Can we talk about that weird catch and fumble incomplete pass?

Burque

Huevos Rancheros
7,981
3,271
70
Miller really should have recovered it and ran it in. That sucked.
After the incomplete symbol, by the (incorrect) official, it would've been a dead ball had he recovered. I still think the old mantra about if "there is a ball on the ground pick it" up applies here though.
 

Alpha

CBMB Legend
Donator
1,064
407
40
The refs blew it dead after the ball came out, that should count for something!
when it was caught the play was still live, the refs blew it dead at the fumble, that is what should be ruled out.
 

HeHateMe

I <3 hairy bears
Donator
28,937
19,668
105
After the incomplete symbol, by the (incorrect) official, it would've been a dead ball had he recovered. I still think the old mantra about if there is a ball on the ground pick it up applies here though.

It always applies. Idk why ppl are saying he couldn't because he absolutely could have.
 

Burque

Huevos Rancheros
7,981
3,271
70
For those caught up on the stupidity of the rule can anyone make sense why a fumble at the 1 inch line stays with the offense, but if it's on the goaline or in the endzone it's a change of possession (touchback)?

Or how can you have an offside on the defense (5 yard penalty), hold by the OL (10 yard penalty) and a pass interference by the D back (could be long yardage) and when it all happens at the same time we pretend nothing happened?

There are many rules that don't make any sense. We've accepted them and work around them just because we've been exposed to them. This will be no different.


This rule makes perfect sense to me. If you start fumbling outside the endzone and it goes into and out of the endzone why would you get the ball back? Can you offer me a reason that would make any sense and where you would spot the ball?


to the bit about multiple penalties what is your suggestion? I do not think stacking penalties makes any sense at all.
 

Burque

Huevos Rancheros
7,981
3,271
70
It always applies. Idk why ppl are saying he couldn't because he absolutely could have.
Think how funny it would've been if he ran over and snatched it out of the officials hand as he picked it up. Then as his reward, aside from a penalty for touching a ref, would be to maintain possession of the ROCK!
 

clear

New member
139
0
0
That was maybe the weirdest thing I’ve seen in my 30 years as a football fan. Even weirder that they would have a rule that specifically covers that exact situation, and that that rule would be completely nonsensical.

From what the ref heads were saying later, the officials actually *did* follow the rule correctly on this. When a player catches a ball and fumbles it, and no one recovers the fumble, it’s ruled an incomplete pass.

That makes no fucking sense.

It essentially takes a catch away from the receiver because of something that happened AFTER the receiver established the catch. That’s unbelievable to me. Why it’s not just treated like any other unrecovered fumble (ball given to the fumbling player’s team at the spot of the fumble) is completely beyond me.


Was this the strangest post-season officiating situation ever?

This is what I don't understand about that whole situation.

Did the refs blow the whistle? That's what I thought they said during the broadcast. Now doesn't that constitute the play being ruled dead? That would explain why nobody went and picked up the ball.

Now if that is the case. Say Miller picked it up and took it into the end zone. I'm willing to bet the refs would of said it was a catch, and since the whistle blew the play was ruled dead and Miller couldn't advance the ball.

I just don't understand why there is such a rule. If he caught it and fumbled and nobody recovered it, then it should be a catch.
 

Burque

Huevos Rancheros
7,981
3,271
70
What I'm saying is if the refs blew the whistle then play stops, so if Miller runs it in then how can an advancement on a fumble hold up?
So if the refs blew the whistle, are you trying to say that he might could negotiate an advancement of the football?
 

wklink

CBMB refugee
Donator
2,138
1,065
70
I have no idea why they are making this so complicated.

If a quarterback is sacked and fumbles but the play is blown dead because the ref thinks the player is down and as a result there is no clear recovery the ball is pretty much dead at the spot and the team keeps the ball. I'm pretty sure it is the same with a running play. Once a receiver establishes he is considered a runner at that point. I don't understand why the same rules don't apply here. Using this logic if someone takes a screen pass, runs 55 yards and is tackled but fumbles beforehand and no one recovers it then the play moves all the way back to where the play started.

It's a stupid rule and overly complicated. Just kill the play when the fumble occurred.
 

ijustposthere

Message Board Hero
Donator
21,898
12,624
105
My favorite teams
Chicago Cubs Chicago Bulls Chicago Bears Chicago Blackhawks Michigan Wolverines, Purdue Boilermakers
Yep. If they would have asked confirmed with the one official if he picked up the ball they could have said it's not review-able.

It seems like the crew didn't know of the rule.

Actually looking back on it, were the Bears charged a time out? So much crazy shit happened in that moment I had no idea what was going on.
No, it was an official review, which made it even worse that they didn't know their own rule. The rule is retarded anyway. There's zero logic behind it. It's either a catch, or it isn't. You can't let something unrelated (the fumble) have an effect on whether the pass is ruled a completion or incompletion. If no one picks it up, ball should be placed at the dead ball spot, consistent with every other fumble situation.
 

gallagher

Well-known member
3,179
1,502
70
This rule makes perfect sense to me. If you start fumbling outside the endzone and it goes into and out of the endzone why would you get the ball back? Can you offer me a reason that would make any sense and where you would spot the ball?


to the bit about multiple penalties what is your suggestion? I do not think stacking penalties makes any sense at all.
When a fumble is called dead when nobody goes after it, the ball goes back to the fumbling team at the spot of the fumble. This should be the case in all dead fumbles. A ball that goes out of bounds is dead, and should therefore go back to the spot of the fumble and awarded to the fumbling team.

It isn't a punt; you're awarding a turnover and touchback to a defense that didn't recover the fumble. Exceptions to rules should be for good reasons based on logical and expected outcomes or fairness, not to add wrinkles to an already dynamic game with subjective refereeing.
 

modo

Yippie Ki-Yay
Donator
18,262
11,542
85
The rule is jacked up....coach can't challenge because it is an automatic challenge, yet can't overturn because can't change the ruling because there was no recovery....

will get amended and called the Anthony Miller Rule.
 

CAP BOSO

Active member
866
205
28
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?
Nobody had any reason to think it was a loose ball. The ref blew the whistle and was signaling incomplete.
 

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
7,719
2,191
70
Just pick the ball up and hand it to the ref saying he’s wrong. No need to try to advance it, the whistle means the play is dead right there. Just need to possess it. It’s a good habit to get your players into anyway, kinda like running hard to first base, in baseball, on a ground ball that’s fielded even though you know you’ll be out 99 out of 100 times.
And if both teams are trying to "just pick up the ball" then what, a football scrum after the whistle going after the ball on a pass that was ruled incomplete? It's not that the ruled is eff'ed up, it's worded wrong. In the case where the ball is ruled incomplete, and there is no recovery, there should be no review. That would be much easier to understand, and kinda what many where saying to begin with.
 

Spunky Porkstacker

CCS Donator
Donator
14,163
6,200
75
And if both teams are trying to "just pick up the ball" then what, a football scrum after the whistle going after the ball on a pass that was ruled incomplete? It's not that the ruled is eff'ed up, it's worded wrong. In the case where the ball is ruled incomplete, and there is no recovery, there should be no review. That would be much easier to understand, and kinda what many where saying to begin with.
But after Miller's catch did the ground cause the fumble?
 

TL1961

Well-known member
18,047
6,095
85
Nobody had any reason to think it was a loose ball. The ref blew the whistle and was signaling incomplete.
Yes, I know. That is very well established.

Is this in response to my question as to why it makes sense to disallow the catch? Because this does not answer that question at all.

I know what the rule is. My question is "Why?"
 

Visionman

Well-known member
3,417
1,178
70
Yes, I know. That is very well established.

Is this in response to my question as to why it makes sense to disallow the catch? Because this does not answer that question at all.

I know what the rule is. My question is "Why?"
To keep it from being an obvious advantage to either team. Cant give Miller the catch and not the opportunity for the defender to be rewarded for the obvious strip. Also cant just assume Philly would have recovered it.

If the rule is changed, it shiuld simply be to replay the down. Which it likely will...
 

wklink

CBMB refugee
Donator
2,138
1,065
70
To keep it from being an obvious advantage to either team. Cant give Miller the catch and not the opportunity for the defender to be rewarded for the obvious strip. Also cant just assume Philly would have recovered it.

If the rule is changed, it shiuld simply be to replay the down. Which it likely will...
Ok, here is a couple of scenarios for you.

Mack blasts through in the NFC Championship game and clobbers Drew Brees on fourth down. Ball comes out yet the ref blows the whistle dead and says that he arm was coming forward so it is a forward pass. On review it is found that it was indeed a fumble but no one recovered the ball because the ball was blown dead because the ref thought he saw his arm going forward.

Scenerio 2. Jordan Howard, in the same game, finds a seam in defense and blasts into the secondary. He gets 28 yards in the final seconds of the first half and as he is about to go to the ground he is hit and the ball comes out. Fortunately the ref blows the play dead saying his knee touched before the ball came out. Review shows that his knee did not touch but since the whistle blew no one recovered the obvious fumble.


What about those two scenarios is different from the play yesterday? In all the cases the player hand possession of the football and fumbled. But in case one and two the ball is dead at the spot of the fumble while in the game the play was called an incomplete pass. The Bears lost a down and yardage because a ref blew a whistle. What if this 'rule' was applied on run plays or sacks? Using your logic neither above play occurred and should be run again. All because a ref screwed up. What if on the 'do over' Drews throws a TD pass and the Saints go to the Superbowl? Or if that run by Howard means no field goal and we lose by 2.

If the receiver receives the ball then he is a runner. He is responsible for maintaining ball security. Now because the ref screwed up and blew the ball dead that is too bad but it shouldn't penalize a team that made the completion. If the roles were reversed and it was a pass from Foles to Ertz I would have the same opinion. Both teams lost an opportunity in that play. But calling it an incomplete pass when it actually was is pretty dumb. Saying do over isn't an answer either since it was already established the guy was a runner, not a receiver anymore.
 
Top