Backwards pass 2 point conversion

[Bear-Hawk]

What would happen if no player had picked up the ball?

 

[glenwo2]

What would happen if no player had picked up the ball?

 

[chris98251]

Told you they would want to change the rules, McVay is going to be butt hurt now going forward. Remember we got screwed a lot until Holmgren was on the committee. McVay is using his platform to recruit votes already.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Change the rules to what?
A backwards pass is a live ball. Would that change?

If the ball hits a helmet the live ball is now dead? How often would that happen?

It really is hilarious to see the Rams peeing and moaning about the 'refs' when they get more gifts from the refs than literally any other team but for the Chiefs.

Did they forget they got a free SB because the 'refs' completely ignored a blatant PI against the Saints that would have lost the Rams the game?
How about screwing the Bengals in the SB with a completely missed call>?

Let's just look at the BS they got from the refs in games helping them this year.

I love LOVE that the Rams feel they are getting screwed on calls! It is hilarious. Rewatch last week's Lions' game to see getting screwed on calls.

 

[chris98251]

I think he wants a dead ball, that play made his players look unprepared or badly coached. That and he lost due to it.

Well we already had a heated competition with the Rams, think this may be a trigger for an all-out rivalry now as long as McVay is there going forward.

 

[DTiempo81]

Change the rules to what?
A backwards pass is a live ball. Would that change?

If the ball hits a helmet the live ball is now dead? How often would that happen?

It really is hilarious to see the Rams peeing and moaning about the 'refs' when they get more gifts from the refs than literally any other team but for the Chiefs.

Did they forget they got a free SB because the 'refs' completely ignored a blatant PI against the Saints that would have lost the Rams the game?
How about screwing the Bengals in the SB with a completely missed call>?

Let's just look at the BS they got from the refs in games helping them this year.

I love LOVE that the Rams feel they are getting screwed on calls! It is hilarious. Rewatch last week's Lions' game to see getting screwed on calls.

Yep, all of this. McVay is coming off like a complete crybaby and it is absolutely hilarious. His teams have benefited immensely from bad calls, non-calls, and refs improperly applying the rules; not a peep from him. The refs get this one right, which he even admits was the right call, now it is a "type of play that has no place in football". Such small d energy. I would be embarrassed if that was the coach of my favorite team.

 

[DTiempo81]

I think he wants a dead ball, that play made his players look unprepared or badly coached. That and he lost due to it.

Well we already had a heated competition with the Rams, think this may be a trigger for an all-out rivalry now as long as McVay is there going forward.

That doesn't even make sense at all. You can't have a dead ball on a lateral that hits the ground. And the reason why we have the clear and obvious recovery rule is because so many teams got screwed by refs messing up and blowing the whistle too soon. Ed Hochuli and the San Diego Chargers comes to mind.

McVay just wants to place blame anywhere other than at his own feet, because his team absolutely collapsed under the relentlessness of the Seahawks. He and his players thought the Hawks would give up, but Mike Macdonald does not mess around and has his team to fight through the very last whistle. Maybe McVay should try coaching his guys properly instead of looking for ways to change the rules in his favor.

 

[Zybot]

Many idiots in internet land that lack football IQ are say the refs got this wrong because the blew the whistle

The only way to have blown this call is blow the play dead with a live ball on the field

Yet no ref claimed to have done so in the ref huddle with calling about the play

Interestingly it did not matter if a whistle was blown. This was a fringe case given that it was a 2 pt attempt and a backwards pass.

How Seahawks benefitted from NFL rulebook loophole that Matthew Stafford didn't even know about on two-pointer

The NFL rulebook definitely worked in the Seahawks' favor on their wild two-point conversion against the Rams

www.cbssports.com

 

[Jac]

Told you they would want to change the rules, McVay is going to be butt hurt now going forward. Remember we got screwed a lot until Holmgren was on the committee. McVay is using his platform to recruit votes already.

What an embarrassing tantrum on his part.

 

[FrodosFinger]

McVay just wants to place blame anywhere other than at his own feet

Of course. I lost a lot of respect for McVay. Gets a turd pushed in OT then blames the refs. If the Rams would’ve won there would be no controversy

 

[Palmegranite]

Reminds me a bit of the SB when Atlanta frittered away a huge lead to eventually lose the game. Did they ever recover from the shell shock?

 

[jammerhawk]

Sometimes a team needs some luck to be good! The stars sometimes align for team that makes their own luck.

Remember Romo’s botched potential winning FG hold, and Babineau’s tackle of him that propelled the Hawks in 2005, or the much argued about Fail Mary or you name it.

We have seen a lot of bad and good calls that have worked for and against teams, but that 2 point conversion doink has to be acknowledged as just good luck.

That said bring on more good luck!

 

[themunn]

Here are Mcvay's comments about this today; .

TLDR: he acknowledges that as the rule is in the rule books, the ruling makes sense. He doesn't think the rule was intended to give a team two points after the conversion is "rejected". After the "rejection" the play should be over. He doesn't think ANYONE would disagree with him and he would feel that way even if it benefited his team. (Which I don't believe for a moment.) Since he is a member of the competition committee, he is sure this will be addressed in the offseason.

He was also upset by how long it took between the play and when they were notified that it was being looked at. I think he said it was about a minute and a half.


By his logic, if a team blocks an extra point kick, the play should be over, no runback possible by the blocking team. After all the extra point was rejected. His players had every opportunity to grab the ball and didn't.

"Rejected" is the wrong word. It's just a fumble - if the QB fumbled the snap but then picked it up and ran into the end zone it would be counted valid.

In this case the fumble was recovered in the end zone by the offense - so it's a TD.

A bigger question is whether the fumble should have been "spotted" at the point at which it came off of the Rams helmet (ie can't be advanced forward), but my understanding is the initial spot comes from where the offense first touches the ball, in this case in the endzone.

What would be a very interesting corner case is if the offense turned the ball over, the defense ran it back trying to score on the other end, but then they themselves turn the ball over and the offense ultimately runs it into the endzone.

If the whistle is never blown then there is no reason the offense can't score their 2 points. There is no such thing as a "rejection" until the play is over. All that happened in this case is the refs blew the whistle early, but the rules are clear on what constitutes a "clear recovery" by the offense. Had the ball landed 6 inches short it simply wouldn't have been possible for us to score unless the refs hadn't blown the whistle.

 

[IndyHawk]

I don't know if I have just old eyes or what not, but I couldn't tell that it was a backwards pass, more of a lateral at least what I could tell...did anyone else have the same issue of seeing that it was a backwards pass...I'm going to try and watch it again tonight...games worth watching again and again...

Backwards or straight line, they said during the game it's the same thing
as long as it doesn't cross the line.

 

[sutz]

From that overhead view it was pretty obvious. Sam released the ball from the 4 yard line. The reciever, which was K9 IIRC, was waiting on the 6 yard line. The intent was definitely for a backward pass. Cross tipped the ball off his helmet at the 5, after which it bounced around and stopped just inside the goal line, where it was picked up by a Seahawk.

 

[IndyHawk]

Bingo that’s right!

I also feel the rams players or team are questioning it because well.. it causes other to question it, and then its the failmairy all over again.

The funny thing is both plays were called exactly as they should have been,
it's the sore losers who question it when it's in print and replay confirms it.

 

[Jegpeg]

What are you guys smoking, please share

No way in hell would Charb go up a pick up the ball if he thought it was a strong potential game losing play

Who are you referring to?

As I read it the debate is whether:

1. Charb knew what he was doing, he thought the pass was backwards, or at least there was a chance of it so picked up the ball in the hope that is was a 2 point conversion if he did.
2. Charb thought the ball was dead, the 2 point attempt had failed and picking up the ball to hand it to the refs had no impact on the game, but it was the courtious thing to do.

I don't think anyone has said picking up the ball had any potential of being a game losing play.

 

[Blitzhawk]

It's been what they have been coached since pop warner. Multiple players and coaches have verified that is standard protocol for a loose ball, and they coach it week in and week out.

Proven even further by all the players you see scooping or picking up balls that have been tipped at the line or errant throws by a QB being hit while throwing on the off chance the ball was knocked loose before his arm started forward. At least you get the ball where recovered even if inadvertant whistled.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

From that overhead view it was pretty obvious. Sam released the ball from the 4 yard line. The reciever, which was K9 IIRC, was waiting on the 6 yard line. The intent was definitely for a backward pass. Cross tipped the ball off his helmet at the 5, after which it bounced around and stopped just inside the goal line, where it was picked up by a Seahawk.

Yep, and it has been made very clear that a whistle is irrelevant in this situation. What makes it more hilarious is seeing bi*&* boy whine about it after the game. Wait, Mr. Perfect didn't know the rule????

Again...the RAMS complaining about the refs. Endless entertainment.

 

[DTiempo81]

"Rejected" is the wrong word. It's just a fumble - if the QB fumbled the snap but then picked it up and ran into the end zone it would be counted valid.

In this case the fumble was recovered in the end zone by the offense - so it's a TD.

A bigger question is whether the fumble should have been "spotted" at the point at which it came off of the Rams helmet (ie can't be advanced forward), but my understanding is the initial spot comes from where the offense first touches the ball, in this case in the endzone.

This is the best thing, it isn't a fumble. It's a lateral which by rule is treated just a bit different than a fumble and CAN be advanced.