Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Hey NFL refs, Seattle's 12th Man is just a slogan, not a valid strategy   (sports.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Dumbass, American football, safety Quandre Diggs, huge play, Seattle, National Football League, Chicago Bears, Seattle Seahawks, Qwest Field  
•       •       •

783 clicks; posted to Sports » on 28 Nov 2022 at 3:41 PM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



33 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-11-28 3:21:34 PM  
NFL Refs have ruined football.
 
2022-11-28 3:35:47 PM  
It's fine if you get away with it.

4/5/2012 - Ryan Clowe Plays The Puck Off The Bench
Youtube OvBfc2phEV4
 
2022-11-28 4:08:42 PM  
Looks like he thought the play was down and was celebrating, if he was blocking that was a weird way of trying with your hands in the air like "I didn't touch him."
 
2022-11-28 4:09:49 PM  
Explicitly a "Palpably Unfair Act" according to the rules. Should have been an ejection and at least 15 yards from the point he entered the field.
 
2022-11-28 4:12:39 PM  
You would hope refs catch something like this, but who would look for it? I DNWTFV, but sometimes shiat happens. Tomlin impeding the one return still makes me wonder though.
 
2022-11-28 4:13:49 PM  
I recall Mike Tomlin getting at the edge of the sideline to stop a kickoff or point return touchdown by taking away the angle for the ball carrier a while back. I wish I could tremendously the game. I had money on it of course.
 
2022-11-28 4:19:29 PM  
The classic play
60th Anniversary of Dicky Maegle's Cotton Bowl Run
Youtube Sw-brk5zyx0
 
2022-11-28 4:29:04 PM  

toetag: Looks like he thought the play was down and was celebrating, if he was blocking that was a weird way of trying with your hands in the air like "I didn't touch him."


The guy holding his hand up at the end is not the player in question. That guy full on threw blocks. I have no idea what he was thinking, but he's lucky the refs didn't catch it.
 
2022-11-28 4:44:25 PM  

Mikey1969: That guy full on threw blocks.


52 came off the sideline, he never blocks.  His hands are in the air going "oh crap, don't touch anyone".
 
2022-11-28 4:46:21 PM  

king of vegas: I wish I could tremendously the game.


caught say of?
 
2022-11-28 4:55:35 PM  

toetag: Mikey1969: That guy full on threw blocks.

52 came off the sideline, he never blocks.  His hands are in the air going "oh crap, don't touch anyone".


He had a large effect on the Raiders defending the interception. If you watch Raiders number 10 he had a line on the runner but 52 got in his lane and had to go around 52 and then another defender. Looks like the runner might have picked up an extra 5- 8 yards becuase of that.
 
2022-11-28 4:59:50 PM  

toetag: Mikey1969: That guy full on threw blocks.

52 came off the sideline, he never blocks.  His hands are in the air going "oh crap, don't touch anyone".


No, 93 holds up his hands at the end. 52 still touches someone. He also impedes the play itself.
 
2022-11-28 5:22:36 PM  

king of vegas: I recall Mike Tomlin getting at the edge of the sideline to stop a kickoff or point return touchdown by taking away the angle for the ball carrier a while back. I wish I could tremendously the game. I had money on it of course.


It was a $100k fine and cost
 
2022-11-28 5:23:01 PM  

Mikey1969: toetag: Mikey1969: That guy full on threw blocks.

52 came off the sideline, he never blocks.  His hands are in the air going "oh crap, don't touch anyone".

No, 93 holds up his hands at the end. 52 still touches someone. He also impedes the play itself.


Number 52 starts in going directly at the ball carrier, then seems to realize the play is live and tries to dodge around him. He then turns downfield and when he runs into an opponent he jumps up and raises his hands. But that is way to little and too late as he has already interfered with the play.

Fark user imageView Full Size


I do suspect he thought the ball carrier was down on the interception and was running to the sidelines. He then ran out to celebrate with him and then realizing the ball was live didn't know what to do. If he was trying to intentionally interfere, that was an awful way to go about it.
 
2022-11-28 5:23:59 PM  

iron_city_ap: king of vegas: I recall Mike Tomlin getting at the edge of the sideline to stop a kickoff or point return touchdown by taking away the angle for the ball carrier a while back. I wish I could tremendously the game. I had money on it of course.

It was a $100k fine and cost


$100k fine and cost the team a draft pick. People called it fair. I completely agree and think it could/should have been worse.
 
2022-11-28 5:35:17 PM  

cowsaregoodeating: toetag: Mikey1969: That guy full on threw blocks.

52 came off the sideline, he never blocks.  His hands are in the air going "oh crap, don't touch anyone".

He had a large effect on the Raiders defending the interception. If you watch Raiders number 10 he had a line on the runner but 52 got in his lane and had to go around 52 and then another defender. Looks like the runner might have picked up an extra 5- 8 yards becuase of that.


No disagreement that he interferred. Only pointing out, he thought the play was down and went to celebrate.  If he was called for being on the field, it was deserved.

The article and comments I've read would have you believe he purposefully ran on the field in attempt to be the 12th man.
 
2022-11-28 5:36:16 PM  

dywed88: Mikey1969: toetag: Mikey1969: That guy full on threw blocks.

52 came off the sideline, he never blocks.  His hands are in the air going "oh crap, don't touch anyone".

No, 93 holds up his hands at the end. 52 still touches someone. He also impedes the play itself.

Number 52 starts in going directly at the ball carrier, then seems to realize the play is live and tries to dodge around him. He then turns downfield and when he runs into an opponent he jumps up and raises his hands. But that is way to little and too late as he has already interfered with the play.

[Fark user image 850x529]

I do suspect he thought the ball carrier was down on the interception and was running to the sidelines. He then ran out to celebrate with him and then realizing the ball was live didn't know what to do. If he was trying to intentionally interfere, that was an awful way to go about it.


I still think that was just party of the contact, but maybe you're right, that freeze looks pretty convincing. It's still a bullshiat move that deserves a fine. I mean, this is more interference than the Mike Tomlin thing for sure.
 
2022-11-28 5:37:29 PM  

toetag: cowsaregoodeating: toetag: Mikey1969: That guy full on threw blocks.

52 came off the sideline, he never blocks.  His hands are in the air going "oh crap, don't touch anyone".

He had a large effect on the Raiders defending the interception. If you watch Raiders number 10 he had a line on the runner but 52 got in his lane and had to go around 52 and then another defender. Looks like the runner might have picked up an extra 5- 8 yards becuase of that.

No disagreement that he interferred. Only pointing out, he thought the play was down and went to celebrate.  If he was called for being on the field, it was deserved.

The article and comments I've read would have you believe he purposefully ran on the field in attempt to be the 12th man.


Yeah, it looks a LOT that way, which is why that's what you're reading. But yeah, probably celebrating. ANother farker posted a pretty good freeze frame.
 
2022-11-28 5:40:14 PM  

Mikey1969: toetag: Mikey1969: That guy full on threw blocks.

52 came off the sideline, he never blocks.  His hands are in the air going "oh crap, don't touch anyone".

No, 93 holds up his hands at the end. 52 still touches someone. He also impedes the play itself.


52 holds his hands up.  I'm not saying "he didn't touch anyone, so no penalty". If called, well deserved. He impedded his and the other teams players. He almost blocked the guy that intercepted the ball, initially trying to run up to the guy with the ball.

My point was, he thought the play was down and ran on the field to celebrate. He wasn't trying to give any advantage to his team
 
2022-11-28 6:28:59 PM  
Dude should be fined and suspended
 
2022-11-28 6:45:28 PM  

cowsaregoodeating: toetag: Mikey1969: That guy full on threw blocks.

52 came off the sideline, he never blocks.  His hands are in the air going "oh crap, don't touch anyone".

He had a large effect on the Raiders defending the interception. If you watch Raiders number 10 he had a line on the runner but 52 got in his lane and had to go around 52 and then another defender. Looks like the runner might have picked up an extra 5- 8 yards becuase of that.


We're watching different plays, then. 10 had already been blocked by Tariq Woolen (27) and was out of the play by the time Taylor (52) arrived. There was zero impact on the outcome of the play.

No argument that it should have been a penalty.
 
2022-11-28 7:38:33 PM  

Super Chronic: cowsaregoodeating: toetag: Mikey1969: That guy full on threw blocks.

52 came off the sideline, he never blocks.  His hands are in the air going "oh crap, don't touch anyone".

He had a large effect on the Raiders defending the interception. If you watch Raiders number 10 he had a line on the runner but 52 got in his lane and had to go around 52 and then another defender. Looks like the runner might have picked up an extra 5- 8 yards becuase of that.

We're watching different plays, then. 10 had already been blocked by Tariq Woolen (27) and was out of the play by the time Taylor (52) arrived. There was zero impact on the outcome of the play.

No argument that it should have been a penalty.


He participated in the play. To what extent is irrelevant. It is explicitly written into the rules that is a palpable unfair act and should have resulted in a minimum of ejection and at least a 15 yard penalty although the referees have unlimited discretion in assessing a penalty that can go well beyond normal penalties.

Absolutely, he 100% needs a multi game suspension for this.
 
2022-11-28 7:51:33 PM  

meanmutton: Super Chronic: cowsaregoodeating: toetag: Mikey1969: That guy full on threw blocks.

52 came off the sideline, he never blocks.  His hands are in the air going "oh crap, don't touch anyone".

He had a large effect on the Raiders defending the interception. If you watch Raiders number 10 he had a line on the runner but 52 got in his lane and had to go around 52 and then another defender. Looks like the runner might have picked up an extra 5- 8 yards becuase of that.

We're watching different plays, then. 10 had already been blocked by Tariq Woolen (27) and was out of the play by the time Taylor (52) arrived. There was zero impact on the outcome of the play.

No argument that it should have been a penalty.

He participated in the play. To what extent is irrelevant. It is explicitly written into the rules that is a palpable unfair act and should have resulted in a minimum of ejection and at least a 15 yard penalty although the referees have unlimited discretion in assessing a penalty that can go well beyond normal penalties.

Absolutely, he 100% needs a multi game suspension for this.


Not sure if serious. You are with the consensus mostly, but not sure about the last part.
 
2022-11-28 8:02:22 PM  

meanmutton: Super Chronic: cowsaregoodeating: toetag: Mikey1969: That guy full on threw blocks.

52 came off the sideline, he never blocks.  His hands are in the air going "oh crap, don't touch anyone".

He had a large effect on the Raiders defending the interception. If you watch Raiders number 10 he had a line on the runner but 52 got in his lane and had to go around 52 and then another defender. Looks like the runner might have picked up an extra 5- 8 yards becuase of that.

We're watching different plays, then. 10 had already been blocked by Tariq Woolen (27) and was out of the play by the time Taylor (52) arrived. There was zero impact on the outcome of the play.

No argument that it should have been a penalty.

He participated in the play. To what extent is irrelevant. It is explicitly written into the rules that is a palpable unfair act and should have resulted in a minimum of ejection and at least a 15 yard penalty although the referees have unlimited discretion in assessing a penalty that can go well beyond normal penalties.

Absolutely, he 100% needs a multi game suspension for this.


Jeez, man. He was in the wrong but calling a "palpably unfair act" is entirely within the referee's discretion, if the player had an impact on the play.

From the NFL rulebook: "If a substitute enters the field of play or the end zone while the ball is in play, it is an illegal substitution. If an illegal substitute interferes with the play, it may be a palpably unfair act." Also from the NFL rulebook: "for a palpably unfair act, a player can be disqualified." See the words "may" and "can" there? Referee discretion. So, yes: intent and effect on the play absolutely do matter.

Whether you're right or you're wrong (narrator: you're wrong), why the fark are you out for blood here?
 
2022-11-28 8:38:10 PM  

Super Chronic: meanmutton: Super Chronic: cowsaregoodeating: toetag: Mikey1969: That guy full on threw blocks.

52 came off the sideline, he never blocks.  His hands are in the air going "oh crap, don't touch anyone".

He had a large effect on the Raiders defending the interception. If you watch Raiders number 10 he had a line on the runner but 52 got in his lane and had to go around 52 and then another defender. Looks like the runner might have picked up an extra 5- 8 yards becuase of that.

We're watching different plays, then. 10 had already been blocked by Tariq Woolen (27) and was out of the play by the time Taylor (52) arrived. There was zero impact on the outcome of the play.

No argument that it should have been a penalty.

He participated in the play. To what extent is irrelevant. It is explicitly written into the rules that is a palpable unfair act and should have resulted in a minimum of ejection and at least a 15 yard penalty although the referees have unlimited discretion in assessing a penalty that can go well beyond normal penalties.

Absolutely, he 100% needs a multi game suspension for this.

Jeez, man. He was in the wrong but calling a "palpably unfair act" is entirely within the referee's discretion, if the player had an impact on the play.

From the NFL rulebook: "If a substitute enters the field of play or the end zone while the ball is in play, it is an illegal substitution. If an illegal substitute interferes with the play, it may be a palpably unfair act." Also from the NFL rulebook: "for a palpably unfair act, a player can be disqualified." See the words "may" and "can" there? Referee discretion. So, yes: intent and effect on the play absolutely do matter.

Whether you're right or you're wrong (narrator: you're wrong), why the fark are you out for blood here?


A play came onto the field and actively interfered with the play during a play. This is explicitly called out in the rules and I can not remember a time in history that this has happened.

Yes, it needs to be dealt with harshly. It should have been dealt with during the game but the refs farked up. The league needs to come done hard on this because, holy shiat, just laughing off a guy coming onto the field and interfering with the play is potentially devastating to the game.
 
2022-11-28 9:48:04 PM  

dywed88: Mikey1969: toetag: Mikey1969: That guy full on threw blocks.

52 came off the sideline, he never blocks.  His hands are in the air going "oh crap, don't touch anyone".

No, 93 holds up his hands at the end. 52 still touches someone. He also impedes the play itself.

Number 52 starts in going directly at the ball carrier, then seems to realize the play is live and tries to dodge around him. He then turns downfield and when he runs into an opponent he jumps up and raises his hands. But that is way to little and too late as he has already interfered with the play.

[Fark user image image 850x529]

I do suspect he thought the ball carrier was down on the interception and was running to the sidelines. He then ran out to celebrate with him and then realizing the ball was live didn't know what to do. If he was trying to intentionally interfere, that was an awful way to go about it.


This is one of those things that happens with the new "any time you do your job you run into the end zone and perform a little stunt for the camera with the rest of the team" things.
 
2022-11-28 9:57:05 PM  

meanmutton: A play came onto the field and actively interfered with the play during a play. This is explicitly called out in the rules and I can not remember a time in history that this has happened.

Yes, it needs to be dealt with harshly. It should have been dealt with during the game but the refs farked up. The league needs to come done hard on this because, holy shiat, just laughing off a guy coming onto the field and interfering with the play is potentially devastating to the game.


Players play dirty, grab facemasks, target the helmet, and this is the thing -- a player having a massive brain fart when he thought a play was dead, not in any way affecting the outcome of a play -- is the thing you choose to be outraged about. "Devastating to the game." Listen to yourself. Get a grip.

It was an illegal substitution after the change of possession, per the rulebook that you (consciously?) misrepresented.
 
2022-11-28 10:00:23 PM  
Super Chronic:

I'm with you. If he de-cleated someone that would warrant  a multi game suspension.
 
2022-11-28 10:34:29 PM  

knbwhite: Super Chronic:

I'm with you. If he de-cleated someone that would warrant  a multi game suspension.


I mean, sure - or if he had come right off the sideline and blindsided an unsuspecting player, that would be a big deal. That's not what happened.

Rules are broken. When the refs see it, flags are thrown and teams are penalized. Sometimes the refs don't see it. I never heard anyone say "I saw an offensive lineman who was beaten by an edge rusher, and he grabbed his jersey -- and the refs did not call it. If that sets a precedent, it can be devastating to the game! He deserves a multi-game suspension!"

No, what we need is for the refs to see penalties when they're committed, and to throw flags appropriately.  Other players are not going to watch this and conclude "say, I can run onto the field in the middle of a play and throw a block," any more than they're going to watch any other unflagged penalty and decide it's okay. This is in the news because it's funny, not because it's a threat to the integrity of the game.
 
2022-11-28 10:35:49 PM  

snowshovel: This is one of those things that happens with the new "any time you do your job you run into the end zone and perform a little stunt for the camera with the rest of the team" things.


Agreed.
 
2022-11-28 10:46:42 PM  
Super Chronic:

Yes, I could have worded my response better. The multi game suspension that other guy recommended would only be warranted in the most extreme circumstance, not for this minor infraction.
 
2022-11-28 10:49:33 PM  

knbwhite: Super Chronic:

Yes, I could have worded my response better. The multi game suspension that other guy recommended would only be warranted in the most extreme circumstance, not for this minor infraction.


Yeah, I was just continuing to vent and your post happened to be the latest thing to reply to. I got you.
 
2022-11-29 10:09:18 AM  

Super Chronic: knbwhite: Super Chronic:

I'm with you. If he de-cleated someone that would warrant  a multi game suspension.

I mean, sure - or if he had come right off the sideline and blindsided an unsuspecting player, that would be a big deal. That's not what happened.

Rules are broken. When the refs see it, flags are thrown and teams are penalized. Sometimes the refs don't see it. I never heard anyone say "I saw an offensive lineman who was beaten by an edge rusher, and he grabbed his jersey -- and the refs did not call it. If that sets a precedent, it can be devastating to the game! He deserves a multi-game suspension!"

No, what we need is for the refs to see penalties when they're committed, and to throw flags appropriately.  Other players are not going to watch this and conclude "say, I can run onto the field in the middle of a play and throw a block," any more than they're going to watch any other unflagged penalty and decide it's okay. This is in the news because it's funny, not because it's a threat to the integrity of the game.


Two debates.

First debate has to do with "what if" the refs had seen it. Since the player had minimal impact on the play (it was after the interception and the Seachickens didn't score), impact on the play isn't much an issue. If the refs had caught the illegal man, the interception would stand, some yardage would be lost and the player would probably have been flagged a first personal foul.

But the fact that the play wasn't penalized didn't impact the game, in the end. So, that's that.

The second debate is whether or not such an infraction is egregious (and as such whether it should be penalized harshly). Also, if it is an egregious infraction (and seems to me it is), whether the league should step in given the refs blew it.

Since we regularly come down harshly on coaches for being just a tinsee bit on the field of play, I think the league would be within its right to apply a fine. A multi game suspension seems a little excessive, but that's just me.
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.