Bills Post Game Thread

Rex illegally interferes with game while illegally standing on white stripe and all you can argue about is this last play? If Belichick did this it would be a national scandal and it is a big deal, interfering with a live game. Rex should be suspended and face a huge fine. He should have been ejected on the spot.

I wish the goober was playing on sunday. Would love to get collins back for that game

By the way, 8:07 left in the second quarter. The ref blows the whistle with the ball still rolling (just saw it again on the replay). The ball is rolling almost onto the 31 and the ref blows the whistle. The ball is still completely rolling, and it rolls to nearing the 30.
After the commercial break the ball is shown spotted slightly forward of the 31 (where the whistle blew).

Not a big deal, maybe 2/3 of a yard. But the whistle being blown when the ball was easily seen and clearly still rolling is something else I do not remembering seeing. Usually they let the ball come to a dead stop for a second before blowing the whistle (maybe they thought someone touched it??)

Coupled with the other issue makes me wonder if the refs prior to the game were given a point of emphasis to blow the whistle quickly...(for whatever reason).

TheBostonStraggler said:

By the way, 8:07 left in the second quarter. The ref blows the whistle with the ball still rolling (just saw it again on the replay). The ball is rolling almost onto the 31 and the ref blows the whistle. The ball is still completely rolling, and it rolls to nearing the 30.
After the commercial break the ball is shown spotted slightly forward of the 31 (where the whistle blew).

Not a big deal, maybe 2/3 of a yard. But the whistle being blown when the ball was easily seen and clearly still rolling is something else I do not remembering seeing. Usually they let the ball come to a dead stop for a second before blowing the whistle (maybe they thought someone touched it??)

Coupled with the other issue makes me wonder if the refs prior to the game were given a point of emphasis to blow the whistle quickly...(for whatever reason).

Click to expand...

I noticed that too. I thought the same thing. Pats were surrounding the ball but not touching it so the ref should have waited for it to completely stop.

XLIX said:

ESPN's officiating expert agrees with me (and Mike Pereira). So I suppose that's 2 former NFL officials who are both wrong?

I got 2 rules experts and former NFL refs supporting me. And those opposed have....?


Jim Daopoulos ‏@RefereeJimD 1h1 hour ago

In that situation the clock must be stopped and that is an officiating mistake......


514 retweets 343 likes

Click to expand...

Wow. The ESPN 'offiating expert' agrees that the Pats got away with something. Here's me ****ing suprised.

XLIX said:

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.

Click to expand...

Jesus, look at you. The NFL and ESPN as the Gods of Fair Play!

BradyFTW! said:

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.

Click to expand...

The only thing clear/without discussion is he voluntarily falls to the ground.
As to why he decided to voluntarily fall to the ground? I assume he is doing it because he thought he would be falling out of bounds (funny thing is he easily had the ability to get out of bounds without just fall down. It is a bad play on his part IMHO). The problem appears to be he was slightly short of his elbow,knee, or butt first hitting out of bounds (if you have video that shows one of those parts first hits out of bounds then the point is moot. He should have been called out of bounds).

Next, the rule say when he voluntarily falls to the ground and it is in bounds, he must make an attempt to advance the ball. If he does not make an attempt to advance the ball then the play is ended where his elbow, knee, butt first hit. Clearly no attempt was made to advance the ball (but if you can show what he did attempt is considered an attempt to advance the ball? Ok, the point is moot. He is out of bounds).

That is how I see this rule and it seems pretty clear to me.
Fyi, when it happened live I thought the clock should have stopped. I thought if a defender didn't stop your forward progress you can do snow angels on the ground then still roll out of bounds. It was Patchick's research/posting of the rule that pretty clearly says if you volunteer to fall to the ground, then you don't make an effort to advance the ball, you are down where you voluntarily fell.

Dr Pain said:

Rex illegally interferes with game while illegally standing on white stripe and all you can argue about is this last play? If Belichick did this it would be a national scandal and it is a big deal, interfering with a live game. Rex should be suspended and face a huge fine. He should have been ejected on the spot.

Click to expand...

Psh. Mike Tomlin tripped a player running for a TD and he only got fined. Why are you surprised?

XLIX said:

Yup. Uh huh. Sure thing. Mike Pereira disagrees with you. Jim Daoupolous disagrees with you.

But you're right, and those 2 former NFL officials (one a ref, the other VP of Officiating) don't know what they're talking about.

Click to expand...

Not sure who I quoted in this frenzy of call out the abominable ref calls...but: the NFL VP of officiating never ref'ed a game: "NFL Vice President of Officiating Dean Blandino works hard and earnestly wants to improve NFL officiating. He is a master of technologies and replay. But, Blandino has never officiated an NFL game."
Former Super Bowl ref: Disciplining officials just a PR move by Roger Goodell regime

XLIX said:

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.

Click to expand...

Define for me what is "declaring himself down". I don't know. The only thing I know for this argument is the rule that is posted defines being down due to one of the following conditions: (a) kneeling and not making an attempt to advance the ball, or (b) falling to the ground then not making an attempt to advance the ball.

As far as "diving"? You posted the video. It is clear to see he did not "dive".. His back was to the out of bounds line and the ball was to his front. You are saying he dove backwards?
What happens, again from your own posted video, is he is facing away from out of bounds and scoops a low pass that is towards his front (and again his front is pointing away from the out of bounds). That is not a dive, period.

Btw, this is a bit of a change in your argument -- yet this one has better traction as it is now a ref's judgment call if A) he was carried out of bounds involuntarily (the momentum of catching the ball), or B) he voluntarily is going down to the ground for (what can be assumed given the game situation) to land out of bounds/cause a dead ball with clock stoppage.
Feel free to look at that video and go with A. But that is going to be a hard sell given the mechanics don't add up to say momentum involuntarily carried him almost backward of his hands meeting the ball.

To the ref's call, he is now tasked to judge either: A-the receiver was voluntarily trying to go down to the ground (for the purpose of going/being out of bounds). or B-the momentum of the catch took him to the ground.
If the ref thinks A (a reasonable assumption given the math) then the player is now required to make an attempt to advance the ball or he is down right where he first voluntarily hit the ground.
If you (and BradyFTW?) think the ref made the wrong judgment and the Bill player did not voluntarily go to the ground? Make your judgment call as you see best...

woolster22 said:

Not sure who I quoted in this frenzy of call out the abominable ref calls...but: the NFL VP of officiating never ref'ed a game: "NFL Vice President of Officiating Dean Blandino works hard and earnestly wants to improve NFL officiating. He is a master of technologies and replay. But, Blandino has never officiated an NFL game."
Former Super Bowl ref: Disciplining officials just a PR move by Roger Goodell regime

Click to expand...

It should be clear as day by now, anyone in the employ of the NFL has NFI what they're doing.

I handed out some disagrees for the last play. The bickering and bs back and forth was enough I couldn't agree with either of the whiners.

My view: he thought he was closer to the boundary, and was making sure he tapped his heels before going out, or was worried about tapping his heels before his ass hit (out of bounds).

I missed whatever this controversial call was, but to me he made a catch going out of bounds. Sounds like they ran the clock instead. Either way, a few bs calls in the 2nd half kept buffalo in the game, so no love is lost.

I'll say it again, if Flacco threw the ball to lafell thar he tried coming back for only to be tackled, he'd get the DPI. Especially after the refs blow what looked like a sure td for his team. Problem was the crew was so freaked out for blowing such an obvious okay they threw a 15 yarder at Rex for trolling the sidelines, SOP for a HC.

The officiating was awful, and I only caught the 2ND half, can't imagine the 1st was much worse. Then aga in there was the obvious below the knee shot Brady took that BSPN proudly showed with its 1st half pressure Montage.

And what were the psi readings Roger? #integrity

BradyFTW! said:

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.

Click to expand...

What is funny is a rule being posted that appears to apply to the play, then you saying "he clearly was not declaring himself down". Please post the rulebook item that defines what declaring oneself down is -- not what you think is declaring oneself down is -- what is the rule that defines it. Do that and if it defines what you are saying then I am all ears.
Until then the rule posted says (a) falling to the ground, plus (b) not making an attempt to advance the ball. That is the verbatem rule book item that is posted, and it sure seems to have application.

Again, not what you think declaring oneself down is, show me the NFL rule that says (a) falling to the ground plus (b) not making an attempt to advance the ball. does not apply.

ausbacker said:

It should be clear as day by now, anyone in the employ of the NFL has NFI what they're doing.

Click to expand...

Just reminding people of a story that lost legs. Maybe now we and buffalo can get the national media running with it. I'm not holding my breath.

BradyFTW! said:

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.

Click to expand...

Good, we agree the rule posted here is what is applicable.

So the disagreement is whether the conditions of the rule were/were not met.
Here is where is I agree with you: I also suspect (given the game conditions) Watkins was not trying to down himself in bounds, he was trying to down himself out of bounds.

Here is where we disagree: In an attempt to down himself out of bounds he inadvertently failed hitting his butt in bounds and in a backward motion. At the point of his failure and motion backwards, the rule says he must attempt to move the ball forward else he is down at the point of his failure. He did not attempt to move it forward, he went in an approx half yard backward motion (however, if the "advance the ball" is relative, this could make the point moot. However, I believe "advance the ball" means specifically trying to move it forward).

As far as your statement "claiming that every time a ballcarrier goes to the ground, he is inherently declaring himself down"? That's clearly not an applicable argument here. First, I assumed we both agreed this argument is about a voluntary action by a ball carrier (such as taking a knee or falling to the ground). So my argument has nothing to do with every ballcarrier and only with ballcarriers (A) going to the ground not due to opposition force/touch or sheer momentum of making a play, and (b) and ballcarriers who then make no effort to advance the ball.

Whether the rule is fair, needs more specificity, whatever, that is not applicable in the here and now. Right now the rule states it is: player goes down voluntarily + no attempt to move the ball forward.
Seems fairly clear that is what the rule says and that the Bill player met those conditions.

josh24 said:

Real losers of this game are the refs. And the fans in the general.

Disgusting.

Click to expand...

Steratore is Italian for "inept douchenozzle."

On the final Watkins play, for what it's worth, on the NFL Network both McGinest and Robinson thought he was down in bounds because Watkins went out of bounds backwards. They said if he had been falling forwards the clock would have stopped. So they both agree with DaBrinz and BostonStraggler here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Bruins29 said:

Bad refs!!!! Bad!

Click to expand...

Hey, that looks exactly like our dog Millie. But she would never do anything naughty like that.

I love how people here try to discuss and examine the entire Watkins final catch situation by (somewhat) inteilligently discussing rules and situations but completely ignore that the ****ing league has no clue about their own rules anyway. There are so many addendums and exceptions to rules because the responsible commitee got lazy and just kept on adding little things upon controversies that more than half of the rulebook is not objectively enforceable anymore. They need to blow the rulebook completely up and rewrite it from the ground up to limit the number of subjective calls.

If this means less touchdowns because rule become stricter then I am fine with that. If it means more scoring because rules become less strict, I am also fine with it. But just make the job for the refs easier and bring some ****ing consistency into calls each week.

There is a song by Slayer called God Hates Us All.

That's how I feel after watching our streak of losing starters in consecutive games continue.