2nd chance on penalty decison.

[Big T]

maybe I'm missing it but your explanation is wrong. It's not that the game couldn't end on a defensive penalty because if the refs didn't allow the rams to change their minds, the game would NOT have ended, we would have done the free kick untimed. Only after the Rams changed to accepting the penalty does the game can't end on a defensive penalty come into play.

That was the question, are the Rams really allowed to change their minds? for example, years ago some idiot Card coach(we've had too many for me to remember which but I'm thinking it might have been Tobin) on the cointoss the other team won the toss and deferred, and we elected to kick off. Which meant we kicked off the first half, and we kicked off the 2nd half because they of course had deferred and elected to received the 2nd half kickoff. When the Cards realized what they had done they tried to change it but the ref said no sorry, you're stupid, you can't change your mind just because you didn't understand the rule. Why wouldn't the same logic apply here?

Not that I think Rackers was going to make it. And my other question, Rackers said drop kick twice, was he really going to have to drop kick it or could they have teed the ball up at the LOS and kicked it? I've never seen this play done do they really have to drop kick it?

Russ,
I do remember that game. It seems like it was in the New England area, maybe Buffalo, and I think the wind was blowing pretty hard, which may have been a contributing factor the to brain fart.
I realize some people's question had more to do with the "changing of the accepting", and I did address that somewhat in my earlier post. From watching the dynamics of what was going on, on the field, there was obviously some sort of confusion over who was understanding what.
Now, to my knowledge, normally isn't the referee supposed to explain the available options to either the captain on the field or the coach?
Especially on an out-of-the-ordinary call like this one was.
If the ref hadn't done that properly, or there was a misunderstanding there, then I could very well see why the refs could allow a change.
Besides, has it ever actually been established that the incorrect call was made in the first place?
You know its possible that even if the signal was given, maybe it was premature.
I don't think this was exactly the same situation as what happened previously. Obviously there was confusion as to who was understanding what. Not just some ignorant pre determined decision.
The bottom line is, the right decision ended up being made. The Cards should not have been allowed to try to score, as they were the ones who commited the penalty.
That referee was one, if not THE most experienced in the league. And I really, really doubt he was trying to screw the Cards over in any way.

 

[Russ Smith]

Russ,
I do remember that game. It seems like it was in the New England area, maybe Buffalo, and I think the wind was blowing pretty hard, which may have been a contributing factor the to brain fart.
I realize some people's question had more to do with the "changing of the accepting", and I did address that somewhat in my earlier post. From watching the dynamics of what was going on, on the field, there was obviously some sort of confusion over who was understanding what.
Now, to my knowledge, normally isn't the referee supposed to explain the available options to either the captain on the field or the coach?
Especially on an out-of-the-ordinary call like this one was.
If the ref hadn't done that properly, or there was a misunderstanding there, then I could very well see why the refs could allow a change.
Besides, has it ever actually been established that the incorrect call was made in the first place?
You know its possible that even if the signal was given, maybe it was premature.
I don't think this was exactly the same situation as what happened previously. Obviously there was confusion as to who was understanding what. Not just some ignorant pre determined decision.
The bottom line is, the right decision ended up being made. The Cards should not have been allowed to try to score, as they were the ones who commited the penalty.
That referee was one, if not THE most experienced in the league. And I really, really doubt he was trying to screw the Cards over in any way.

All I know is the referee with the microphone announced that the rams had declined the penalty which tells me the coaches told the defensive captain to decline and they did.

At that point I don't see how they can change it. Again I think Rackers is very unlikely to make the kick I think the reason it bugs me is I'd rather lose missing a 77 yard drop kick than Bulger taking a knee.

 

[Big Super]

I believe that the NFL rule is that the decision to accept or decline a penalty can been changed until the referee signals that the next play can begin.