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

Outlaw Josey Cutler

CCS Donator
Donator
1,894
759
70
My favorite teams
Chicago Bears Penn State Nittany Lions
pot......meet Kettle. My views nets the same results that resulted in what was ruled on the field, not to mention voted on by all 32 NFL owners and passed. Your views represent that of a butt hurt Bears fan looking for a loophole in a rule that would have benefited the Bears.
Wrong again.

Your ability to comprehend what the end result of that specific play should have been clearly illustrates why you shouldn't be.
You are correct here. My ability to comprehend what would make sense to happen after this play would preclude me from the obfuscation required in the NFL Rules Committee.

What part of "my opinion" is it you fail to grasp? The official on the field that witnessed the play in real time ruled it incomplete. Your "crew" that overturned that call had the benefit of slow motion replay. Regardless, it was not unanimous.
I fail to grasp most of your nonsense including what "unanimous" remotely has to do with anything here.

Nice try. Your twisting my words. I never said that, I said it should be an incomplete catch, not that under the current rules it was.
So you do agree it was ruled complete after the review? Ok, and compound that with a fumble after said catch and you have a catch retroactively being a non-catch. Objectively a logical contradiction once you grant it was ruled an eventual catch.


Robinson, Miller...who cares, tell him to hold onto the ball next time and we won't have this conversation. Or better yet, have the presence of mind, if he thought he did indeed catch the ball, to go pick up the ball.
What's your point? If he did then the Bears would have had possession and we wouldn't have this convo. That doesn't make the rule as it is logical.

That doesn't stop the fact that if it stands this way, there would be every incentive for both offensive and defensive players fighting for the ball after every incompletion just in case a review might come up disregarding the whistle or refs saying "stop fighting we blew the whistle".

The fact he didn't seems to suggest even Miller thought it was incomplete.......
Another completely irrelevant observation by you.

Doink....doink......
Yep Parkey sucks. Good one?

Oh, and the Bears finished last in 4 out of the last five years, and went one and done in the playoffs this year, whoopee doo.
Yep whoopee doo for the Bears. They definitely should have done better with the talent. Wait ... what is your implication from that? That therefore your Lions don't suck?

Everything you said is true and also the Lions simultaneously suck worse. Is what it is. I am curious because when the Bears sucked I was always happy to agree in my frustration with how shit they were. Interesting.
 

Sculpt

Well-known member
6,724
1,900
70
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.
No, I wouldn't make a 180 degree turn about it.

And actually, according to the current rules, the way in was ruled in the game, the rules you agree with, if the ball did go into, and out the back, of the endzone, it would have been Eagles ball (Safety or Touchback). That's because according to the review, they went by what happened after the whistle, that is: because there was no clear fumble recovery it's ruled an incomplete pass. We'd have to assume they would acknowledged the ball going out the endzone -- where there are established rules, and followed those.

So my addendum to the rule wouldn't have changed that issue. Sure, I wouldn't have liked it, but I just want best rule. If it's a catch and fumble, and no clear recovery, the team with last possession keeps at spot of fumble.

It is interesting that during reviews, refs consider (and apply) what happens after a whistle. The review showed the ref was just wrong calling it an incompletion... they could have ruled the play ended at the whistle, last possession was with the receiver. What happened after the whistle didn't change that, so it's still receiver's ball last, no logic to change it to an incomplete pass.
 

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
7,719
2,191
70
No, I wouldn't make a 180 degree turn about it.

And actually, according to the current rules, the way in was ruled in the game, the rules you agree with, if the ball did go into, and out the back, of the endzone, it would have been Eagles ball (Safety or Touchback). That's because according to the review, they went by what happened after the whistle, that is: because there was no clear fumble recovery it's ruled an incomplete pass. We'd have to assume they would acknowledged the ball going out the endzone -- where there are established rules, and followed those.
Again, I never said I agreed with the rule, as it stands now, and as it applied to that specific play. I said I agreed with the outcome of the rule. There is a difference, a point that most on here seem to continue to ignore.

Everyone seems to be in agreement that the rule was enforced correctly, as it is written.

The problem people have is that they don't like the rule itself.

Everyone arguing for a change to the rule that would have allowed a completed pass, so Bears ball at the point of the fumble (no clear recovery) ignore the fact that the catch was being contested. I have previously and repeatedly said, if the catch was not being contested, Bears ball at the point of the fumble would make sense.

However, I believe, sense the ball was being contested, it should have never been ruled a catch in the first place, and the result would have been the same.

What I find amusing is, that if the rule change was as you suggested, then we would have a case in which a fumble with no recovery that stopped 6" from the back of the end zone would be Bears ball, but if it rolled out of the end zone, then it would be Eagles ball. That makes sense how? In my scenario both would be Bears ball, loss of down.



It is interesting that during reviews, refs consider (and apply) what happens after a whistle. The review showed the ref was just wrong calling it an incompletion... they could have ruled the play ended at the whistle, last possession was with the receiver. What happened after the whistle didn't change that, so it's still receiver's ball last, no logic to change it to an incomplete pass.
I agree with that. I have read opinions/interpretations on this that the rules only allow for continuation after the whistle. For instance a guy that was diving for the ball could be allowed to finish his action that was started before the whistle, but a guy could not turn around, go over and pick up the ball and claim possession after the whistle.

And for the record, the official on the field did not make a mistake. They are taught that when in doubt, rule it incomplete.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-teaches-officials-to-rule-all-bang-bang-passes-incomplete-when-in-doubt/
 
Last edited:

Sculpt

Well-known member
6,724
1,900
70
Again, I never said I agreed with the rule, as it stands now, and as it applied to that specific play. I said I agreed with the outcome of the rule. There is a difference, a point that most on here seem to continue to ignore.

Everyone seems to be in agreement that the rule was enforced correctly, as it is written.

The problem people have is that they don't like the rule itself.

Everyone arguing for a change to the rule that would have allowed a completed pass, so Bears ball at the point of the fumble (no clear recovery) ignore the fact that the catch was being contested. I have previously and repeatedly said, if the catch was not being contested, Bears ball at the point of the fumble would make sense.

However, I believe, sense the ball was being contested, it should have never been ruled a catch in the first place, and the result would have been the same.

What I find amusing is, that if the rule change was as you suggested, then we would have a case in which a fumble with no recovery that stopped 6" from the back of the end zone would be Bears ball, but if it rolled out of the end zone, then it would be Eagles ball. That makes sense how? In my scenario both would be Bears ball, loss of down.
Ah, good shoes! I didn't catch that you disagreed with the rule, and was just saying the refs followed the rules correctly.

Yeah, when the ball is fumbled out the endzone it really sucks, or the rules suck, it's really drastic. I wonder if there's better rules to be had there?


I agree with that. I have read opinions/interpretations on this that the rules only allow for continuation after the whistle. For instance a guy that was diving for the ball could be allowed to finish his action that was started before the whistle, but a guy could not turn around, go over and pick up the ball and claim possession after the whistle.

And for the record, the official on the field did not make a mistake. They are taught that when in doubt, rule it incomplete.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-teaches-officials-to-rule-all-bang-bang-passes-incomplete-when-in-doubt/
And for the record, I didn't say the ref made a mistake, I'm sure he called it like he saw it and was trained; rather I said he was found to be wrong/incorrect by the review.

I think their training is correct too. Article talks about 'bang-bang' plays, which it doesn't define but I'm sure they mean the receiver appears to catch the ball but is immediately separated from the ball by the next bang, which is the defender or ground knocking it out. So refs are taught if the ball is knocked away immediately, rule it incomplete, rather than trying to compute if the receiver had all the components of a completed pass -- like was starting to make a football/ballcarrier move and all that.
 
Top