(01-04-2023, 10:18 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: your missing the fact there simply isnt time to make this game up or resume it.    Without putting players at risk

Right.  And even if you push everything back and create a "Week 19" for just the Bills and Bengals to play their game, you're giving every other playoff team a bye week and thus a competitive advantage.  And if you're the Bengals or the Bills, you will have to play 3 games within 2 weeks. So either the Bengals get screwed by seeding, or they get screwed by their first opponent getting 2 weeks of prep while they themselves are exhausted.   

These organizations ultimately need to decide if they're willing to sacrifice seeding for the sake of their players' health and maintaining as much of a competitive equilibrium as possible going into the playoffs.  

I'm wondering if this would create a "contingency Week 19" inserted between the last regular season game and the playoffs, just like an extra week between the playoffs and Super Bowl. Or they go back to a 17-week season and use Week 18 as a contingency week.

(01-04-2023, 02:48 AM)Science Friction Wrote: Other things the Commish cannot do: (See below)

1. Unilaterally declare a forfeit

2. Terminate the game early and award the Bengals a 7-3 victory

3. Cancel/ Declare a no contest(except as a last resort) 

4.  Declare a tie



From footballzebras.com


The policies do outline a few things the commissioner cannot do. He cannot unilaterally declare a forfeit, and he essentially lacks any authority to do so except in a very limited circumstance of a team refusing to take the field. This game in particular cannot be terminated early — in other words, declaring a 7-3 Bengals win — because games may only be terminated if “it is reasonable to project that its resumption (a) would not change its ultimate result or (b) would not adversely affect any other inter-team competitive issue.” The playoff seedings are definitely affected by the outcome of this game. Similarly, the commissioner cannot outright cancel the game — nullify everything from the game and have it uncontested — except as a last resort. Some have also suggested that the game be declared a tie. There is no provision for the commissioner to do so, and the half-win in the standings also presents the “inter-team competitive issue” that the league would avoid.

Unilaterally is the key word. The Bengals and bills could likely agree to a tie, forfeit or coin toss and make it doable. If they think that is better than jumbling the schedule. Maybe all teams would have to sign off on it. 

(01-04-2023, 05:20 AM)Nepa Wrote: This is a lot of good information. The league apparently does have rules in place. i hope they follow the detailed rules and not the Goodell absolute power line, which goes against the carefully crafted rules that cover this situation.

Yes. I concur. The rules are definitely there for what is supposed to take place in these type of situations. It's very specific  about what options can be considered and what can't. However, I do worry about the one sentence in Article 4 , which seems to give him authority to make up stuff as he sees fit. So why even have a  a list of clear guidelines to follow if you are gonna include a sentence giving him authority to do whatever?  Why not just have a one sentence statement of Rule 17 saying, "In these situations, the Commissioner can just make shit up."

I think if Goodell decides to go rogue here instead of following what is laid out in Rule 17, he will cite that there are no options available that are "devoid of competitive inequities," which is a common theme that runs throughout  17. In other words, any option he takes will result in one or more teams getting the shaft. He's probably hoping that Week 18 results will help him out of this with an option that results in as little "competitive inequity" as possible. 

(01-04-2023, 09:55 AM)jj22 Wrote: The issue is the term "emergency". This wasn't a blizzard, power outage, lightning, mass sickness (covid), natural disaster,  or any outside situation that theoretically made the game unplayable. This per reports, were the decision of coaches which accounts pretty much to a refusal to play. Walking off the field. Honorable no doubt, but not an emergency situation causing the game to be cancelled..... This is why it won't be continued.

I repeat this was still very honorable ....... And we all should be proud of Zac's leadership, but it was optional.

The NFL had determined this game was not going to resume, the impact of what happen on the field never came into play anyway... from what I read in the Article, I don;t see any clear cut language that says this game has to be played or that the commissioner with others can determine not to play the game. 

(01-04-2023, 09:55 AM)jj22 Wrote: The issue is the term "emergency". This wasn't a blizzard, power outage, lightning, mass sickness (covid), natural disaster,  or any outside situation that theoretically made the game unplayable. This per reports, were the decision of coaches which accounts pretty much to a refusal to play. Walking off the field. Honorable no doubt, but not an emergency situation causing the game to be cancelled..... This is why it won't be continued.

I repeat this was still very honorable ....... And we all should be proud of Zac's leadership, but it was optional.

Definitely an emergency.  

An EMERGENCY SQUAD literally drove onto the field.  Natural disasters and illnesses arent' the only types of emergencies. This would fall under the category of a MEDICAL emergency, and a life and death one at that. 

(01-04-2023, 01:21 PM)GAWhoDey Wrote: Definitely an emergency.  

An EMERGENCY SQUAD literally drove onto the field.  Natural disasters and illnesses arent' the only types of emergencies. This would fall under the category of a MEDICAL emergency, and a life and death one at that. 

Absolutely an emergency.

Look,  Rule 17 forged a clear path ahead for Goodell if he wanted to go that route:

ARTICLE 9:

"In instances under these emergency procedures which require the Commissioner to reschedule a regular-season game, the Commissioner will make every effort to set the game for no later than two days after its originally scheduled date, and will attempt to schedule the game at its original site. If unable to do so, the Commissioner will schedule it at the nearest available facility. If it is impossible to schedule the game within two days after its original date, the Commissioner will attempt to schedule it on the Tuesday of the next calendar week in which the two involved clubs play other clubs (or each other). Further, the Commissioner will keep in mind the potential for competitive inequities if one or both of the involved clubs has already been scheduled for a game following the Tuesday of that week (e.g., Thanksgiving).




I suspect Goodell approached both coaches with the prospect of playing on Wednesday and one, or both, said no to that idea. His next option, by rule, is to schedule it for Tuesday, Jan 10. Maybe move Bengals/Ravens , Bills/Patriots to Thurs or Friday of this week and then Bengals/Bills conclusion on the 10th. Bottomline, by rule the Commish is supposed to "make every effort" to set the conclusion of the game within two days of Monday night, and if that is impossible then set it for Tuesday the 10th. That's what the rule says. Bottomline, as harsh as it may sound, the Buffalo Bills are gonna have to circle the damn wagons and play football. 


If the Commissioner sets a date for the game to be played and the Bills refuse to take the field, then, at that point , the rules give him the authority to declare the game a forfeit. In my opinion, Goodell should have gone ahead and set the reschedule for either Wednesday(within two days) or Tuesday of next week . Any team that refuses to take the field receives a forfeit loss and we move on.  The rules clearly forged a path ahead but Goodell is worried about bad PR. He has once again shown himself to be a feckless and indecisive Commissioner.

(01-04-2023, 01:21 PM)GAWhoDey Wrote: Definitely an emergency.  

An EMERGENCY SQUAD literally drove onto the field.  Natural disasters and illnesses arent' the only types of emergencies. This would fall under the category of a MEDICAL emergency, and a life and death one at that. 

Could the game have continued? That’s the only question when it comes to this legal document and the billions that the failure to continue cost the league, networks, advertisers, fantasy footballers, gambling, Mike Brown himself etc. We can’t separate an injury as severe as it may have been, from a refusal by coaches/ players to continue. Any insurances that would cover the loss isn’t going to cover it based off of coaches refusing to continue. That isn’t a legal emergency in this instance. It’s a moral one granted but we are talking about billions here and legal/ financial repercussions. There are tons of legal issues with this classification you guys aren’t taking int consideration. It was a medical emergency I agree. Not an emergency that prohibited the game.

Any insurances that would cover the loss isn’t going to cover it based off of coaches refusing to continue. That isn’t a legal emergency in this instance. It’s a moral one granted but we are talking about billions here and legal/ financial repercussions.

(01-04-2023, 01:00 PM)Science Friction Wrote: Yes. I concur. The rules are definitely there for what is supposed to take place in these type of situations. It's very specific  about what options can be considered and what can't. However, I do worry about the one sentence in Article 4 , which seems to give him authority to make up stuff as he sees fit. So why even have a  a list of clear guidelines to follow if you are gonna include a sentence giving him authority to do whatever?  Why not just have a one sentence statement of Rule 17 saying, "In these situations, the Commissioner can just make shit up."

I think if Goodell decides to go rogue here instead of following what is laid out in Rule 17, he will cite that there are no options available that are "devoid of competitive inequities," which is a common theme that runs throughout  17. In other words, any option he takes will result in one or more teams getting the shaft. He's probably hoping that Week 18 results will help him out of this with an option that results in as little "competitive inequity" as possible. 

There is no option that is devoid of competitive inequities, unless the Bills simply offer a forfeit.

(01-04-2023, 03:25 AM)Science Friction Wrote: The following was added to the article on footballzebras.com about three hours after Tuesday's announcement by the NFL :

"While there are very few options to schedule a resumption of the game, not scheduling a resumption of the game seems to be very unlikely. But there is one scenario in which the game might be cancelled.

In the Tuesday afternoon statement above, the league referenced a “possible resumption” which indicates that a cancellation is still under consideration. And any possible resumption would be after the Week 18 games are completed.

If the Chiefs, Patriots, and Bengals all win their Week 18 games, then the suspended game would only determine the #2 and #3 seeds. That makes it possible to consider abandoning the suspended game, and the Bengals get the #2 seed based on the fourth tiebreaker, strength of victory. (Currently the Bengals have an insurmountable lead for that tiebreaker.) For purposes of wild card games, it could mean that the both teams rematch their division foes or not. Although there is no provision for it, it is possible that the commissioner could propose that as a concession for abandoning the game, the Bills would hold home-field advantage over the Bengals if the two teams meet in the divisional playoffs or the conference championship or that such a matchup is a neutral site game (with several nonplayoff venues between both cities). There is a precedent for making playoff structural changes, as commissioner Pete Rozelle reworked the playoffs in the 1982 season that was shortened by a players’ strike.

But don’t the policies and procedures indicate the game must be resumed? Throughout the documentation, there is a common theme to avoid competitive inequities. In this particular outcome, it is possible that Goodell decides that no scenario is devoid of competitive inequities, and that wiping the game out is the lesser inequity. The only way this seems to be the viable path is if the suspended game only affects the Bills and Bengals (and tangentially, their postseason opponents) which happens only if the Chiefs, Bengals, and Patriots win in Week 18.

If the game is not resumed, standings for the playoff seeds would be calculated on win percentage as usual. Any statistics that would affect a player’s contracted performance bonus or position in the statistical rankings would be prorated to 16 games."

I dont' get this because if the Bills were to win the suspended game, they would be tied with KC overall and have the H2H tiebreaker for the #1 seed. Also, i don't see how the Bengals would get the #2 because they're currently 1 game behind Buffalo.

?

(01-04-2023, 01:19 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: The NFL had determined this game was not going to resume, the impact of what happen on the field never came into play anyway... from what I read in the Article, I don;t see any clear cut language that says this game has to be played or that the commissioner with others can determine not to play the game. 

It straight up says that cancellation is a "last resort". 

(01-04-2023, 03:09 PM)casear2727 Wrote: There is no option that is devoid of competitive inequities, unless the Bills simply offer a forfeit.

That's why the game should have been scheduled to resume on Tuesday or Wednesday and Bills given a forfeit loss if they refused to take the field. Then we don't have do random numbers or add Week 19.  We would just move on to the regularly scheduled games.

(01-04-2023, 03:19 PM)Science Friction Wrote: That's why the game should have been scheduled to resume on Tuesday or Wednesday and Bills given a forfeit loss if they refused to take the field. Then we don't have do random numbers or add Week 19.  We would just move on to the regularly scheduled games.

Well the NFL didn't do that and the Bills didn't step up and take the L....  here we are.

(01-04-2023, 03:17 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: It straight up says that cancellation is a "last resort". 

Yep. Rules clearly say that every possible attempt should be made to play the game. Cancellation is reserved only if it is simply not possible to play the game. LAST RESORT means you do whatever you have to do to play the game.  A reschedule date should have already been set.  You HAVE to resume this game!!!

(01-04-2023, 03:22 PM)casear2727 Wrote: Well the NFL didn't do that and the Bills didn't step up and take the L....  here we are.

Yep. Here we are.

(01-04-2023, 03:26 PM)Science Friction Wrote: Yep. Here we are.

I'm getting a terrible feeling about replaying this game as to potential injuries.  Bills lost 2 starters in 7 minutes, I don't want that reverse mojo.  We need a healthy roster for the playoff games.

At this point idc what they do, I just want an answer.

The rule gives the Commissioner the authority to decide how to proceed. Since there is the previous Covid year precedent and given the difficulties involved in rescheduling at this late date, I expect the game will not be resumed, will be declared a no contest after Sunday’s games and seeding awarded according to final winning percentages and any applicable tie breakers. Is this fair? In a perfect world no, but the situation is far from perfect. I am confident that our team can once again overcome the adversity and reach the ultimate goal.