Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Rams Huddle › more on the phantom 2-pointer
- This topic has 7 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 3 days ago by
Zooey.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 21, 2026 at 8:00 pm #162271
znModeratorRams plan to propose rule change that would address replay-assisted 2-point conversion scored by Seahawks in Week 16, per @jjones9.pic.twitter.com/RraQ9cW0Hj
— Underdog NFL (@UnderdogNFL) February 21, 2026
February 22, 2026 at 12:04 am #162273znModeratorfrom https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/rams-propose-nfl-rule-change-seahawks-2-point-conversion/
One can speculate as to what changes the Rams are seeking. Perhaps they wish to apply the fumble rules on a two-point try to a lateral that has been touched by the defender and goes forward. Or they want to have a time limit for a review to be initiated. The change could be related to the ball being possessed after the whistle blew. It may seek a clearer definition of what “immediate continuing action” is. Or it could be none of these.
February 22, 2026 at 8:02 am #162275
wvParticipantOne of the biggest calls/plays in NFL history. And they got it right. (unless the whistle blew, and i didnt hear a whistle)
Fans will remember it forever, like the Tuck-rule-play, and the Holy Roller and the non-call PI against the Saints.
w
vFebruary 22, 2026 at 9:15 am #162277znModeratorAnd they got it right. (unless the whistle blew, and i didnt hear a whistle)
There was a whistle. This is acknowledged. And that’s the issue. The issue isn’t the call, it’s the rule. According to the rule, in this situation “immediate continuing action” is in force even if there is a whistle. But the problem is, a defense will stop playing at a whistle and not everyone is in a position to know that was a backward pass. A defender risks a flag if they continue to play and make contact after a whistle.
No one is disputing the call. They’re disputing the rule.
February 24, 2026 at 1:24 am #162311znModeratorRams’ proposal based on crazy two-point play has two components
Mike Florio
The Rams have indeed made a proposal based on the nutty two-point play from the Week 16 overtime thriller in Seattle.
The initial report merely explained that a proposal was submitted. The details of the proposal have emerged.
Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the Rams have made two separate proposals. Under the first, a backward pass that is tipped by a defensive player and goes past the line of scrimmage would be treated like a fumble. This means that, during the final two minutes of a half, on fourth down, or on a conversion attempt, only the player who fumbled can recover the ball and advance it. If another offensive player recovers the ball, the offense gets the ball at the spot of the fumble.
As applied to the two-point attempt in Rams-Seahawks, the recovery of the loose ball in the end zone by running back Zach Charbonnet would not have resulted in a successful conversion. Seattle would have gotten two points only if quarterback Sam Darnold had recovered the ball.
Although that same situation will rarely happen, the reasoning makes sense. The defense disrupted the attempted backward pass. As it relates to the quirk that allows backward passes to hit the ground and be recovered and advanced, the Rams’ proposal would eliminate situations in which the backward pass is deflected forward and crosses the line of scrimmage. In the situations where a fumble can’t be recovered and advanced by any player except the one who fumbled it, a backward pass that is batted beyond the line of scrimmage would be treated the same way.
The Rams’ second proposal would limit the time for the initiation of a replay review, capping it at either 40 seconds or a minute. Basically, if the replay process is going to activate, it needs to happen more quickly in order to keep the game moving.
For the Seahawks-Rams play, 100 seconds elapsed between the time Charbonnet recovered the ball and the moment referee Brad Allen announced that the play was under further review. The kickoff and kick-return teams were on the field and ready to proceed. The absence of a specific deadline for starting the review process allows potentially protracted delays — and opens the door for (as happened in this case) someone from outside the apparatus alerting the league to the potential need for a review.
While the league eventually got the Rams-Seahawks play right, the Rams’ thinking is that no review should take that long to get started.
Again, something like this may not happen again, for years. It makes sense, now that the league has witnessed that specific outcome, for the NFL to consider whether it wants to allow that same thing to possibly happen in the future.
February 24, 2026 at 7:24 am #162312wvParticipantThere was a whistle. This is acknowledged. And that’s the issue. The issue isn’t the call, it’s the rule. According to the rule, in this situation “immediate continuing action” is in force even if there is a whistle. But the problem is, a defense will stop playing at a whistle and not everyone is in a position to know that was a backward pass. A defender risks a flag if they continue to play and make contact after a whistle.
No one is disputing the call. They’re disputing the rule.
I see. Well, there’s pluses and minuses to the Rams proposed changes. I kinda like a chaotic scramble for a busted up lateral. I dont think I’d want the rule to be changed to where only the QB can recover the ball.
I wonder how the Rams proposed change would affect those crazy end-of-game lateral-fests.
w
vFebruary 24, 2026 at 10:50 am #162313znModeratorI see. Well, there’s pluses and minuses to the Rams proposed changes. I kinda like a chaotic scramble for a busted up lateral. I dont think I’d want the rule to be changed to where only the QB can recover the ball.
The issue is that the play was blown dead, ref’s whistle. The defense stopped playing at that point. They can’t be in a situation where they have to guess if a whistle is real or if counts. They risk getting flags if they contest the ball and get physical over it. This rule as written basically says the whistle didn’t count, the ball was still live.
Not every defender is in a position to see whether or not it was a backward pass. They see an incomplete and the whistle blows.
February 24, 2026 at 1:18 pm #162315
ZooeyModeratorI see. Well, there’s pluses and minuses to the Rams proposed changes. I kinda like a chaotic scramble for a busted up lateral. I dont think I’d want the rule to be changed to where only the QB can recover the ball.
The issue is that the play was blown dead, ref’s whistle. The defense stopped playing at that point. They can’t be in a situation where they have to guess if a whistle is real or if counts. They risk getting flags if they contest the ball and get physical over it. This rule as written basically says the whistle didn’t count, the ball was still live.
Not every defender is in a position to see whether or not it was a backward pass. They see an incomplete and the whistle blows.
Right. It used to be that a blown whistle killed a play regardless of whether it should have been blown or not. That was the rule for decades. I’m not sure when or why it changed, but I’m guessing it changed because instant replay showed that the ball was actually sometimes still alive, and should be ruled a turnover, and that supersedes the whistle. Which also has a logic to it.
Well, I hate it. By “it,” I mean the fact that the reversal may very well have changed the final outcome of the season.
That’s football, though. Down in N’Orleans, they still complain about Nickell Robey-Coleman.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
