New Report on Seattle's 2 Point Conversion (and this is really bullcrap if true)

[dang]

In the December 2025 Seahawks-Rams game, the inadvertent whistle rule was invoked to reverse a failed two-point conversion into a successful one by allowing the Seattle Seahawks to retain possession after a backward pass was incorrectly blown dead.

The rule, often referenced through Rule 15 (Instant Replay), Section 2 (Replay Reviews), Article 3 (Awarding Possession), allows for a recovery to be awarded if replay confirms a clear, immediate recovery by a team despite an accidental whistle.
How the Inadvertent Whistle Rule Was Applied:

• The Initial Mistake: During a 2-point attempt, Sam Darnold threw a pass that was deflected backward by a Rams player. An official prematurely blew the whistle, assuming it was an incomplete forward pass, causing players to stop playing.
• The Review: Replay showed the ball was a backward pass, making it a live ball (fumble) even though it touched the ground.
• The Exception: According to rule interpretations, an "inadvertent whistle" does not prevent awarding a recovery if replay confirms "clear possession of a loose ball in immediate continuing action".
• Charbonnet’s Recovery: Because Zach Charbonnet picked up the loose ball in the end zone immediately following the errant whistle, the replay booth overturned the "incomplete pass" ruling and awarded the two-point conversion to the Seahawks.

Experts noted that for this specific rule, whether a whistle is blown is "completely irrelevant" if the recovery is immediate and clear, as Charbonnet’s actions met the criteria for "immediate continuing action".

Now add the additional point that has surfaced (watch posted video and 5 others just like it):
- An alleged” call from the Prime broadcast referee analyst to the NFL replay booth (AFTER the play was called incomplete pass/whistle blown) indicating the play should be reviewed as a lateral pass resulting in a re-review and overturn of the call on the field by the replay booth.

 

[bubbaramfan]

The play was blown dead. End of play. Period.

 

[RAMSinLA]

Jacob Ellenboger

Oh Duh Okay thank you lol

 

[RAMSinLA]

JE also missed the point that it wasn’t an immediate recovery. If we blow up Kupp or JSN on a similar looking play, may not be a backwards pass, I don’t want to see any flags for the Rams doing what it takes to recover the ball.

JE is correct about the interference from the rules analyst commentator, but it also creates a precedence equivalent to the standard kickoff return that was removed for safety precautions. I’m not sure the NFL wants to open a can of worms with players blowing each other up over the potential of a backwards or lateral pass.

Great point

 

[Mackeyser]

They should have replayed the extra point. That is the main point of this thread.

No, they shouldn’t.

I’m over it and looking forward to the off-season moves and whatnot, but there’s only one answer.

Play was called dead. Try is no good as of the moment the play is blown dead. There have been countless plays where fumbles were obviated by early whistles, etc, and they don’t replay the down because the refs screwed up.

Saturday Morning Inspections also made an excellent point…that McAuley had no right and should never have had access to the head of officiating during the game and creates a serious “integrity of the game” issue because Amazon doesn’t possess a review or have any standing in the game and Walt shouldn’t have taken the call.

But that’s a separate issue.

The play was called dead, so that should have been that. All the bullshit after is a separate and actually more problematic issue that MUST BE ADDRESSED.

 

[RAMSinLA]

The play was blown dead. End of play. Period.

We have always said the whistle stops the play. The players stop playing when they hear it. The game was stolen from the Rams and maybe a Lombardi trophy too. Whether it was intentional for profit or team fanship by this dude this has to stop right here and now. No analyst on the radio should be stopping play on the field.
For any reason.

 

[Mackeyser]

In the December 2025 Seahawks-Rams game, the inadvertent whistle rule was invoked to reverse a failed two-point conversion into a successful one by allowing the Seattle Seahawks to retain possession after a backward pass was incorrectly blown dead.

The rule, often referenced through Rule 15 (Instant Replay), Section 2 (Replay Reviews), Article 3 (Awarding Possession), allows for a recovery to be awarded if replay confirms a clear, immediate recovery by a team despite an accidental whistle.
How the Inadvertent Whistle Rule Was Applied:

• The Initial Mistake: During a 2-point attempt, Sam Darnold threw a pass that was deflected backward by a Rams player. An official prematurely blew the whistle, assuming it was an incomplete forward pass, causing players to stop playing.
• The Review: Replay showed the ball was a backward pass, making it a live ball (fumble) even though it touched the ground.
• The Exception: According to rule interpretations, an "inadvertent whistle" does not prevent awarding a recovery if replay confirms "clear possession of a loose ball in immediate continuing action".
• Charbonnet’s Recovery: Because Zach Charbonnet picked up the loose ball in the end zone immediately following the errant whistle, the replay booth overturned the "incomplete pass" ruling and awarded the two-point conversion to the Seahawks.

Experts noted that for this specific rule, whether a whistle is blown is "completely irrelevant" if the recovery is immediate and clear, as Charbonnet’s actions met the criteria for "immediate continuing action".

It wasn’t an accidental whistle. I counted three different officials running in, blowing the play dead.

That was the ruling by multiple officials.

If this stands, how can a crew justify late hit flags going forward? How can a player trust any amount of a crew saying the play is dead? Hoe many officials does it take to blow a play dead? Cuz if 3 isn’t enough, then how many?

 

[XXXIVwin]

It's not about trying to interpret players' SUBJECTIVE intent. For all I know, Charbonnet could be sprinting despite believing the ball is dead. It's about the players CONTINUING to play. That's when a whistle should be disregarded. Nobody continued to play there.

Every person on the field, in the stadium, and apparently in the NFL replay booth believed that the ball was dead and the play was over. It was a total fluke that the ball was moving backwards. Nobody thought it was the case until McAulay was able to review a slow-motion replay.

As for spirit vs. letter of the rule, "immediate and continuing action" is an abstract phrase. What that means is debatable. What I'm saying is that the rule should require at least one player to keep playing. That didn't happen here. And if the rule doesn't require that, it needs to go because it's a shitty rule. Players are taught that when the ref blows the whistle, the play is dead. So if we're going to depart from that practice, it needs to be because the ref screwed up AND players kept playing.

Yeah, we can agree to disagree then. It's not the case that "nobody "continued to play. Charbonnet continued to play. Kinda casual, but it doesn't matter. If you watch a replay and focus exclusively on #25 Charbonnet, he stayed involved and focused the ENTIRETY of the play. He followed the ball, saw it hit the ground, and followed it. Before the whistle, during the whistle, and after it.

And it's irrelevant that it was a "total fluke" that the ball was moving backward. Facts are facts. The ball was moving backward.

The whole point of instant replay is that it doesn't matter if everyone in the stadium "thought" it was a forward pass. The evidence clearly shows that it was in reality a backward pass. The point of replay is to confirm the physics of the play, and it was a backward pass.

As McVay would say, there were a LOT of layers to this.

As for the how "continuing action" should be defined, that's a separate issue.

But yeah, the "inadvertent whistle" is really the heart of the matter here. No matter which way the rule is written, some fans are gonna be pissed off by controversial outcomes. There's no perfect answer to the "inadvertent whistle" problem, in my opinion.

 

[XXXIVwin]

It wasn’t an accidental whistle. I counted three different officials running in, blowing the play dead.

That was the ruling by multiple officials.

If this stands, how can a crew justify late hit flags going forward? How can a player trust any amount of a crew saying the play is dead? Hoe many officials does it take to blow a play dead? Cuz if 3 isn’t enough, then how many?

I hear ya, Mac. To the best of my memory, there was one whistle after the ball hit the ground, and then multiple whistles after Charbonnet picked it up. But I could be wrong on that. I'd have to go through the trouble of watching/ listening to the replay I guess. Kinda hard because they showed a whole bunch of replays in silent slo-mo.

For better or worse, the "inadvertent whistle" rule was in place for 2025.

But I'm in agreement that the rule should either be re-written or at the very least clarified significantly. Player safety could be at risk if players think they should stop at the whistle "only 99% of the time."

 

[Gandalf]

They won the title. So yes. They were good enough.

If the 2 pointer went the other way and they were left holding the bag? Might not have won if they were the ones facing the adversity. They weren't the ones who had to play above the refs and it was a very small margin for victory. I hear what you say, but it always seems its the Rams who get the bad calls and have to make up for it. It sure would be awesome to be so good that you just blow everybody away by 20 -30 points and not have to give a shit about some dip shit making bad calls.

They won the title but everything went their way.
Everything doesn't go their way and they're probably not good enough either.

 

[Gandalf]

Rams need to figure out how to put some space and keep some space between themselves and their opponents in the course of a game. Don’t let a bad call or a bad play determine the outcome.

They need to quit fucking up right at the most crucial times.

 

[Merlin]

If the 2 pointer went the other way and they were left holding the bag? Might not have won if they were the ones facing the adversity. They weren't the ones who had to play above the refs and it was a very small margin for victory. I hear what you say, but it always seems its the Rams who get the bad calls and have to make up for it. It sure would be awesome to be so good that you just blow everybody away by 20 -30 points and not have to give a shit about some dip shit making bad calls.

They won the title but everything went their way.
Everything doesn't go their way and they're probably not good enough either.

Sounds like the kind of bullshit losers cry about. Which is why I said:

As ref fuckups go this was a big one and it affected the seeding and eventual results of the NFCCG and title. So I'm still pissed but on the other hand I'm not gonna act like the fans I detest of other teams who carry around this kind of BS and storyline it when their team comes up short.

 

[jrry32]

Yeah, we can agree to disagree then. It's not the case that "nobody "continued to play. Charbonnet continued to play.

Respectfully, you and I have watched enough football to know that's bullshit. He did not continue to play. No player casually jogs after a ball they believe to be live, especially when it's in the end zone. When a fumble hits the ground, players sprint and dive for it. If a Rams player jogged like Charbonnet did after an obviously live ball, McVay would bench him. And Charbonnet certainly would not jog like that after a ball he thought to be live.

So no, he did not continue to play. He moseyed over and retrieved the ball. You can say it was smart to do so. It was. But that is not the same thing as continuing to play as if the ball is live.

 

[jrry32]

Sounds like the kind of bullshit losers cry about. Which is why I said:

I'm still bitter about it now, but once the next season starts, it's water under the bridge. We owe Seattle two arse whoopings.

 

[kurtfaulk]

In the December 2025 Seahawks-Rams game, the inadvertent whistle rule was invoked to reverse a failed two-point conversion into a successful one by allowing the Seattle Seahawks to retain possession after a backward pass was incorrectly blown dead.

The rule, often referenced through Rule 15 (Instant Replay), Section 2 (Replay Reviews), Article 3 (Awarding Possession), allows for a recovery to be awarded if replay confirms a clear, immediate recovery by a team despite an accidental whistle.
How the Inadvertent Whistle Rule Was Applied:

• The Initial Mistake: During a 2-point attempt, Sam Darnold threw a pass that was deflected backward by a Rams player. An official prematurely blew the whistle, assuming it was an incomplete forward pass, causing players to stop playing.
• The Review: Replay showed the ball was a backward pass, making it a live ball (fumble) even though it touched the ground.
• The Exception: According to rule interpretations, an "inadvertent whistle" does not prevent awarding a recovery if replay confirms "clear possession of a loose ball in immediate continuing action".
• Charbonnet’s Recovery: Because Zach Charbonnet picked up the loose ball in the end zone immediately following the errant whistle, the replay booth overturned the "incomplete pass" ruling and awarded the two-point conversion to the Seahawks.

Experts noted that for this specific rule, whether a whistle is blown is "completely irrelevant" if the recovery is immediate and clear, as Charbonnet’s actions met the criteria for "immediate continuing action".

That rule only applies if players keep playing through the whistle. That was not the case on this situation. Everyone stopped. A player picking up the ball rolling towards him isn't playing through the whistle.

The suits in New York don't even know the rules.

.

 

[SWAdude]

I can't find the rule offhand but saw it somewhere that when Curl touched the ball in the endzone it was dead at that time as well.

 

[kmramsfan]

You said if "the players were scrambling" for the ball, you'd support the ruling.

What I'm trying to narrow down is HOW MANY players would have had to scramble for the ball for you to support the ruling.

If Charbonnet ALONE had shown more urgency, and dove on the ball, would you have been supportive of the ruling then?

Naaaahhh.
I'd say that he didn't hear the whistle.

 

[Alaskan Ram]

Respectfully, you and I have watched enough football to know that's bullshit. He did not continue to play. No player casually jogs after a ball they believe to be live, especially when it's in the end zone. When a fumble hits the ground, players sprint and dive for it. If a Rams player jogged like Charbonnet did after an obviously live ball, McVay would bench him. And Charbonnet certainly would not jog like that after a ball he thought to be live.

So no, he did not continue to play. He moseyed over and retrieved the ball. You can say it was smart to do so. It was. But that is not the same thing as continuing to play as if the ball is live.

I agree. The rule has been for bang bang plays... where defense has clear recovery- often getting screwed because they had picked it up on a scoop and could have scored or at least had a nice chunk of yardage. Then upon coaches challenge, replay shows "knee wasn't down" after all.

More times than not...the clear recovery occurred before the inadvertent whistle. With the players, announcers, and fans feeling bad for the defensive schmuck running down the field who doesn't know that his fumble return was blown dead. He's planning his celebration dance and thinking about incentive clauses he just hit in his contract.

That's why refs should let the down play out if there is any doubt knee might not have touched. All turnovers are automatically reviewable anyway...so why kill a live play that is questionable?

Implementing the inadvertent whistle on a backwards pass that is batted down at the line...a whistle that caused everyone to stop is not in the spirit of the rule.

The spirit of the rule is: "we fucked up killing the play, defense clearly recovered the ball before our zebra fucked shit up with his 'look at me' -play is over- inadvertent whistle.
Zebras also fucked up a lot of games this year with premature whistles regarding forward progress, nullifying potential fumbles. I digress....

There were lots of fuckups to choose from as to why the Rams lost this game. And the Seahawks needed everyone of them to squeak out the win.

 

[majrleaged]

This play has bugged me, but I moved on. We still could have won. Even if they called the play correctly they still could have won. So I moved on.

Then this bullshit comes out and I am really pissed. How dare they review the play based on a phone call from an announcer. Plus it really isn't obvious the ball is going backwards in such a short space. So it shouldn't have been changed, per their rules.

It makes me wonder where the motivation comes from to make a decision like this to change the game on fluke. Was it just a chance to have the game go to overtime? Was it a petty payback for Puka? Was it just to grab TV time for the refs? I mean as I stated above. Other than momentum, which of course is very important, the game had plenty of time for either team to win.

Ok, I feel a little better now.

 

[dang]

Then this bullshit comes out and I am really pissed. How dare they review the play based on a phone call from an announcer.

I agree bad calls are part of the game. I’m moving forward on the bad call aspect of this play.

But it’s the statement above that can’t be ignored. The NFL needs to investigate if the re-review was ONLY pursued due to a call from a fucking announcer Terry McCauley. And if so - someone’s head should roll.