2025 NFL Game Thread – Week 16

lmaoooooo all the ****in SE Forum Pts

yeah im still awake myself

Thats why the west coast rules. 5:30-8:30ish is perfect time to watch a game.

WHAT A GAME

Thinking more about the game from last night, and the amount of strange calls that I think both the fans, coaches and refs don't even fully understand that happen throughout the year, I believe I came up w/ a reasonable solution. I think the replay booth should build out an LLM model that the replay officials can enter the specific situation in to, and get clear interpretations back.

With the NFL's affiliation w/ gambling sites, and the continued rise of sports betting, I think this would help eliminate a good amount of doubt about the outcomes.

Here's what AI said when I described the exact scenario on the 2 point play from last nights game, and it was pretty clear. Assuming it's correct, which looking at the actual rules, it seems it is, here's what it said:

No. That would not be a successful two-point conversion.

And this is one of those edge cases where the NFL rulebook is extremely literal and completely unsentimental.

Let’s walk it cleanly, step by step.

The play you described (translated into rulebook language)
The quarterback throws a backward pass on a two-point try

The ball hits a defender

The ball then hits the ground (this is now a fumble on a try)

The ball rolls into the end zone

A different offensive player goes and touches / recovers the ball in the end zone

What the NFL rule says on tries
On any try (extra point or two-point attempt):

A backward pass that hits the ground is a fumble

Only the player who fumbled may advance the ball

If any other offensive player recovers it, the ball is dead immediately

There is no advancement by teammates

The spot of recovery is irrelevant to intent

This restriction is absolute on tries. There is no “final minutes” nuance here.

The crucial distinction: recovery vs scoring
Yes, another offensive player may legally touch or recover the ball.

But:

The moment a non-fumbler offensive player gains possession

The play is dead on the spot

No advancement is allowed

No score can occur after that point

Even if that spot is:

The goal line

The end zone

The promised land

Somewhere that looks very touchdown-ish on television

Dead is dead.

What about the ball rolling into the end zone?
That does not save the play.

This is not a loose-ball touchdown situation like normal play from scrimmage. Tries have special scoring restrictions.

Since the offense is prohibited from advancing via a teammate recovery, the ball being in the end zone is irrelevant unless:

The original fumbler (the QB) recovers it himself and possesses it in the end zone

Only then would the try succeed.

Final ruling on your scenario
QB fumbles on a backward pass

Ball hits defender, hits ground, rolls into end zone

Different offensive player recovers it

➡ Play is immediately dead
➡ No two-point conversion
➡ Result: Try fails

All of that is wrong because the quarterback is not considered the fumbler on a backwards pass. A backwards pass and a fumble are two different things in the NFL rule book. Anyone can recover a backwards pass.

Refs are certainly not perfect, although I believe they have an extremely difficult job. However:

I doubt the refs would make a game changing call that im sure they received information on from the NY office without being sure of the rule. That wasn't a subjective call so much as a PI or something. Again, this was a rule.

AI isnt always right and may very well not understand the context.

This is what I thought as well, and initially thought, even though it was fkd how it went down, the refs eventually got it right. But I do think AI is confusing a couple of terms and got this wrong.

However, I think if an LLM model was specifically trained on an NFL rulebook, it could interpret some of these more complex rules better, and maybe even send an explanation to a coaches iPad in game.

Clarity is better for everyone I think imho.

Ya, you're taught in football from an early age to always touch, recover any loose ball no matter what.

The problem is it's a fkd rule, because it's difficult to know if a pass is backwards in live play. The only indication for the players is that the play isn't whistled dead. So when it does get whistled dead, replay shouldn't be able to go back and say, opps, inadvertent whistle, ball was still live.

They should just add an exception or time limit for when the ball is touched if it's blown dead on field. Nobody knew the ball was live. It was just casually picked up and tossed to the refs.

Whether there is a whistle or not is irrelevant. When replay determines that a play was a fumble or a backwards pass, if there is a clear recovery in the field, that team is awarded the ball even if the whistle had blown. That rule has been in place for almost 20 years.

Replay determining there was clear recovery happens many times during a season. It was just unusual in this case because the clear recovery happened in the end zone.

I'm aware of that. And I get why that rule exists in theory.

My point is that in the specific cases of backward passes (because it's hard to know this happened in real time), and the play is blown dead, and nobody goes to the ball, they should just honor the whistle.

It's less difficult to know a fumble happened, and players instinctively know to go after the ball even if they are unsure. It's not the same in the above case because it looks (and sounds) like an incomplete pass. In most cases I've seen of backwards passes, refs DON'T blow the play dead (And they are instructed not to), so players go after the ball.

And the evidence for this is.... the players reaction to that play. 😀

Yeah, I get the point of replay is for the game to be officiated as accurately as possible. But I've never cared for the fact that the clear recovery can still be granted after the play was blown dead on the field. Especially since penalties exist for continuing to play after the whistle.

Charbs looked bashful as he was picking up the ball, like, it probably won't matter, but what if it does? Haha

Ya, I mean players should know to go after loose balls, and they pretty much always do. The issue w/ backwards passes that are blown dead is players will just think it's incomplete. I mean, there's just really no way to know, and you're reliant on that whistle in that situation, more than any other play in football. Either that or create a signal for backwards pass for the refs - oh, wait, they don't do that because again, it's hard to tell live.

It's just a loophole that needs to be addressed, imho.

Charb just casually grabbed it and tossed it the refs. Not even sure he was thinking, "well maybe"... but doesn't matter... he was right! 😀

The old way was way worse imo. If the refs missed the call live and ruled a player down, and the defense recovers it cleanly, they were just out of luck.

It does look a little odd here because of how nonchalant he picked up the ball, but it is better than the alternative of the normal case where the obviously-recovering team gets punished.

Yeah, but a lot of those situations are bang bang and the defense recovery is usually immediately after the player is ruled down and a continuation of the play. I don't view tackle fumbles the same as the play last night.

Maybe there needs to be some distinction between backwards passes versus real fumbles with regard to post whistle recovery. I don't know the solution. But as FreakDaddy mentioned above, the players automatically assume incomplete pass because the whistle blew.

the holy roller rule about no one but the fumbling player can advance the fumble is only in the last two minutes of a half...and the 2-pt try was not in the last 2 minutes. Plus, as others have noted, a fumble is different than a backwards pass - although both are live balls.

Exactly. Many times players will advance a loose ball that is 98% incomplete pass, forcing the reffs to blow the play dead, but with a possible review.

Conversely, many times players will NOT advance a loose ball that is 98% incomplete pass, which is clearly a mistake on their part.

Rams have nobody to blame but themselves. They stopped when the proper thing to do was force the reffs to blow the play dead by picking up the ball and advancing it. If they don't blow the play dead then its off to the races and a possible 2 pt defense conversion. I doubt in this specific case the reffs would have blown the play dead, which adds further to the Rams' error in not advancing the ball.

ETA: I watched the replay again, whistle was blown about a half second before Charbonnet recovered the ball. So it was pretty clear Rams assumed that the play was over before the whistle was actually blown.

They did blow the play dead though. That's why everyone stopped and thought it was an incomplete pass, and the refs didn't signal good on the 2 pt try. 😀

That's the whole crux of the conversation above.

Like I said in ETA above, Rams were clearly not pursuing the loose ball prior to the whistle being blown. Its on them for giving up on the play.

As I understand it, this rule also applies to 4th down/Trys, regardless of time in the game. So it would be applicable here had the play been a fumble instead of a backwards pass.

I will always advocate recovering any loose balls just in case. But in defense of the Rams defenders, the ball was airborn as a live ball the entire time until it hit the ground, then the whistle immediately blew. #3 on the Rams even tried to catch the ball for the interception. I'm not sure if any Rams players could have beat Charbs to the ball at that point. Everything transpired within roughly 4 seconds of real time. The players basically had 1 second of assumption time once the whistle blew. But like you said, that also tells you they assumed it was a forward pass for the entire sequence, and the ball hitting the ground then the whistle confirmed it for them.

Ultimately, it was a rare and unique play that went the way of the Seahawks instead of the Rams. Sometimes that's just how it goes.

All the Rams were in a bad position to recover that ball before the whistle unless they had the world's fastest reaction time.

A snapshot of when the whistle was blown.

Ram #53(?) was about the same distance from ball as Charbonnet, but 53 was clearly not interested in pursuing the loose ball. The other 2 Rams #91 and #48(?) were about 2-3 feet further than Charbonnet, but again were clearly not interested in pursuing the loose ball.

Excluding the Seahawks player on the ground, 3 Rams had a chance at pursuing the loose ball, vs. one Seahawk player.

Only Charbonnet had the awareness to pursue the ball.

The reffs blew the play dead primarily because the Rams were not interested in continuing on with the play, as can be seen in the above snapshot.

If the Rams instead had the awareness to continue the play, I seriously doubt the reffs would blow the play dead.

I'm not really arguing one way or another about the rule, but you're severely overestimating a person's reaction time to chase after a ball on what, I guarantee, every single player on that field thought was an incomplete pass.

It's comical to say Charbonnet "pursued the ball." A better description would be, "Charbonnnet walked over, with zero haste, and picked up the ball" Something players do after every play.

Yeah, we are all spending this time dissecting a sequence that took 4 real life seconds.

When the ref decides to blow the whistle should have no bearing on what the players are doing. It should solely be based on the refs interpretation of the play action. If the ref thought it was a live backwards pass, they shouldn't blow the whistle, even if the players stand there for another 5-10 seconds. Not hearing the whistle would actually prompt the players to take additional action in that situation. The ref blowing the whistle indicated the ref thought it was an incomplete forward pass.