Toast88
Well-known member
- Joined:
- May 10, 2014
- Posts:
- 12,612
- Liked Posts:
- 12,791
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?
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?