Week 4 Other NFL games thread.2015

[6025]

I could swear I have seen punters do this on bad snaps to take a safety and not get penalized? Maybe I dreamt it.

TG

The talking heads on both ESPN and NFL Network talked about every conceivable angle ad nauseum it seems. Regarding this scenario, when the punter knocks it out of bounds, the "penalty" is the 2 points awarded the other team and then surrendering the ball to them. Think of it as a self inflicted gunshot wound.

In yesterday's game, the defending team committed the act of purposely knocking it out of the end zone. Theoretically the offense still had a chance to recover and score. The Seahawk should've just fallen down in it. Nonetheless, clearly illegal and they even have a rule in the book specifically for this scenario. The excuse given by the NFL VP of Officiating was this: although it was clearly a penalty, the call is a judgement call on the ref's part and the back judge ruled he felt the touch was an "inadvertent" push. Replays clearly showed it was not, the Squawk player pushed it purposely out and gave a fist pump after doing so (indicating he didn't know the rule either). The play was not reviewable because it was deemed a judgement call.

Great play by Chancellor, but still a penalty that should've been called. The Lions got screwed.

[Stinky Wizzleteats+]

As did my fantacy team! All scoring plays and turnovers are reviewed at the league office. Since a safty is a score it should have been reviewed.

[6025]

As did my fantacy team! All scoring plays and turnovers are reviewed at the league office. Since a safty is a score it should have been reviewed.

It wasn't a safety. It was considered an offensive fumble out of the scoring endzone, so it was declared a touchback for the Seahawks and they got the ball on the 20.

[Boltergeist]

It wasn't a safety. It was considered an offensive fumble out of the scoring endzone, so it was declared a touchback for the Seahawks and they got the ball on the 20.

But it was still a turnover, which should be reviewed. I guess the key is that it is a judgment call as to whether it was intentional or not. No matter what, it was a bad call.

[6025]

But it was still a turnover, which should be reviewed. I guess the key is that it is a judgment call as to whether it was intentional or not. No matter what, it was a bad call.

Exactly, because it was a judgement call they said they couldn't review it.

I didn't know all turnovers were automatically reviewed though, just touchdowns.

[6025]

But it was still a turnover, which should be reviewed. I guess the key is that it is a judgment call as to whether it was intentional or not. No matter what, it was a bad call.

Only the fumble itself was reviewable (in other words, was it a fumble or not?, and the answer is clearly "yes"). The batted ball is a separate instance, a judgement call and not reviewable.

There were less than two minutes remaining. Why didn't the replay official review and correct the call?

An illegal bat is not subject to the NFL's replay review system because it is considered a judgment call, much like pass interference or holding. Only the fumble itself was reviewable.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/182650/faq-what-in-the-world-is-an-illegal-bat