go backwards to go out of bounds is not considered going out of bounds. Read the rule...

And if you want to discuss it? Great. But you can stop with your ESPN expert quotes. You embarrass yourself by doing so...

 

[XLIX]

Gotta learn to read your own posts, man. You quoted the rule, now read it. Falling to the ground by itself does not mean you're down. He has to declare himself down by falling to the ground. He clearly was not declaring himself down, as evidenced by the fact that he was attempting to get out of bounds.

This is funny because I am absolutely 100% certain that you'd be on board with everything I'm saying if it had been the Pats driving down the field in an attempt to tie the game.

It's hilarious how some people can't admit their team got a good break. It's not like the Bills were on the 1 yard line. Even if the right call was made, Patriots still win the game because Taylor probably couldn't throw a ball 30 yards let alone 50+ (and Rex was too stupid to realize that). So I have no problem whatsoever with admitting the Patriots got the benefit of a bad call there - especially since they got hosed on so many other calls earlier on.

 

[XLIX]

That statement is false (shout out to PatChick for the research). Again the rule states the play is dead when the call carrier "declares himself down by falling to the ground and making no effort to advance".

So he clearly does not get to roll out of bounds unless it is an effort to advance the ball.

Not true. Since he was untouched, he gets to roll any which way he wants.

According to your logic, anytime a player falls down he is "declaring himself down." His own momentum brought him out of bounds. If a Patriots had pushed him out of bounds, then the clock keeps running. But that didn't happen.

And if you want to discuss it? Great. But you can stop with your ESPN expert quotes. You embarrass yourself by doing so...

I hate ESPN as much as anyone, but their rules expert was an NFL official for over a decade. I also gave Mike Pereira's opinion, the Fox rules expert. I suppose he's clueless too? You know more about the NFL rules than a former referee AND the former VP of Officiating?

Talk about someone embarrassing themselves!

 

[DaBruinz]

Gotta learn to read your own posts, man. You quoted the rule, now read it. Falling to the ground by itself does not mean you're down. He has to fall to the ground as part of declaring himself down. He clearly was not declaring himself down, as evidenced by the fact that he was attempting to get out of bounds. The only way this adds up is if you're claiming that a ball carrier is always down if they fall to the ground. Are you claiming that?

This is funny because I am absolutely 100% certain that you'd be on board with everything I'm saying if it had been the Pats driving down the field in an attempt to tie the game.

I read the rule. I understand the rule. You and XLIX don't.

What part of "Making no effort to advance" is beyond your comprehension? Advance is moving forward. He moved backward and sideways. Hence, his butt touching in bounds allows the clock to continue running..

Now, please go put words in someone else's mouth. People who insist on doing that are a waste of everyone's time.

EDIT: BradyFTW - only a pansy arse whiner goes back and changes disagrees to dislikes when he get's his panties in a wad.

 

[BradyFTW!]

That statement is false (shout out to PatChick for the research). Again the rule states the play is dead when the call carrier "declares himself down by falling to the ground and making no effort to advance".

So he clearly does not get to roll out of bounds unless it is an effort to advance the ball. Since your video clearly shows he is not trying to advance the ball, as his angle is slightly backwards, your statement is wrong. To touch yourself down in bounds and then go backwards to go out of bounds is not considered going out of bounds. Read the rule...

And if you want to discuss it? Great. But you can stop with your ESPN expert quotes. You embarrass yourself by doing so...

That's a conditional statement. He has to declare himself down by falling to the ground and make no effort to advance. If he didn't meet the first condition--declaring himself down by falling to the ground--then this rule does not apply on that play.

And he didn't. It's pretty clear that Watkins wasn't trying to down himself in bounds. He was attempting to roll out of bounds. The only way you could argue that he met the "declaring himself down by falling to the ground" condition is by claiming that every time a ballcarrier goes to the ground, he is inherently declaring himself down. I think we've all seen enough football to understand that that's not the case. We've all seen untouched receivers get up and keep running after going to the ground while making a catch.

 

[XLIX]

I read the rule. I understand the rule. You and XLIX don't.

Yup. Uh huh. Sure. You understand the rule, but Mike Pereira and Jim Dapoulous don't.

How many years were you an NFL ref?

 

[DaBruinz]

That's a conditional statement. He has to declare himself down by falling to the ground and make no effort to advance. If he didn't meet the first condition--declaring himself down by falling to the ground--then this rule does not apply on that play.

And he didn't. It's pretty clear that Watkins wasn't trying to down himself in bounds. He was attempting to roll out of bounds. The only way you could argue that he met the "declaring himself down by falling to the ground" condition is by claiming that every time a ballcarrier goes to the ground, he is inherently declaring himself down. I think we've all seen enough football to understand that that's not the case. We've all seen untouched receivers get up and keep running after going to the ground while making a catch.

What direction was he going? If he's not going FORWARD, then he's not making an effort to advance as he falls to the ground.

 

[BobDigital]

Anyway moving on from the tangent discussion about rules I'll just throw 1 quick thought in before heading to bed

Does anyone think this team had a bit of a hang over tonight? The Patriots are not immune to it. No team is really. I think that NYG may have taken so much out of them emotionally that they just had a down game.

The Pats don't tend to come out flat 2 times in a row so i expect better next week (assuming Dola plays)

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Not true. Since he was untouched, he gets to roll any which way he wants.

According to your logic, anytime a player falls down he is "declaring himself down." His own momentum brought him out of bounds. If a Patriots had pushed him out of bounds, then the clock keeps running. But that didn't happen.

I hate ESPN as much as anyone, but their rules expert was an NFL official for over a decade. I also gave Mike Pereira's opinion, the Fox rules expert. I suppose he's clueless too? You know more about the NFL rules than a former referee AND the former VP of Officiating?

Talk about someone embarrassing themselves!

Ok, break it down for me. The rule states: "An official shall declare the ball dead and the down ended...when a runner is out of bounds, or declares himself down by falling to the ground, or kneeling, and making no effort to advance"

There are three elements to satisfy here: Simple yes or no answers:
(1) Did he fall to the ground of his own accord/not being touched or pushed by a defender?
(2) Did he hit in bounds when his elbow/knee/butt first hits the ground?
(3) Did he attempt to advance the ball after his knee/elbow/butt first hit the ground?

 

[XLIX]

Ok, break it down for me. The rule states: "An official shall declare the ball dead and the down ended...when a runner is out of bounds, or declares himself down by falling to the ground, or kneeling, and making no effort to advance"

There are three elements to satisfy here: Simple yes or no answers:
(1) Did he fall to the ground of his own accord/not being touched or pushed by a defender?
(2) Did he hit in bounds when his elbow/knee/butt first hits the ground?
(3) Did he attempt to advance the ball after his knee/elbow/butt first hit the ground?

He dove for a catch and his momentum brought him out of bounds. That is not even remotely a case of a player giving himself up.

He did not declare himself down by falling to the ground. Yes, he fell to the ground but not in a manner by which he was declaring himself down.