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

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 27, 2014
Posts:
17,379
Liked Posts:
3,618
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.
 

Madden

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 31, 2012
Posts:
1,438
Liked Posts:
1,021
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.
 

xer0h0ur

HS Referee HoF
Donator
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
22,260
Liked Posts:
17,824
Location:
Chicago, IL.
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
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.
 

Payton!34

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 18, 2013
Posts:
2,515
Liked Posts:
1,233
The ref picked it up quickly though as he was the dipshit that ruled it incomplete.

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

There’s still no excuse that Miller shouldn’t have run over and picked it up and or took it out of the hands of the referee and ran it in!

It’s the small things in nfl games that make a world of difference given the parody in today’s nfl.
 

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
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:

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
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
 

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
Because coaches train players to regardless of whistle

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.
 
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
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.

What you say is true but moving forward if the defense gets trained now to do the same thing: screw the whistle and go for the live ball. Now a fight for the ball over who gets clear recovery when the refs will insist the play is over because they not only called incomplete but believe it is incomplete. And only those who ignore will be rewarded with possession should the replay show an actual completion and subsequent fumble. That makes no sense whatsoever.
 

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
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)?

A fumble at the 1 inch line by the offense stays with the offense if the offense recovers. If the offense recovers at the goal line or beyond and it is the opponents' endzone it is a TD. If it is recovered by the offense in their own endzone and they cannot get out without being tackled it is a safety. I see no illogic here?

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?

Not sure what you are referring to, but if that happens I believe that is up to interpretation of the ref as the NFL rulebook I am referring here has no hard and fast guidelines for if the penalties offset or if the holding and interference offset and the defense should lose 5 yards or any other combination is not specified (that I know of but am willing to see evidence that the NFL STATES the penalties must offset in this case)

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.

You are right in that there are many rules that don't make sense including Jesse James' non-catch last year vs. NE and (forgive me brethren) Calvin Johnson's non-catch years ago vs. the Bears.

You are wrong in that we have NOT accepted these things and will continue as time goes on not accepting these rules that make no sense.
 

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
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...

Why? Why can't Miller get a reception and LeBlanc get a FF? If he catches it he catches it. If LeBlanc forces the fumble, he forces a fumble. If no one recovers then it is the same as if the ball went out of bounds after a catch and fumble. I am not saying that should be the rule in that I do not want an unofficated scrum for a "live ball" after a whistle blowing the play dead on a signalled incompletion.

Just saying that your solution still makes no sense as the offense benefits from a fumbled ball going out of bounds but loses yards gained if a ref picks up a ball before a WR runs over to reclaim possession, because the ref happened to believe a close completion was incomplete.
 
Last edited:

Rory Sparrow

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 14, 2010
Posts:
4,850
Liked Posts:
3,735
Rule makes no sense, and is unnecessary. Part of the confusion was the broadcast team bringing in Terry "18 flags" McAuley to 'sort things out', when it looked like McAuley last cracked open an NFL rulebook when Jay Cutler was winning games due to getting hit in the head by Frank Zombo.

I still don't think it was a catch by Miller, since LeBlanc had his arm under the ball while Miller was making his "3 steps", and Miller didn't maintain possession whilst going to the ground.

That said, if the officials DID determine that is was a catch by Miller, then its the same as any 'inadvertent whistle' play. The play is dead when the ref blows his whistle...end of story. Watching it live, I thought the Bears were going to get a HUGE break by having the catch awarded and getting the ball on 5 yard line, when in reality there was no way the Bears were going to recover the fumble had the play been allowed to continue. It seemed like the official kind of made a Solomon ruling of splitting the baby, which IMO was "fair", but not necessarily "correct".

I don't understand why there is a separate, conflicting rule for 'catch situations'.
 

TL1961

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 24, 2013
Posts:
32,295
Liked Posts:
18,795
A defender having his arm in between the WR and the ball does not mean the WR didn’t make a catch and have control.

I have seen WR make a catch behind a defender’s back so the defender’s entire body was betwwen the ball and WR. But if the WR has control it doesn’t matter.
 

BearDownTexas

Well-known member
Joined:
Sep 18, 2017
Posts:
779
Liked Posts:
544
Location:
Austin, TX
The worst part about it was the referee's "explanation". He didn't even finish a sentence about it, which made everyone think he had no idea what had just happened, or what he was supposed to do about it. This enraged everyone where i was at. The refs can thank parkey for taking the heat off them.
 

Rory Sparrow

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 14, 2010
Posts:
4,850
Liked Posts:
3,735
A defender having his arm in between the WR and the ball does not mean the WR didn’t make a catch and have control.

I have seen WR make a catch behind a defender’s back so the defender’s entire body was betwwen the ball and WR. But if the WR has control it doesn’t matter.

Way to gloss over the whole ball being ripped from Miller's grasp, which is kind of the crux of the matter.
 

Da Coach

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
2,312
Liked Posts:
1,430
Location:
Helena MT
So for arguments sake, say it was a catch and now the receiver becomes a runner.

If this is a running play, and the tackler somehow gets his arm in and strips the ball on the way to the ground, whistle is blown, but replay clearly shows a fumble.

They aren't taking the run away are they?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 

HearshotKDS

Well-known member
Joined:
Sep 9, 2012
Posts:
5,873
Liked Posts:
6,280
Location:
Lake Forest
Im surprised this has gotten so much attention, I had thought this was as simple as "if you go to the ground during a catch, you have to come up with the ball" but i guess we are desperate to make more outlandish rules on what is or isn't a catch.
 

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
Rule makes no sense, and is unnecessary. Part of the confusion was the broadcast team bringing in Terry "18 flags" McAuley to 'sort things out', when it looked like McAuley last cracked open an NFL rulebook when Jay Cutler was winning games due to getting hit in the head by Frank Zombo.

I still don't think it was a catch by Miller, since LeBlanc had his arm under the ball while Miller was making his "3 steps", and Miller didn't maintain possession whilst going to the ground.

That said, if the officials DID determine that is was a catch by Miller, then its the same as any 'inadvertent whistle' play. The play is dead when the ref blows his whistle...end of story. Watching it live, I thought the Bears were going to get a HUGE break by having the catch awarded and getting the ball on 5 yard line, when in reality there was no way the Bears were going to recover the fumble had the play been allowed to continue. It seemed like the official kind of made a Solomon ruling of splitting the baby, which IMO was "fair", but not necessarily "correct".

I don't understand why there is a separate, conflicting rule for 'catch situations'.

I largely agree here. I still think it was a catch because LeBlanc's arm between the ball and Miller still seems like Miller has trapped and controlled the ball to LeBlanc's arm. I can see why you put "3 steps" in quotes because Miller is running the same direction and if one interprets the ball to be 50-50 as he is taking steps and LeBlanc eventually wins by muscling it out after a few steps then one can argue Miller never really had control during those steps. That is a fair point. I know I was uncertain even during replay that it constitutes a "catch". (Jesse James last year came to mind and I still feel that direction and momentum need not apply to the definition of "steps").

But then the ref decided it was a catch, ok. Then it gets illogical.

But, your point about this being viewed as an "inadvertent whistle" is spot on imo and should be the correct clarification moving forward as a "rule change". It would be as if a runner is stopped forward progress by defenders and is fighting. In that case, when the whistle blows as the ball is ripped out, they can dive and fight but it does notr count. The whistle blew so play over.

It sucks for the defender, but it would avoid negating the maxim that "the whistle blows the play dead" and prevent a situation of alternate realities when the ball is dead to the field officials but really "live" to the players and replay officials and it would take a post-play evaluation of who had the ball during a zone of time in which possession is determined "outside" the clock and actual play.
 
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
Im surprised this has gotten so much attention, I had thought this was as simple as "if you go to the ground during a catch, you have to come up with the ball" but i guess we are desperate to make more outlandish rules on what is or isn't a catch.

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.
 
Last edited:

Alpha

CBMB Legend
Donator
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
1,117
Liked Posts:
433
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!
 

Top