“That’s on Jared Goff”: Shannon Sharpe Explains Lions’ Botched 2pt Attempt Falls on QB More Than ‘Forgetful’ OT Taylor Decker
Share- Nishadil
- January 01, 2024
- 0 Comments
- 3 minutes read
- 5 Views

The emerged as winners on Sunday against one of their biggest conference rivals, the Detroit Lions. But the incident during the Lions’ game winning 2 point conversion became a talking point. With 23 seconds remaining on the clock, the Lions narrowed the score to only a 1 point deficit with a touchdown.
But rather than going for an extra point to tie the game and battle it out in the OT, made a gutsy call and opted for a 2 point conversion. What followed was a botched fail. While many blamed refereeing and OT Taylor Decker, analyst Shannon Sharpe thinks QB Goff needs to shoulder the blame. Advertisement managed to pull a 2 point conversion off after finding offensive lineman Taylor Decker in the end zone.
They were officially in the lead until the ref threw a flag on the field for illegal touching and declared Decker an ineligible receiver. They did get two more snaps, but the refrained from taking the extra point and failed to make the 2 point conversion, eventually losing the match to 20 19. The ref’s reasoning behind the call was Taylor’s failure to report his eligibility to him and, at the same time, number 70 Dan Skipper did report, who did not touch the ball.
Advertisement On the recent episode of the ‘ ‘, Ocho Johnson said the reason behind the team’s failure to inform the official meant that they hadn’t practiced this play beforehand. Shannon Sharpe, on the other hand, blamed shot caller Jared Goff, for failing to take charge of the situation. He felt that it should have been the QB’s job to remind his lineman to report his eligibility before the start of play.
“ ” said Sharpe. “ ” According to the NFL rulebook, players with jersey numbers from 50 to 79 and 90 to 99 must report to the referee if they want to touch the ball. Hence, the penalty. However, since the conclusion of the bout, a few angles have been revealed where Decker can in fact be seen reporting to the referee, sparking all sorts of reactions.
While the initial look puts the blame on the Lions’ Goff and Decker for their failure to inform, enhanced footage shifts the blame on ref Brad Allen. This has led NFL fans to demand answers and explanations from the league about refs’ conduct and lack of accountability. Advertisement Late Referee Call Against Detroit Lions Divides Twitter After the game, new camera angles revealed Goff asking Decker to inform the ref about his eligibility, and the offensive tackle did his part.
It seems that the ref, Brad Allen, mistook number 68 for no. 70 and gave the wrong ruling on the field. Loading embed tweet https://twitter.com/_MLFootball/status/1741337495500107910?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Allen’s failure to pay attention led to the Lions’ loss and has left NFL fans fuming. Fans have demanded answers, and some even asked the NFL to fire the ref.
They said: Loading embed tweet https://twitter.com/TheChiefWildcat/status/1741332412515168454?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Another stated This fan remarked Another chimed in A fan tweeted, Loading embed tweet https://twitter.com/DSAforUSA/status/1741346832163180738?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw While fans are cognizant of referees’ efforts and hard work on the field, they still feel that they should have owned up to the mistake.
Referees have been in the unnecessary spotlight too many times this season for blatant errors and blunders on their part. It’s high time the NFL finds a solution to this problem. The Detroit Lions and Cowboys are both now 11 5. The loss leaves Detroit as the third seed in the NFC and with a very slim chance of leapfrogging the for the number no.
1 seed. Despite a win, Dallas is in the same boat as the Lions. For them to finish as the number 1 seed, both the and 49ers have to lose their remaining games. Advertisement.
Disclaimer: This article was generated in part using artificial intelligence and may contain errors or omissions. The content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice. We makes no representations or warranties regarding its accuracy, completeness, or reliability. Readers are advised to verify the information independently before relying on