I was going to say the same thing. In many plays where it seems clear to me, as a fan, it’s an incomplete pass, I see a defender snatch up a ball as if it’s a fumble and start running until the officials blow the whistle a bunch of times to stop the play. It’s just something football players do.
Agreed. I think that’s just a standard football player move.
Now, if somehow Charbonnet knew that it was a live ball, his casual action would be extremely clever and sneaky. How cool was he in doing that? But really, no, I’m pretty sure he had no clue and was just picking up the ball, having no idea that he just successfully converted the two point try. I’m 100% confident he had no idea.
OK, I found the (long) explanation of this all, and yes, it actually does come down to differences between a fumble and backward pass, and differences between a conversion and regular play.
Some key points, but you really need to read the whole thing:
A fumble can’t be advanced on a 2-point try, and only the player who fumbled it can recover
BUT - this was a backward pass, not a fumble, so the previous rule doesn’t apply. Therefore the ball can be recovered by someone other than Darnold, at a point farther downfield than the point of the “fumble”
When replay review reveals that possession was lost before the ball should have been ruled dead, possession may be awarded to a player who clearly recovers a loose ball in the immediate continuing action. Charbonnet made a clear recovery, so possession is properly awarded to him even if the whistle had blown prematurely.
Thanks for this. So the rules were followed properly. It’s still such a weird freaking situation.
This tweet from 2019 has been repeated a lot after last night.
ETA: On thinking back in this game, regardless of the result, I think Matthew Stafford has to be the frontrunner for MVP. The stats in this game are insane for him, against one of the best defenses in the NFL. (I do think the Texans have a better defense than Seattle, and probably the Broncos too.) And Matt has been doing this sort of thing all year.
This sounds sensible - but it raises an interesting question:
While Charbonnet was picking up the ball, suppose a Rams player hit him - hard - to prevent him gaining possession. A hard hit after the whistle normally earns a 15-yd Unnecessary Roughness penalty (and can lead to an ejection). But in this case it would presumably be okay, due to the subsequent Backward Pass ruling establishing that the play was still alive.
Okay, so what if the hard hit had happened, but replay showed the pass was (barely) forward? Could the Rams player say “You officials reviewed the play because you weren’t sure whether the whistle was valid or not - and I wasn’t either. If my late hit could plausibly have been legal, it should not be penalized.”
A likely response is “No, review showed the whistle was valid, so the play was dead and your hit is penalized.” But this means the player must be more accurate than the officials when deciding what action is in the best interests of his team.
Given all the circumstances, I think that would always be a valid penalty. He was casually picking up the football. Any sort of massive hit would be unnecessary to prevent him from getting the ball.
Now, if a Ram came over and tried to grab it and scuffled over it, or dived to snatch it away, or some other move on the ball (or even a push to push him off-balance away from the ball), then I think the later review that it was a live ball would keep it from being a penalty. But when he’s casually picking up a ball, it would seem excessive enough to warrant a penalty to just blast the guy with a hard hit.
Also, I didn’t realize this until just a bit ago, but last night was the first successful two point conversion in overtime in the history of the NFL. (Until recently a touchdown meant a win on its own, so there didn’t even used to be the ability to attempt it, but I still didn’t realize that was history tonight; I figured somebody must have done it at some point, but apparently not.)
It’s almost a necessity for the second team to go for 2 if the first team got a touchdown, otherwise it’s pretty much impossible to win. You’ve got to stop the first team from getting a field goal (which would win it), then score on your own. Given that the OT period is only 10 minutes, there’s very little time left to do all that.
Agreed, and in this particular case, a tie would effectively be a loss for Seattle because the Rams would still have the tiebreaker, having a 1-0-1 head-to-head record against the Seahawks this season. Now it’s a 1-1 tie, but Seattle now has a better overall record than the Rams (and every other team in the NFC this week).
I’ve read a couple of analyses that state that the Rams screwed up by not going for two after they took a 29-14 lead. Two points there would have made it a 3-score game.
Or they should have gone for two after scoring in OT, knowing that the Seahawks would go for the win if they scored a TD.
I can see those arguments, and I’m generally favorable to analytics in sports, but sometimes it really is overdone.
If my team is sitting at 29-14 early in the 4th quarter, the thought “we should go for 2 in case they score 2 touchdowns and convert for 2 both times and we can’t score again” just isn’t a serious consideration for me.
I understand the reasoning, but in the context of the game as it stood at the time, that’s not a call I’d consider.
I can see the argument to go for 2 in OT. I don’t know what I’d do in that situation, but it is more within the realm of what an actual human being vs a computer would consider.
If you go for the 2 and you don’t convert, then you have a 6 point lead, and if Seattle scores a touchdown they win with a simple extra point kick. So, I kind of see it as a wash. Maybe you think the odds of going for a 2 point conversion three times and succeeding are so astronomically difficult, the odds are against Seattle (especially since the second one was such a fluke). Maybe you want Seattle to try and fail on a 2 point conversion, and dangling that carrot is part of your strategy.
Or put it another way, you get 7 points, and now one of six things happens…
Seattle doesn’t score a TD at all and you win.
Seattle scores a TD and fails to convert on a 2 point try, and you win.
Seattle scores on a TD and goes for the 1 point kick and fails, and you win.
Seattle scores on a TD and goes for the 1 point kick and gets it, but then you get the ball back and can run out the clock and tie, and that’s effectively a win.
Seattle scores on a TD and goes for the 1 point kick and gets it, but then you get the ball back and get in FG range, kick a FG, and win.
Seattle scores on a TD and goes for the 2 point try and succeeds, and you lose.
Given so many possibilities, only one of which is bad, and that possibility is the hardest for Seattle to pull off (and on its own is so difficult), it seems like the Rams kicking the extra point was the smartest call. It just didn’t work out for them.
Agreed, if the Seahawks had the first drive of OT and scored 7 points I am sure the Rams would have gone for 1 if they got a touchdown as a tie would mean they would ge the No 1 seed if they won their last two games.
In case people think that it was unintentional, know that Adin Ross (the person hosting the show Nacua was on) is close with the likes of Andrew Tate and Nick Fuentes, wanted Kanye on his program after he made antisemitic remarks (until Kanye accused Adin of being Jewish and refused to come on), and has been banned from Twitch on more than one occasion for being controversial. Ross knew exactly what he was doing, whether or not Nacua did.
It hasn’t been long since overtime games were decided by simple sudden-death, but this is the first NFL game won by a two-point conversion, according to ESPN Stats and Research.
