When the punter, QB or anyone else on offense kicks or bats the ball out of the endzone, it is a penalty. However, no team would accept the penalty, because they get two points for the safety. If the penalty was accepted, the team that kicked/batted the ball would get to run the play over and the two points would come off the board.
Agreed, that is why it was hilarious when Ray Lewis kept saying it happens all the times with punters. Why is that not called? The Mensa award winning Ray Lewis could not even fathom in his head that no coach in the world would ever accept a penalty that would cost his team a safety so a flag at that point is moot.
Yeah but this is the mistake the NFL has made. When the punter, QB or anyone else (as you said) kicks or bats the ball out, they have never thrown a flag! They should throw a flag if it is a penalty and then say it is declined and let the offense decide like they do with all other plays. If they don't throw a flag, then nobody knows it is a penalty.
Watching that game live, I don't think one person on the field knew that was a penalty. The real mistake by the NFL is not throwing a flag when the punter does it. That doesn't make any sense, they throw a flag whenever there is a penalty no matter what, why would they decide on a play with a safety to not throw the flag and just say penalty declined. The NFL set a bad precedent and caused the issue on this play. When you see people do it for years and not get a flagged thrown, even if it is in the rulebook it doesn't make sense to all of a sudden throw a flag. You know what I'm saying?
But those are different situations. The ball is being batted by the team with possession and usually on 4th down. Seattle never gained possession of the ball and it was not 4th down yet they get the ball. How is that?
And I agree with what you are saying about throwing flags all the time but in those cases it does not matter and is never controversial so nobody cares if a ref picks up a flag a team was never going to accept anyway.
You see it happen in the NBA all the time, a player fouls another player going for the rebound and knocks the ball out of play. Most times the refs do not call a foul and just give the ball to the other team. Nobody ever complains because the other team keeps possession and it is not controversial.
Not sure there should be a penaty called on the offense?
Since the offense was last to have possession i believe they can still legally throw ,kick , bat or whatever .......
Hence No Flag
Last night was clearly a Defensive player and Should have been a flag !!!
But it is a judgement call and the backjudge believed it was not intentional ...........SO NO CALL!!!!!!
(12th man rule)
Since the offense was last to have possession i believe they can still legally throw ,kick , bat or whatever .......
Hence No Flag
Last night was clearly a Defensive player and Should have been a flag !!!
But it is a judgement call and the backjudge believed it was not intentional ...........SO NO CALL!!!!!!
(12th man rule)
The majority of this thread is clearly using the wrong terminology. I'm not sure what the right word is, but the call was not missed. The call was clearly seen. I remember when it happened thinking....he can't do that. But when it was allowed my mind allowed it to go away as it was clear the referee saw it. There is no debate on whether it was intentional or not. It was intentional. Thing is he could have grabbed the ball......he could have dove for the ball as if he was trying to grab it and drive it out of bounds. But instead he was in a stopping motion with his body and with one hand tapped it out of bounds. All I can say is.....SHIT.
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4129518/ref.0.jpg)
well call it a 'bad beat' and move on. it happens all the time in all sports.
thing is though detroit had zero business winning that game ne ways. sure seattle didnt look much better but detroit is severely a bad team on both ends of the field. they will likely go 0-8 or so b4 some part of management gets canned.
wright could easily have let the ball fall into his hands instead of doing what he did or not touch the ball at all. either way det didnt deserve to win that game for that matter ne of the games including the come from behind win sd put on them
thing is though detroit had zero business winning that game ne ways. sure seattle didnt look much better but detroit is severely a bad team on both ends of the field. they will likely go 0-8 or so b4 some part of management gets canned.
wright could easily have let the ball fall into his hands instead of doing what he did or not touch the ball at all. either way det didnt deserve to win that game for that matter ne of the games including the come from behind win sd put on them
No....you don't move on. You get at least 24 hours to complain and you raise the issues loudly to help ensure someone is hearing it and potentential changes are made so that its less likely to happen again. for example.....there is no reason on this earth that the play should not be a reviewable call. That change should be made. as for the game, 5 minutes separated time of possession, 35 yards separated passing, and about 50-60 yards rushing. They had 7-8 turnovers between them. Both teams played terrible, so I would say there's a decent argument that neither team had any business winning that game.
