Refs Bail Out Giants, Cite Obscure BS Rule
 

Anyone else see this atrocity yesterday? I know I'm prone to being distrustful towards the refs, Goodell, and the NFL in general, but it's hard not to be when crap like this happens. I know, I know, "good teams find a way to overcome the bad calls". But I'm sorry, no way the refs bail out Cleveland or Minnesota or KC or Jax the way they did Litte Brother and the Big Apple like they did here.

I guess what I'm wondering most is if if anyone out there agrees with this call, why? and if you don't agree with it, am i a nut for suggesting the league caters to the Big Market Teams via obscure BS rule referferences like ive seen them do for years?

Refs did nothing its in the rule book.

Uh, going to the ground without being touched, then losing control of the ball (even voluntarily) means it's live ball. That's also a rule.

Dungy among a sh*tton of other coaches and players were every bit as disgusted by this as I was.

it's a somewhat confusing rule. Part of the rule starts out saying a player sliding feet first, but it goes on to say a player falling down, without stipulating that he has to be feet first. I can see the confusion.

must protect The Last Manning

There's a chance that call will make me lose my fantasy game.

My opponent has both Manning and Hakeem Nicks. The next play was a 40 yard Nicks TD catch.

A player is ruled down when he goes down..or kneels without making an attempt to progress forward. In this case refs partially used better judgement and common sense being that they ruled he was avoiding contact by going down..surrendering his forward progression ...I 100% agree with the call.

It's confusing to me too. Clearly the way that Cruz got up off the turf leaving the ball on the turf he considered himself down. What is the difference between considering yourself down and giving yourself up? In my mind, by leaving the ball on the turf, that is a clear indication that he had given himself up.

In contradiction to this line of thought, a couple years ago, some hot shot WR caught the ball and spun it on the turf in celebration without being touched, and that was considered a fumble, if I remember correctly.

So yeah, it's confusing.

Oh yeah, when Vincent Jackson did this 3 or 4 years ago they ruled it an illegal forward pass.

When Richard Goodman did it last year, it was ruled a fumble and the other team recovered.

No way in hell did he exercise an obvious give up situation. Hell, ive seen players fall similiarly, not get touched, get up and run it in for a TD. If he wanted to "give himself up" he would have slid. he DID NOT slide, therefore he wasn't down.

It's not the refs job to use "better judgement", "common sense" and help played "avoid contact". It's their job to REF THE F*CING GAME, which means enforcing the rules, not intrepreting them on a sitation to situation basis (that always seem to benefit NY and Pitt and the like, never Arizona or Tennesee).

dude he fell down...sat there...sat the ball down and ran back towards the huddle

he thought he was down, and he gave himself up

I hate big market teams and this was nothing more than a call following the rule book

Wtf are you talking about? He was running with 2 defenders infront of him, looked back and saw one coming up from behind, and went to the ground. He then put the ball on the ground and started towards the huddle.

It's in the ****ing rule book. He went to the ground and made no attempt at forward progress. Play dead.

Receivers give themselves up all the time. I didn't think this was as big a deal as some are making it.

I didn't see the play, but as soon as a QB starts to slide feet first the ball is dead.

He didn't slide though.