Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 45 to 66 of 124

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

  1. #45
    Huevos Rancheros Burque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    6,777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HeHateMe View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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!
    The large print giveth and the small print taketh away.

  2. #46
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Toast88 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That was maybe the weirdest thing Iíve 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, itís 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. Thatís unbelievable to me. Why itís not just treated like any other unrecovered fumble (ball given to the fumbling playerís 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.

  3. #47
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    16,277

    Default

    Who said he couldn't?

  4. #48
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pegger View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Who thinks of these rules anyways? It's an awful rule!

    Like I mentioned. I'm fairly certain the refs blew the whistle. So what happens then? Miller picks up the ball and runs it in and they say they stopped the play and he cannot advance the ball? Just terrible

  5. #49
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TL1961 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Who said he couldn't?
    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?

  6. #50
    Huevos Rancheros Burque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    6,777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by clear View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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?
    The large print giveth and the small print taketh away.

  7. #51
    CBMB refugee wklink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,135

    Default

    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.
    A simple truth in life. The worst player on the Chicago Bears is still 10x better at football than 99% of the posters on this board. Including me.

  8. #52
    Message Board Hero ijustposthere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Any-Town, USA
    Posts
    21,479

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pegger View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.
    You win message board hero.
    Hidden Content Originally Posted by BuddyRyans46 Hidden Content
    to all of the people calling me a fecal alligator.....i will accept your apologies after this Friday's presser. I trust my sources.
    Shoot for the moon, even if you miss you'll be among the stars. Proceed to the next level.

    Hidden Content
    We have to make sense of this nonsense.

  9. #53
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Burque View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.
    3 - Kaleb McGary, Right Tackle
    4 - Chase Hansen, S/LB
    5 - Alex Barnes, RB
    7 - Sean Krepsz, C/G

  10. #54
    Yippie Ki-Yay modo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Denver, Fucking Colorado
    Posts
    17,250

    Default

    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.

  11. #55
    All-Star CAP BOSO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    832

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TL1961 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

  12. #56
    CCS Donator nc0gnet0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    7,079

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Just pick the ball up and hand it to the ref saying heís wrong. No need to try to advance it, the whistle means the play is dead right there. Just need to possess it. Itís a good habit to get your players into anyway, kinda like running hard to first base, in baseball, on a ground ball thatís fielded even though you know youíll 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.
    "But I also understand this is just talk and we've got to show actions. We've got to show results. I fully get that." - Ryan Pace

  13. #57
    CCS Donator Spunky Porkstacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    NW Burbs
    Posts
    13,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nc0gnet0 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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?

  14. #58
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    16,277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CAP BOSO View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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?"

  15. #59
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Monmouth, IL
    Posts
    2,729

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TL1961 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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...

  16. #60
    CBMB refugee wklink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Visionman View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.
    A simple truth in life. The worst player on the Chicago Bears is still 10x better at football than 99% of the posters on this board. Including me.

  17. #61
    CCS Donator nc0gnet0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    7,079

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wklink View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.
    How many Eagles were around the ball? How many Bears were around the ball? Just stop already, if anything, the Bears caught a break. In your two scenarios above, I can't ever recall a clear recovery not being made. A do-over is the only reasonable change I can see to the rule. Throwing out a few scenarios which aren't right (because of an early whistle), does nothing for your argument. All the teams know the rules, or should. End of story.
    "But I also understand this is just talk and we've got to show actions. We've got to show results. I fully get that." - Ryan Pace

  18. #62
    All-Star Madden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,281

    Default

    I don't like the idea of a play continuing at all after the whistle. Whistle = play is over. Teach refs to swallow the whistle more during close plays, let everything play out because then you can still review afterwards. In the case of bang bang plays like this, then yeah just have some common sense rules. Ball should have went back to the spot of the fumble if no recovery. Seems simple enough.

    Also change that fumbling out of the end zone rule. Where you somehow lose possession even though the other team didn't recover shit? That makes no sense. That should be brought back to the spot of the fumble as well, just like if you were to fumble it forwards out of bounds at any other part of the field. Or at the very least, sure bring it back to the 20 yard line, but the offense keeps possession. So it would be like a 20 yard penalty with loss of down.

  19. #63
    B GON THOT xer0h0ur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Chicago, IL.
    Posts
    20,491

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Toast88 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So basically, the review was completely unnecessary because it was going to be an incomplete pass no matter what. Weird.
    No, they still had to check to see if anyone had recovered the ball which no one did.

  20. #64
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    939

    Default

    The ref picked it up quickly though as he was the dipshit that ruled it incomplete.

    How can this rule be incomplete? Especially if itís ruled in complete on the play.

    Thereís still no excuse that Miller shouldnít have run over and picked it up and or took it out of the hands of the referee and ran it in!

    Itís the small things in nfl games that make a world of difference given the parody in todayís nfl.

  21. #65
    CCS Donator Outlaw Josey Cutler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pegger View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It doesn't make sense. It's a bad rule that will probably be changed in the offseason.

    I'd also say games like this will highlight the importance of teams grabbing that ball, so it might self-police itself.
    So the precedent is now that if a ref blows the play dead and signals incomplete but the ball is loose (ground first or no? doesnt matter! get the ball and let NY sort it out later) then screw the whistle. Get the ball.

    And if the coaches on offense and defense both teach to "screw whistle get any loose ball ever" then the whistle is meaningless and there is an unofficiated scrum for the ball and if they try to blow the whistle on the fight for the ball and "kill" the fight for the ball AND everyone ignores (because if they ignore it then they cannot be judged post play to be the recovering team), then it's the Wild West for a period of time and players will probably get unsportsmanlike and personal fouls for fighting for the ball as the refs try to take control over the fight for the untimed and practically unofficiated recovery that they left nebulous and "outside the play" to begin with.
    Last edited by Outlaw Josey Cutler; 01-08-2019 at 08:34 AM.

  22. #66
    CCS Donator Outlaw Josey Cutler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by remydat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    After his Int Roquan ran it all the way back the whistle. Players do that all the time. You should always get the ball. No excuses.

    And again if no clear recovery then ball goes back to O. Really not an issue.
    They didn't whistle Roquan down. Or at least it was quiet under the roar of the crowd. They conferred and said Roquan was touched down upon the INT.

    Miller had a ref right there whistling the play dead. I thought when you said "this is not complicated" you were referring to what the rule SHOULD be but currently is not and you had my thanks for a useful post.

    Now it seems like you blame Miller? No way. If the whistle blows the play's dead, then it is dead. And an incompletion cannot be considered a live ball UNLESS it is complete and then also fumbled and it is also a live ball (even with a whistle blowing the play dead and incomplete signalled) it is somehow "live" until a ref picks it up. That is completely illogical and the rule needs changed

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •