Whistlegate

[BillSabre]

This pales in comparison to the TD taken away from the Bills to open the second half against the Texans in the Wildcard round two years ago IMO. Sometimes I don’t understand how the brain trust get together to “decide” what their gonna do when there’s a questionable situation. 

[EvilenFroggen]

The result was the “correct” one. It was a legit touchdown. 
 

The issue is, the referees broke the rules. Human error happens, and it would have been an egregious one in this case, but referees cannot start willfully breaking rules.

We’re all familiar with the early whistle error. It’s screwed over all of our teams at various times; it’s the worst, but it’s the rule. I can think of only one time it didn’t. 

[Daniel]

I would have preferred a Raiders win, but yeah. Ignoring a wrongly blown whistle is a lesser screwup than taking away a perfectly legitimate touchdown.

If you think it’s not something is wrong with you. The whole point of all the rules is to ensure fair, consistent play. Treating a ref’s screwup as more sacred than the actual results of a legitimate play is just plain dumb.

[agarcia34]

 

[EvilenFroggen]

20 minutes ago, Daniel said:

I would have preferred a Raiders win, but yeah. Ignoring a wrongly blown whistle is a lesser screwup than taking away a perfectly legitimate touchdown.

If you think it’s not something is wrong with you. The whole point of all the rules is to ensure fair, consistent play. Treating a ref’s screwup as more sacred than the actual results of a legitimate play is just plain dumb.

So the whistle isn’t the objective definite event anymore?  That’s going to change a lot of stuff. 

You play to the whistle! (as long as it “should’ve” been blown. If it “shouldn’t” have been then it’s fine)

Unnecessary Roughness, late hit.  Well define “late.”  I mean, I heard the whistle, but I don’t think it “should” have been blown. 
 

The whistle ends the play, except when it doesn’t. A screwup isn’t “sacred,” it’s subjective and understandable since it happens all the time. The rules are objective; that’s what rules mean.  Just because it’s a terrible call and a huge bummer doesn’t change that fact. 

[incognito_man]

In this case, two wrongs made a right.

[Buc Ball]

8 minutes ago, EvilenFroggen said:

So the whistle isn’t the objective definite event anymore?  That’s going to change a lot of stuff. 

You play to the whistle! (as long as it “should’ve” been blown. If it “shouldn’t” have been then it’s fine)

Unnecessary Roughness, late hit.  Well define “late.”  I mean, I heard the whistle, but I don’t think it “should” have been blown. 
 

The whistle ends the play, except when it doesn’t. A screwup isn’t “sacred,” it’s subjective and understandable since it happens all the time. The rules are objective; that’s what rules mean.  Just because it’s a terrible call and a huge bummer doesn’t change that fact. 

The purpose of the rule was fulfilled in this case. No one was disadvantaged by the early whistle - the receiver was wide open and the defenders had no chance of making a play on the ball.

The examples you gave are completely different situations and are irrelevant to what happened yesterday.

[Kmart128]

13 hours ago, Blackstar12 said:

😂

This is a bad look for the refs. Every player, fan in stands, and people watching at home heard the whistle before the catch.

[Daniel]

15 minutes ago, EvilenFroggen said:

The rules are objective; that’s what rules mean.

Only when they’re followed, which, in this case, they weren’t.

The rest is semantics that only matter in situations when an early whistle changes the results of the play. Which did not happen here.

[EvilenFroggen]

3 minutes ago, Buc Ball said:

The purpose of the rule was fulfilled in this case. No one was disadvantaged by the early whistle - the receiver was wide open and the defenders had no chance of making a play on the ball.

The examples you gave are completely different situations and are irrelevant to what happened yesterday.

The whistle is the one thing in this entire chaotic muck of a sport that isn’t up to interpretation. PI, holding, roughing, valid catches, all these things are obnoxiously random. The one thing that has been true 100% of the time is that the whistle ends the play. 
 

The TD was legit and SHOULD have been valid. But it wasn’t, because the play was blown dead. The purpose of the rule was absolutely not fulfilled.  

[EvilenFroggen]

2 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Only when they’re followed, which, in this case, they weren’t.

So…what are we talking about?  We both agree that the rules were violated?

[Kip Smithers]

Oh so this is what people are up in arms about? 
 

Lol from what I see the whistle had no impact on the play. So what’s problem here?

[biggie.]

5 minutes ago, Kmart128 said:

This is a bad look for the refs. Every player, fan in stands, and people watching at home heard the whistle before the catch.

All of them need to be fired if they can't even own up to their mistakes. Absolutely zero integrity.

[Kmart128]

5 hours ago, JonMcC2018 said:

This is the perfect example of two wrongs making a right. It was wrong to blow the whistle, and it was wrong to allow the touchdown.

Given that the whistle had ZERO impact on the play I think allowing the touchdown was the pragmatic (and correct) choice.

What a dumb take. The rules are the rules... you cant just choose which ones to enforce and which ones not to... thats like saying well that holding on other side of field didnt effect the play so im gonna ignore it. You cant. A hold is a hold and a dead ball is a dead ball... the rules are in place for a reason. 

[EvilenFroggen]

I’ll put it like this and leave the whole mess behind:

If you think this is no big deal because it all worked out the “right way,” then you are admitting you are ok with the rules of the game being fluid. Therefore, EVERYTHING is up for debate and the league has an out on everything.