Let's set the stage: Thursday Night Football, Lions, Packers, tie game, 4th and Inches. The Lions have the ball on the Packers’ 20. The ball is snapped, Goff turns to hand the ball off, trips on the ankle of LG Graham Glasgow, falls to a knee, hands the ball off to David Montgomery where the Lions get the first down. From there, Jake Bates kicks the field goal as time expires, and the Lions win 34-31. Alright, now let’s take a look at the rules, specifically Rule 7, Section 2, Article 1-C (see below).
Now take another close look at the rule, as it’s written. “When a quarterback immediately drops to his knee, or simulates dropping to his knee, behind the line of scrimmage”. At first glance, regardless of what happens before, or leading to the drop to the knee, nobody can deny the fact that two of these things stated in the sentence above occurred. Whether you like it or not, that’s the facts. In situations like these, it’s important to look objectively at what happened, while also considering the verbiage in the rule. A main point brought up by Lions fans was the idea of “intent” to drop to the knee. However, the mention of intent is never expressed in the verbiage of the rule. The idea of QB intent is implied, rather than stated. The reason implied rules are detrimental to the game is because it leaves too much up for interpretation. For example, this very article, (while interesting) is only being written because the rule is too ambiguous. The idea behind any rules book, is for the rules themselves to be taken at face value, to be irrefutable and essentially undebatable. The point of any rule book is to cover any and all possible circumstances to avoid the issue of ambiguity.
Playing the role of the “devil’s advocate” is fun, and it sure sparks a lot of controversy on social media. For those who know me personally, they understand that if I can get my hands dirty with something like this, I’m elated. For those who don’t know me, let me teach you something: I love controversy. In the early days of GIN, we spoke to the fact that we pride ourselves on controversy. Anything that divides the people, anything that may seem so clear cut and obvious that you’d have to be clinically insane to think otherwise, is a sitting duck in a pond full of duck hunters. The duck hunters are us, primarily me. I invite anyone that joined the conversation regarding this matter across all of our social media channels to debate me LIVE on the DCP, or any podcast or live show for that matter. In a recent tik-tok, we featured footage from DCP 41, where Rachow and I debated this very matter. I took the stance of devil’s advocate, while Robert played the role of most logical Lions fans, (if there is any).
Robert stated the fact that Goff was never touched, and rather he tripped inadvertently on his own lineman in the motion of handing the ball off to his RB, Montgomery. The term “NFL rules” was dubbed during the turkey bowl, with the opposition being “college rules”, meaning the ground can cause you to be down, regardless of contact with a defensive player. “NFL Rules” was mentioned here, only there were different criteria than a normal NFL play. Majority of the time, “NFL down rules” comes into play not involving the QB, and with the ball being past the line of scrimmage. Again, I must say this as clearly as I can, I’m not opposing what happened. I’m merely criticising the writing of the rule, in the hope revisions occur as a result to eliminate any ambiguity that has already sparked controversy on social media. The biggest problem with the writing of the rule, is there’s too many holes to battle the rule as it's written, while also taking into account what happened in-game. Not only that, but consider the significance of the result of the play, given the status of the game, not to mention the importance of the play for the NFC North standings. Think about it, fourth down, fourth quarter, tie game, NFC North matchup, rivalry game, and the list goes on. Go figure that this fiasco occurred in this of all moments in the game. But think about it for a second. Just imagine the refs threw a flag and called Goff down. Packers get the ball, Jordan Love marches down the field and gets his offense into field goal range. The Packers make the FG and win in Detroit. Do you think Ford Field would burn to the ground? Do you think social media would explode with angry Lions fans? Yes. As stated in the podcast, the omission of the call, whether it was right or not was the right choice by the officiating crew that night. Whether it was the correct call, the lack of knowledge of the rule due to the improbability of that situation happening, or whatever it was, not calling Goff down was the right choice by the officials, especially considering “NFL down rules” as we know it.
All things considered, it’s an interesting dinner table conversation. If this call could have been reviewed, gone to court, and put to the test by a jury of the Lions’ peers, how would it fare given what happened objectively and considering the verbiage of the rule? I’d like to know. Whether you’re a Lions fan or not, most would agree the ambiguity of the rule should be cleared up. The implied rule of “NFL down rules” took precedence in this call (or lack thereof), but in a game of inches, ambiguity can’t depend solely on implications.
Comments