- Joined:
- Nov 5, 2012
- Posts:
- 4,300
- Liked Posts:
- 2,527
- Location:
- NJ
My favorite teams
Not good enough.
It's ok though. I forgive you.
Not good enough.
You got it.They obviously don't. Certainly not every whistle nor every incompletion. Not every incompletion is the same. It is not a forward pass hit by a pass rusher and going into the dirt. Everyone is trained for that. Or every incompletion laterally that may possibly be behind LOS. Everyone does that.
This is different. Also think about it, they wouldn't let a fight for the ball even happen because they would insist with non-stop blowing whistles that the play IS dead and the ball was incomplete. Only those who ignore the whistles and clearly recover would be rewarded making the whistle meaningless and a play for the ball untimed and basically unofficiated. the rule is illogical.
If I fumble, and my team recovers, our ball.
If I fumble and the opponent recovers, opponent's ball.
If I fumble, and the ball goes out of bounds before anyone recovers, our ball.
If I fumble and nobody recovers, the catch never happened.
WHY? Why does that make sense?
Exactly. And on this play, the refs should have known not to pick up the ball either; or at the very least, don't get in between the player and ball on purpose, like that ref did to Miller.The Bears just need to make sure the ball is not on the ground after the whistle, don't just stand there and watch the ref pick it up!
It is that simple. And you could make a good case that it wasn't a catch on that basis, but the ref ruled it a catch by interpreting the video as Miller controlling the ball TO LeBlanc's arm and taking steps (football move) making it a catch before LeBlanc found the strength to rip the ball out and therefore now a fumble as Miller is clearly not down.
So if you watch the play and see a non-catch then this is indeed simple. If one (including yesterday's ref) looks at the play and sees a catch and fumble, then the NFL rulebook (for some reason) makes this needlessly complicated.
I agree. The rule should be a catch and the ball placed at the spot of the fumble.
I disagree.The only change I would consider to that rule would be just to have a complete do over. Replay the down.
I disagree.
If it's ruled a completed pass, and a fumble, and then a ref picks it up, it should be the same as if it went out of bounds, which means the last team with possession retains possession at the spot of the fumble.
No. The ref ruled it an incomplete pass. A player or ref can pick it up. Whichever. Now, only if there's a red flag or official review, and it's ruled to be a catch and fumble, then if the ref picks it up it's considered the same as if it went out of bounds; so last team with possession (in this case Miller) has the ball, and ball placed at spot of fumble. Simple, logical, traditional.So, you want the NFL to review everything before the refs even pick up the ball? Not going to happen. Again, the refs ruled it incomplete, it was then overuled.
The right call was made. Yes we would have liked miller to have picked up the ball but I understand why he didn’t. Not a bad rule. I’ll tell you what was bad. The first call of a incomplete pass from the fucking ref. He called it wrong. He should have never called it an incomplete pass. The whistle should have never been blown. It was a catch and a fumble. Not sure who would have recovered the ball though.
Well, actually, all in the NFL are in agreement that the wrong call was made, but the review process was applied correctly.
No. The ref ruled it an incomplete pass. A player or ref can pick it up. Whichever. Now, only if there's a red flag or official review, and it's ruled to be a catch and fumble, then if the ref picks it up it's considered the same as if it went out of bounds; so last team with possession (in this case Miller) has the ball, and ball placed at spot of fumble. Simple, logical, traditional.
This makes more sense than ruling a complete pass an incomplete pass.
The ref did see it as an incomplete pass though. It was the ref's in NY that overuled the ref on the field upon replay that saw it as a catch and a fumble. The funny thing is, the rules were followed correctly, it is the rule itself that is in question. You can't fault the ref on the field for the call, it was a bang bang play, and it was close. So close in fact I was surprised they overruled him, even though I did think it was a catch.
Maybe it's the wording on the definition of what constitutes a catch again needs to be tweaked, to include the receiver must maintain possession with two feet inbounds and make a football move, but if the catch is contested, he needs to maintain possession to either the ground, the sideline, or the end zone. Because the catch was still clearly being contested.
So, you want the NFL to review everything before the refs even pick up the ball? Not going to happen. Again, the refs ruled it incomplete, it was then overuled.
Need to remove your Bears goggles and think about this more logically. So, by your idea of what is right, if the same play would have happened on the one yard line, and the pass was ruled incomplete, and the resultant fumble went through the end zone, (then review showed it to be acually a completed pass and fumble) then it would have been Eagles ball, regardless of the whistle?
of course if that would have been what had happened you would be making a 180 degree turn about saying how ridiculous THAT was.
You are responding to Sculpt who said:
"If it's ruled a completed pass, and a fumble, and then a ref picks it up, it should be the same as if it went out of bounds, which means the last team with possession retains possession at the spot of the fumble."
But your counterpoint to him doesn't make sense. The NFL would not have to review "everything before the refs even pick up the ball". Only review a catch vs. non-catch when it's a close call and then a fumble or not a fumble (ie the ball gets loose and flies out but a receiver's knee was down at the time).
If any close call is ruled a catch and then subsequently the loose ball is officially a fumble and the ref ruled initially (and incorrectly) incomplete, then it is lumped in with "inadvertent whistle" and treated the same as if it was fumbled out of bounds with neither team recovering. Laughable that you would object as if that would slow the game up because you yourself pointed out how infrequent this is.
Hell, this is even less frequent than other cases of inadvertent whistles.
Well, no, it shouldn't be, because it is quite clear that is not what the rules state. Your argument therefore is based on what you believe it should be, not what the NFL voted on and adopted.