Immediately after Thursday night’s instant overtime classic between the Rams and Seahawks, Rams coach Sean McVay had questions about the nutty two-point conversion that tied the game at 30 in the fourth quarter. He has since gotten some answers, and he doesn’t seem to like them.
“It’s a technicality issue,” McVay told reporters on Friday. “What they said is, ‘You can’t advance a fumble under two minutes on two-point plays or on fourth downs.’ That’s the thing. Because they said it was a backwards pass, that’s how it was able to be advanced. I think we would all be in agreement, and I have a total appreciation for the layers in the semantics of all the rules, especially being on the Competition Committee. There’s a lot of empathy and difficult spots that some of our officials and everybody’s in, but I do believe that is not something that we want in the game.”
That’s a very strong statement. The rulebook distinguishes fumbles from backward passes. The rule regarding the recovery and potential advance of fumbles on fourth down, with less than two minutes to play, or during a try traces to the Holy Roller. A backward pass has always been handled differently, presumably because there’s no plausible way that someone could “accidentally” engineer a backward pass in a moment of desperation with the goal of getting the ball to where it absolutely needs to be.
“When you’re able to review a two-point play, you split hairs on, alright, is it a forward pass? Is it a backwards pass? When you reject it, they casually pick it up, which you always do that. The whistle is already blown dead, mind you. Then they wait [a minute and fifty seconds] in real time to then go back and say, ‘We’re going to review this.’ Then it ends up getting called a two-point play. By rule, because it was considered a backwards pass and not a fumble, they were able to advance that. I do not believe that anybody would be in disagreement that those are not the plays we want in our game. That was not their intent. They were trying to throw a lateral screen. It got batted down and it was not a successful conversion but by letter of the law, it was. Those will be things that we’ll discuss. I do know this, those aren’t the kind of plays that you want to have people converting on. That’s not something that I can imagine anyone would argue with me on that. I would feel the same way if it benefited us, too.”
McVay’s point reminds us of the observation made in the aftermath of the Steelers-Ravens game. Pittsburgh coach Mike Tomlin, who also is a member of the Competition Committee, had a chance to question that convoluted catch rule that was arguably (if not actually) misapplied in a way that benefited his team, twice. Tomlin chose not to acknowledge that the Steelers may have gotten a gift.
Whether the league actually looks at changing the rules regarding the recovery and potential advance of a backward pass remains to be seen. The primary rule change that kept the ball alive after it was seemingly dead traces to 2009, when the league decided to allow clear recoveries during the continuing action of a ball that were determined, via replay review, to still be live. (It’s the Chargers-Broncos example from 2008 that was addressed earlier today on PFT Live, and in this post.)
Ultimately, McVay’s concern relates to the difference between a teammate not being able to recover and advance a fumble under certain circumstances while being able to recover and advance a backward pass under all circumstances.
“It’d be like if you fumble the ball on a toss, you can pick it up and advance it,” McVay said. “But when situations and circumstances arise like that, those will be things that I guarantee you will be addressed and conversed over to try to eliminate plays like that for being able to happen while totally acknowledging and being aware that there are a lot of layers to it where it’s not exclusive to those plays because there are other things that you’re saying, ‘Alright, it opens up a can of worms with that.’ That’s something that I have gotten exposure to behind the scenes on the Competition Committee that there’s a lot of empathy for. What I will say at the end of the day is, I can’t imagine anybody thinks that plays like that should be counted as conversions. I know I would feel that way even if I was a beneficiary and the roles were flipped and that benefited us last night. I can honestly say that.”
Seahawks coach Mike Macdonald, whose team benefited from the crazy two-point play, has expressed no such concerns. The real question is whether the rest of the Competition Committee or, more importantly, at least 24 owners, will agree with McVay’s belief that backward passes should be treated like any other fumble on a two-point conversion attempt specifically, and in other situations where a fumble can’t be recovered and advanced by anyone other than the player who lost the ball generally.
Seahawks Clips
It’s one thing for us to say it. It carries much more weight when an NFL head coach says it.
Any time there’s a ball on the ground, go get it.
Broncos coach Sean Payton was asked by reporters on Friday about the crazy two-point conversion that morphed from incompletion to recovery in the end zone when running back Zach Charbonnet nonchalantly picked up the ball. The play, thanks to replay review, tied the Rams-Seahawks game at 30 in the fourth quarter.
“I saw the replay of it, and I know the play they were running,” Payton said. “Holy cow, that was — I’d never seen anything like it. Of course, when you looked at it, the No. 1 rule, and I think [former NFL coach] Wade Phillips tweeted this. . . . Any ball on the ground, defensively scoop it. I don’t care if a fan threw it from the — any ball on the ground, scoop it. So there was a unique play though, and obviously had a huge impact in the game. Absolutely, ball on the ground. But I didn’t get to watch any of the game. I just saw that clip.”
Phillips, the first defensive coordinator of the Rams under head coach Sean McVay (and a former Broncos head coach), did indeed tweet it. “That’s why you ALWAYS make your defensive players pick up every ball on the ground no matter what it looks like,” Phillips said.
Charbonnet, by all appearances, was simply getting the ball in order to give it to the officials. All players, on offense or defense, need to know that, even after the whistle is blown, any ball on the field needs to be grabbed.
There’s no downside. As Charbonnet learned, there’s a potentially gigantic upside.
For the first time since the NFL opened the door to a second overtime possession even if the team that gets the ball first scores a touchdown, a team that got the ball second scored a touchdown, went for two, and converted.
Given that regular-season overtime lasts only 10 minutes, Seattle’s decision to go for two was a near no-brainer.
The decision to take the ball second includes both a desire to know what is needed when the possession begins and an interest in avoiding true sudden-death overtime, which is what happens if both teams score the same number of points on their first drives. It also minimizes the possibility of a tie, since two scoring possessions typically will leave far less time for another score by either team.
On Thursday night, a Seattle kickoff would have happened with 3:13 to play. Although the Rams had gone into an offensive funk for much of the fourth quarter, they’d snapped out of it in a big way on the opening drive of overtime. (And they had gained 581 yards against the Seattle defense.) They still had plenty of time to drive into field-goal range, especially if they had ended up with good field position after the ensuing kickoff.
And so, if the Seahawks had kicked the extra point after making the game 37-36 in overtime, they likely were looking at a loss or a tie. (It still would have been possible to force a punt and have a shot at engineering a game-winning field goal.)
A tie would have clinched a playoff berth for Seattle. But it would have given the Rams the head-to-head tiebreaker, since they’d beaten the Seahawks earlier in the season. The Rams would have been wins against the Falcons and Cardinals away from the NFC West title and the No. 1 seed.
So Seattle’s choices were to play for a tie, risk a loss via sudden death, or take advantage of the best chance to walk off with a win.
“Well, yeah, that’s part of the whole thing, you’re trying to get into the playoffs,” Seahawks coach Mike Macdonald told reporters on Friday. “Then do you secure your spot in the playoffs, or do you risk not getting in the playoffs, but the upside is pretty dang high. We chose to go for it.”
The tentative choice to go for two likely was made as part of the decision to kick to start overtime. The goal was both to know what is needed (if the Rams score) and to avoid sudden death against a team with a dangerous offense. Sudden death is sidestepped, obviously, only if the Seahawks score more on the second drive than the Rams did on the first drive.
So it wasn’t a surprise that the Seahawks went for two. Now that, after 13 games under the new regular-season overtime approach, an overtime scenario has played out that way, it introduces another wrinkle into the overtime chess match.
Under what circumstances should the team that scores a touchdown on the opening drive go for two?
A former NFL head coach, reacting to the discussion of the subject on Friday’s PFT Live, suggested that it would be very rare for the team that gets the ball first to go for two. But with a tie giving the Rams the inside track to the No. 1 seed, last night woud have been a time to consider it, since scoring eight points would have guaranteed a tie at worst.
Also, for the same reason a team takes the ball second in order to know what it needs to do offensively, the Rams would have known what they needed to do defensively — prevent a touchdown and a game-winning PAT.
It’s not known whether Rams coach Sean McVay, who has become very aggressive when it comes to going for it on fourth down, considered trying to open an eight-point lead after the first overtime drive. Last night’s outcome naturally introduces the subject into the broader overtime discussion.
One of these days, someone is going to do it. And, if successful, it’s going to put the opposing offense in an unprecedented situation. It will need to drive the field, score a touchdown, and score on a two-point play likely merely to emerge from the game with the most unsatisfying of all outcomes, at best.
The NFL suspended Seahawks linebacker Derick Hall without pay for one game for an act of unnecessary roughness and unsportsmanlike conduct during Thursday’s win over the Rams.
During the first quarter, Hall unnecessarily stepped on the leg of Rams offensive guard Kevin Dotson at the end of a play while Dotson was on the ground. That was a violation of Rule 12, Section 2, Article 8, which prohibits unnecessary roughness and Rule 12, Section 3, Article 1, which applies to unsportsmanlike conduct, including “any act which is contrary to the generally understood principles of sportsmanship.”
Hall will miss the Dec. 28 game against the Panthers, becoming eligible to return to the Seahawks’ active roster on Dec. 29.
Hall has the right to appeal the suspension under the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Any appeal would be heard and decided upon by Derrick Brooks, Ramon Foster, or Jordy Nelson, the hearing officers jointly appointed and compensated by the NFL and NFLPA to decide appeals of on-field player discipline.
Hall totaled three tackles Thursday night, and in 13 games this season, he has 29 tackles, a sack, 10 quarterback hits and two passes defensed.
The Seahawks were the big winners on Thursday night, moving to 12-3 and opening up a one-game lead over the 11-4 Rams for the NFC West title and the No. 1 seed in the conference.
The second biggest winners were the 49ers. With the Rams losing, the 49ers now control their path to the NFC West crown, the lone NFC bye, and home-field advantage throughout the playoffs.
It’s that simple, even if it won’t be easy. Win at Indianapolis on Monday night, win at home against the Bears the following Sunday night, and beat the Seahawks in Santa Clara the following weekend, and the 49ers will be two home games away from playing in the third “home” Super Bowl of the decade.
The Buccaneers won Super Bowl LV in Tampa, and the Rams won Super Bowl LVI in Los Angeles.
The 49ers beat the Seahawks in Week 1. A win in the rematch would give San Francisco the first tiebreaker with Seattle. The 49ers, by virtue of a better record in the division, would beat the Rams (if they win their final two games). And a win over the Bears would eliminate the other three division winners from besting the Niners for the top seed.
The fact that the 49ers have a straight shot at the top seed is amazing, given the adversity the team has faced this year. If they pull it off, Kyle Shanahan instantly becomes a viable candidate for coach of the year.
Currently, Patriots coach Mike Vrabel remains the favorite, at +150. Seahawks coach Mike McDonald has moved to +200. Next is Shanahan, at +400.
More importantly, three more regular-season wins would put the 49ers three wins, all at Levi’s Stadium, away from winning their first Super Bowl in 31 years.
If you saw the stats from Thursday night’s game but not the final score, you’d never guess who won.
The Rams’ offense ran up 581 yards on the Seahawks’ defense. The Rams intercepted Seahawks quarterback Sam Darnold twice and recovered a Cooper Kupp fumble. The Rams never turned the ball over. And yet the Rams lost.
To dominate statistically like that while losing the game was unprecedented in NFL history. Thursday night’s game was only the sixth time ever that a team gained at least 581 yards, didn’t turn the ball over, and forced at least three turnovers. Not only were the Rams the first of those six teams to lose when hitting those three stats, the previous five teams all won in massive blowouts: The average score of those previous five games was 62-13.
The previous five times a team reached the same statistical marks that the Rams reached on Thursday night were the Dolphins’ 70-20 win over the Broncos in 2023, the Ravens’ 59-10 win over the Dolphins in 2019, the Eagles’ 59-28 win over Washington in 2010, the Patriots’ 59-0 win over the Titans in 2009, and the Bears’ 61-7 win over the Packers in 1980.
If you put up the kind of stats the Rams put up on Thursday night, you should win the game easily. This was a loss that has to leave the Rams wondering how they let the game slip away from them.
Plenty of players who know that tough questions will be coming after a game find a way to shirk their obligation to meet with reporters. On Thursday night, Rams receiver Puka Nacua faced the music.
And there was a fresh subject for scrutiny, following the final play of the 38-37 overtime loss to the Seahawks: His tweet reiterating his livestreamed criticism of officials. (He later deleted it.)
Nacua was asked about the tweet that likely will put him in line for a second fine, assuming his initial comments trigger discipline from the league office.
“Just a moment of frustration after a tough intense game like that,” Nacua said. “Just thinking of the opportunities where I could have done better to take it out of their hands. Just a moment of frustration.”
Nacua also was asked whether he truly believes (as he said in the livestream) that officials call penalties so that they can be on TV.
“No, I don’t,” he said, via Sarah Barshop of ESPN.com. “It was just a lack of awareness and just in some frustration. I know there were moments where I feel like, man, you watch the other games and you think of the calls that some guys get and you wish you could get some of those, but that’s just how football is played, and I’ll do my job in order to work my technique to make sure that there’s not an issue with the call.”
What specifically was his post-game tweet referrring to?
“Just the opportunities that we didn’t take advantage of, some of the moments that we we put in the official’s hands that I just felt like we could have executed it to not put ourselves in those situations,” Nacua said. “I know it’s something that we’ll improve on.”
Obviously, Nacua needs to improve on one very specific thing — watching what he says publicly, and what he tweets. By all appearances, he went straight to his phone after the game ended, opened his Twitter app, and vented.
Among multiple lessons he’s learned this week, taking a moment and/or a deep breath after a disappointing game will be one of them.
Thursday night’s instant classic had a little bit of everything. Including something we’d never seen before.
But while the activation of replay review to turn a failed two-point conversion into a successful one was unprecedented, the basic components of the play are well known, or should be.
It started with the incomplete forward pass becoming, after further review, a backward pass. It culminated in a loose ball being nonchalantly picked up in the end zone by Seahawks running back Zach Charbonnet, as if it were a wadded up piece of paper that didn’t make it into the trash can.
Every coach, and in turn every player, should know the rule. Every coach, and in turn every player, should understand that, if there’s even the slightest sliver of doubt, every loose ball should be regarded as a live ball.
It does not matter if the whistle blows. The rulebook is clear on that point. From the provision regarding replay review: “When the on-field ruling results in a dead ball (e.g., score, down by contact, incomplete pass, etc.), and following replay review it is determined 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.”
In other words, that dead ball possibly isn’t. The blowing of the whistle doesn’t matter. If it’s subsequently determined that the ball was fumbled (or passed backward) and then recovered as part of the “immediate continuing action,” the ball has been resurrected.
The rulebook expanded to allow post-whistle “continuing action” after a 2008 Chargers-Broncos game exposed a glaring flaw. A fumble by Denver quarterback Jay Cutler was ruled on the field to be an incomplete pass. Replay review determined otherwise. However, because the whistle had blown, the Broncos retained possession at the spot where the ball hit the ground — even though the Chargers clearly recovered it.
The following offseason, the rule was changed to allow post-whistle “continuing action,” during which (for example) an erroneous ruling on the field of incomplete pass is converted via replay to a fumble (or backward pass), and the ball is clearly recovered by one team or the other in the continuing action. (By the way, the Broncos scored a touchdown later on that same drive, went for two, converted, and won the game not by the score of 38-37 but by the score of 39-38.)
Also, and in response to those who have raised a very good question about the intersection between the two-point recovery by Charbonnet and the rule that prevents a teammate from recovering and/or advancing a fumble on fourth down, after the two-minute warning, or during a try, a different rule applies to a backward pass: “Players of either team may advance after catching a backward pass, or recovering a backward pass after it touches the ground.”
Bottom line, and to quote one of the songs that played last night on the way to break by Prime Video, whenever a player from either team sees a loose ball after the whistle has blown, JUMP ON IT.
Seahawks head coach Mike Macdonald saw his team convert a pair of two-point plays on their way to coming back from 16 points down to tie the Rams in the fourth quarter on Thursday night and he went for the hat trick in overtime.
After Sam Darnold’s touchdown pass to Jaxon Smith-Njigba brought them within one point with 3:17 to play in extra time, the Seahawks picked up a win when Darnold scanned the field and found tight end Eric Saubert for the game-winning points. After the game, Macdonald said it was a situation that he and offensive coordinator Klint Kubiak had planned for and explained his thought process in the moment.
“Well, it was something we had talked about really throughout the season and then really particularly for this game because of the playoff situation,” Macdonald said, via a transcript from the team. “You know, do you play for the tie and lock up a playoff seed. I just felt great about our play and I trusted our guys. To Klint’s credit, he was really confident and then the players ultimately make it happen. Once we got that drive going it was pretty clear what we were going to do.”
A tie would have clinched a playoff spot, but it would have made it more difficult for the Seahawks to win the division and it never felt like a real option for the Seahawks to go that route in overtime. They chose to kick after winning the toss, which meant that they’d know just what they needed to win once they got the ball and suggested that Macdonald would go that route under any circumstances. The amount of time left on the clock when they scored meant the Rams would have plenty of time to position themselves for a game-winning score in the final seconds, so there was every reason in the world for the Seahawks to leave their offense on the field to win the game.
That’s just what they did and it will go down as one of the most memorable victories in franchise history.
When quarterback Sam Darnold threw his second interception of Thursday night’s game against the Rams while down 16 points in the fourth quarter, it looked like he was on his way to the kind of result that has helped define his last two seasons.
Darnold’s return to the starting ranks with the Vikings and Seahawks has led to a lot of good things and a lot of wins, but it’s also seen him fail to maintain a high level of play in the biggest moments of the season. Darnold played poorly in back-to-back losses that cost the Vikings a division title and knocked them out of the playoffs last season, and he threw four interceptions in a 21-19 loss to the Rams in Los Angeles earlier this season.
On Thursday night, though, things wound up bouncing the other way. Darnold went 8-of-12 for 101 yards, two touchdowns, and two two-point conversions after his second interception and the Seahawks came back for a 38-37 overtime win that put them in first place in the NFC West with two games left in the regular season.
“I’ve had games like this in the past where I haven’t played necessarily my best football and turned the ball over, but at the end of the game you see yourself on the other side,” Darnold said, via the team’s website. “It’s not great when you have interceptions and turnovers. You want to limit that. But all you can do is fight back. For us, I was just going to continue to plug away, get the ball to open receivers, and go through my reads.”
Seahawks head coach Mike Macdonald said after the game that “our story has stayed the same since day one” when it comes to Darnold’s capabilities, but his previous big-game results had left a lot of other doubts. Thursday night will erase some of them and an extended playoff run would put almost all of them to bed.
