Crybaby Rams Proposing Rule Change B/C We Beat Them

[SoulfishHawk]

When the Clams lose, it's NEVER because they just got outplayed or outcoached.
Same goes for the 29ers.

 

[bileever]

I'm interested in what change they propose. The day after that game, McVay was harping on the notion that "once the conversion is denied, the play is over". Which is ridiculous, considering an extra point kick being blocked does not end the play.

I've also seen suggestions that the fumble/continuing action/clear recovery rules shouldn't apply on a 2 point conversion.....which is ridiculous and I don't think the rules committee will want to carve out an exception that will simply cause more confusion.

I think the one legit concern is, why did the Fox rules analyst calling New York trigger a review of the play? But I think the problem is the opposite of what the Rams think is the problem. I answer that with "it was clearly the correct call, and it was a scoring play. Why did New York wait until the Fox analyst call to properly review the play?"

You're exactly right. What the Rams want to do is to treat a lateral like a fumble, meaning that it can't be advanced by anyone except the player who "fumbled" the ball. But that doesn't make any sense. First, Charbonnet WAS the intended target, and since he picked up the ball, it would still be within the rules. Second, the point of the fumble rule is to prevent offensive players from fumbling the ball on purpose in order to keep the play alive or to lateral the ball forward to another player, which we know is againt the rules. Since it would be very difficult to advance a lateral by intentionally hitting an opposing player, no one would be doing it to circumvent the rules.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Also, it was made known several times after the fact that the whistle is irrelevant in this case. A backwards pass has ALWAYS been a live ball.
I'd think McSpikeywhiner would know this.

 

[WmHBonney]

I'm really close to despising the Rams as much as I despise the 9ers.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Rams passed them up a couple years back for me. I know I'm super shy about my hate of the Clams. I really need to open up.

 

[Torc]

Here are the two proposals they ended up making:



I think the timing proposal has some theoretical merit, but in practice it's a non issue. The only time the 40 second thing would come into play would be on a potential scoring play anyway - the regular play clock covers everything else. And typically with a scoring play there is an ad break that is longer than the 40 seconds to begin with. Personally, I might support this...BUT all plays where scoring is involved would be automatically reviewed. Which I thought was happening anyway?

On the fumble proposal....I disagree with this. The conversion attempt is a football play. And a backwards pass is NOT a fumble. As written, the QB would have to recover his own pass to advance it. A pass is, by definition, transferring "possession" to another player. Once the QB has thrown it, by design, he no longer possesses the ball. I'm unhappy with rules that create "special" situations because it generates more confusion. This isn't a fumblerooski, where a player is trying to move the ball down the field via fumbles - it's a play from the two yard line. Right now, if an extra point is blocked, it's a live ball and the offense can advance it (and turn an extra point into a two point conversion). Also, the defense can advance it and score. I don't think a two point conversion attempt should be treated differently.

 

[flv2]

You're exactly right. What the Rams want to do is to treat a lateral like a fumble, meaning that it can't be advanced by anyone except the player who "fumbled" the ball. But that doesn't make any sense. First, Charbonnet WAS the intended target, and since he picked up the ball, it would still be within the rules. Second, the point of the fumble rule is to prevent offensive players from fumbling the ball on purpose in order to keep the play alive or to lateral the ball forward to another player, which we know is againt the rules. Since it would be very difficult to advance a lateral by intentionally hitting an opposing player, no one would be doing it to circumvent the rules.

I'll wait to see what any proposed rule change actually says. However, in response to what you've posted Darnold was technically the player who fumbled the ball and Charbonnet was the player who recovered it.

 

[flv2]

Here are the two proposals they ended up making:

View attachment 79160
...

I would be be against both of the proposals as written. I agree with what the 1st proposal is trying to achieve, but it's badly written. The 2nd proposal is wrong from basic principle.

The 1st proposal should simply say if a backward pass...treated as a forward pass. This should apply throughout the game and not just in certain situations.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Translation = our precious LA Clams are crying, so we better do something about it.

Every single day, the Clams just sound like a whining 5 years old. It's delish.

 

[chris98251]

If it is a lateral it is a free ball if it is mishandled, given that play anyone could have claimed the ball, we did they didn't. Eat it and weep Mfer. They should throw that out .

 

[Sperrydogg]

Stupid to be requesting the rule change, but that 2 point conversion was all luck. If he thought the ball was still live, he would have dove on it. The right call was made, but let’s not make it something it wasn’t.

He kinda walked into the end zone with a smirk like he wasn’t exactly sure, so that’s means he “theoretically” kinda knew the rule at least that’s what I’d say

 

[SoulfishHawk]

And it's nobody's fault that Spikeyb**** doesn't coach his team to keep playing thru.

 

[HawkFreak]

Shouldn't McWaaaaaa be spending his time trying to figure out how to beat the SB champs?

 

[sutz]

Well, they traded for a CB. Not sure how much that will help, but

 

[Torc]

He kinda walked into the end zone with a smirk like he wasn’t exactly sure, so that’s means he “theoretically” kinda knew the rule at least that’s what I’d say

I kind of thought he did the smart thing - if he'd reacted by jumping on the loose ball, defenders probably would have responded to his urgency and there would have been a fight for it. By casually leaning over and picking it up, no one contested it.

Or, he just picked it up because that's what he is coached to do and he turned out to be smart AND lucky.

 

[ivotuk]

Ever wonder where MacDonald came up with "We. Did. Not. Care!" ?

 

[onanygivensunday]

Ever wonder where MacDonald came up with "We. Did. Not. Care!" ?

View attachment 79183

OMG... that is SO precious!!

 

[ivotuk]

OMG... that is SO precious!!

I laughed when it popped in to my head