Bold takeaway: the Rams and Sean McVay are pushing for changes after a highly unusual two-point play, aiming to avoid a similar situation in the future. But here's where it gets controversial... the proposal goes beyond just one play, seeking both rule clarifications and procedural tweaks that could ripple through late-game and two-minute scenarios.
Sean McVay said the incident was rare and acknowledged the play was officiated correctly. His team’s core idea is to ensure a backward pass that’s tipped by the defense and travels beyond the line of scrimmage is treated like a fumble in the end game or at the end of half, when the ball’s in play on fourth downs, two-point attempts, or PATs. In practice, the goal is to align this situation with the Holy Roller precedent, which prevents the offense from benefiting from a backward, deflected ball in certain contexts.
In McVay’s words, the intent isn’t to rewrite basic football law; it’s to write the rule so a tipped perimeter screen that moves forward past the line of scrimmage isn’t rewarded to the team that recovers it. He added that even if the result didn’t change the game’s outcome, most people would agree the play shouldn’t be advantageous to the offense simply because a backward pass ricocheted forward.
The Rams also proposed a 40-second limit on initiating booth reviews, prompted by the lengthy delay before the Seahawks’ failed two-point conversion received a second look. On substance, there are two specific proposals:
- Proposal A would place the ball at the spot of the backward pass if an on-field ruling of incomplete pass is reversed and the backward pass touched the ground with recovery beyond that spot by the throwing team.
- Proposal B would treat a backward pass that’s deflected and touched the ground as a fumble in situations on fourth down, after the two-minute warning, or during a conversion attempt.
Either option would have erased Zach Charbonnet’s routine recovery of the backward pass from Seahawks quarterback Sam Darnold that was tipped and bounced into the end zone.
For passage, any rule change must secure 24 votes from the league’s 32 teams. Our take is that, while the logic is solid and beneficial for consistent rulings, achieving broad consensus—let alone a supermajority—will be challenging.
What do you think about these ideas? Should the league adopt a clearer framework to handle tipped backward passes in late-game situations, even if it means reinterpreting longstanding plays? Do you agree with adding a strict review clock, or would that risk reducing officiating accuracy in tight games?
