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

Sculpt

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
8,498
Liked Posts:
2,896
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.
You got it.

We've seen many plays over the years where it's appropriate for players recover the ball -- even if the refs are blowing the whistles.

Always the same. Get the damn ball. Just don't lay any hits on players. It's not that hard. Might as well go into the endzone if you're close enough. I've never seen a ref penalize a player recovering the ball after the whistle.
 

DWBear

Active member
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
209
Liked Posts:
126
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?

I agree. The rule should be a catch and the ball placed at the spot of the fumble.
 

Sculpt

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
8,498
Liked Posts:
2,896
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!
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.
 

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 27, 2014
Posts:
17,407
Liked Posts:
3,618
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.

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.
 

Sculpt

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
8,498
Liked Posts:
2,896
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.
 

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 27, 2014
Posts:
17,407
Liked Posts:
3,618
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.

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.
 

Sculpt

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
8,498
Liked Posts:
2,896
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.
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.
 

Da Coach

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
2,312
Liked Posts:
1,430
Location:
Helena MT
Exactly what they would do on a running play. And if they determine he catches it, he's then a runner and the same rule applied.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 

IBleedBearsBlood

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
10,333
Liked Posts:
4,551
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.
 

TL1961

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 24, 2013
Posts:
32,299
Liked Posts:
18,795
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.
 

Visionman

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 28, 2017
Posts:
7,995
Liked Posts:
4,451
Well, actually, all in the NFL are in agreement that the wrong call was made, but the review process was applied correctly.

I don't think theres any way possible that gets called as a catch live. Even on slowmo replay it was hard to tell.
 

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 27, 2014
Posts:
17,407
Liked Posts:
3,618
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.

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.
 

JD Trendleton

Active member
Joined:
Nov 30, 2018
Posts:
1,217
Liked Posts:
230
Location:
Bangor, Maine.
My favorite teams
  1. LA Clippers
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Florida Gators
These refs are the best they got? Fucking nightmare.
 

Outlaw Josey Cutler

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 5, 2012
Posts:
4,300
Liked Posts:
2,527
Location:
NJ
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Penn State Nittany Lions
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.

Actually the official ruled incomplete and the ref ruled completed catch and fumble after during the review. So the ref EVENTUALLY ruled a catch and fumble hence my point to Hearshot. As to the catch being "clearly contested" I am uncertain how that is defined. The ball is not moving and Miller has it trapped to LeBlanc's left arm. If the ball is not moving between Miller's hand and LeBlanc's arm then is it not caught? If caught then by whom if not Miller? If not caught then why is the velocity of the ball which was moving faster than Miller and LeBlanc's arm not sailing beyond them?

I do not see it "clearly contested" as to the fact that the ball is obviously trapped from its original speed to the bodies in question and then it is Miller's hand securing the ball with no other motion to LeBlanc's arm. He does take 3 or more steps with the ball in that state before LeBlanc forces the ball out and Miller basically still upright.

By rule, the official review then was only to double check whether it was complete or not and if complete, then who recovered the ball? An official or a Bear or an Eagle? If a player then their team gets possession at spot of recovery. If official, then the ball (by an insane rule) is incomplete no matter if all officials both on field and in NY NOW agree that it was complete.
 

Outlaw Josey Cutler

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 5, 2012
Posts:
4,300
Liked Posts:
2,527
Location:
NJ
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Penn State Nittany Lions
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.

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.
 

Outlaw Josey Cutler

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 5, 2012
Posts:
4,300
Liked Posts:
2,527
Location:
NJ
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Penn State Nittany Lions
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.

I can't speak for Sculpt here but I wouldn't have a problem with that scenario at all. It is logical and makes sense that the ball is loose and live and free and bounding out of bounds in the endzone with no team recovering. I could see some arguing that the offense is being punished extra for being close to the endzone and if that happened at the 50, then they would be far better off simply by being half-a-field behind.

I would be open to discussion of the offense being punished some other way but not mandatory possession granted to the defense that allowed the catch, but it is not on the same level of illogic as a catch and fumble being actually a non-catch simply because a ref rules incomplete and no player went for the ball after the play is OVER. If both Miller and the Eagle safety go for the ball after the whistle because they - in a split secand and apparently gifted with very high IQ - realize that the initial non-catch is going to be reviewed and found to be a catch and that whoever gets it first gets the ball then they fight AFTER the whistle and AFTER the play and the ref CANNOT fairly stop them if the replay officials want to see WHO gets the ball to see who gets possession.

The point here is: since no player can be asked to reflect THAT much on the field then coaches on BOTH sides of the ball will from now on say "screw the whistle EVEN on incompletions! If that ball is loose FIGHT your opponent for it. If you win, replay gives it to us no matter how much the ref FIRST says it's incomplete or tries to stop your fight for the ball."

Untimed and unofficiated moment that swings a game is no way to run the league.

So your analogy to another scenario is faulty.
 

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 27, 2014
Posts:
17,407
Liked Posts:
3,618
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.

Let's not forget that the Bears still managed three points on that drive. For all we know, if the rules where what you believe they should be, there still is no way of knowing that would have resulted in additional points for the Bears, hell, they could have turned the ball over on the next play.

As for further debate, seeing how you choose the "what you believe the rules should be" angle, I disagree with you entirely. It should not, and never should be, the offense's ball at the spot of the fumble, not on a bang-bang play like that (and yes, that terminology is used in the rule itself). Nor do I believe that it should be the defense's ball in my scenario (same type of play with the ball being fumbled through the endzone).

As for my description of contested, it was quite clear that LeBlanc had his arm on the ball the entire time. If that is not contested I do not know what is. I will grant you the fact that a 50-50 ball reception goes to the offense, should they both retain mutual possession to the ground (which they did not). But as this was clearly not the case, it is my belief that the process of the catch was not completed(although the current rules state that it was). My solution was to clarify/change the rules to state that if the ball is being contested (and it was) the receiver has to retain possession to the ground (which he didn't). If the ball isn't being contested, then the rules apply as they now stand. Ergo, the initial ruling would have been the right ruling. This is the most logical way to deal with this.

Now sure, you can teach your players to always go for the ball, even after the whistle, but in this day and age with a focus on player safety, do you see that as practical? Play should stop at the whistle, period. Should the ref's be taught not to blow the whistle so soon on questionable plays? Sure. But how would you feel if Robinson got seriously injured going for a ball after the whistle in a scrum for a ball ruled incomplete?

I don't buy into the arguments using the Rb's fumbling the ball either, it's not the same.
 
Last edited:

Outlaw Josey Cutler

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 5, 2012
Posts:
4,300
Liked Posts:
2,527
Location:
NJ
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Penn State Nittany Lions
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.

No dummy, Sculpt and I were saying what the rule should be changed to, not what it is now. I get that they ruled according to the rulebook as it is now. I am saying that the rule now makes no sense and that is what it SHOULD be.
 

Top