nfl replay rule

[upperdeck]

so the play that was ruled incomplete in the chicago game and no recovery happened so they didnt change the call..

lets extrapolate that... what if the dude runs 10 steps or 20 steps and for some dumb reason the refs call it incomplete

what if a guy catches a ball on one foot and never puts the other down and stands there for 30 seconds and then drops the ball

no worse than the kickoff a couple weeks ago where the fumble clearly happened but it wasnt clear which member of the other team actually recovered it even though no one on the fumbling team was even around the ball.

at some point common sense kicks in

 

[Symphony Steve]

I think the huge mistake was blowing the play dead and signaling it as incomplete. Isn't the play supposed to continue through conclusion? If they didn't blow the play dead and/or signal an incompletion, then surely there would have been a scramble for the ball.

I still suspect they made that rule up, though...

 

[Guinness]

I don't understand how a fumble without recovery is treated like an incomplete pass. No other fumbles without recovery go back to the previous LoS. If a runner fumbles out of bounds they get the ball where the guy fumbled correct? What makes this different?

 

[NineOneSeven]

I love how fumbles out of endzone give other team the ball. But if the ball is fumbled out at the inch line that team keeps possession at the inch line. If you want fumbles out of the endzone to cost the team, make them take it back to like the 15 yard line.

 

[Symphony Steve]

I don't understand how a fumble without recovery is treated like an incomplete pass. No other fumbles without recovery go back to the previous LoS. If a runner fumbles out of bounds they get the ball where the guy fumbled correct? What makes this different?

They ruled it an incomplete pass, not a fumble. They were wrong, but it forestalled a scramble for the ball. At least that's what I THINK I heard them say. I agree--they pulled that ruling out of their butts.

 

[bpo57]

I love how fumbles out of endzone give other team the ball. But if the ball is fumbled out at the inch line that team keeps possession at the inch line. If you want fumbles out of the endzone to cost the team, make them take it back to like the 15 yard line.

That's the dumbest rule in NFL history but they refuse to change it.

 

[bpo57]

They ruled it an incomplete pass, not a fumble. They were wrong, but it forestalled a scramble for the ball. At least that's what I THINK I heard them say. I agree--they pulled that ruling out of their butts.

That's correct it was ruled incomplete. Once it was ruled incomplete that was it. Miller fumbled it and there was nobody but Eagles in the vicinity and they would have easily recovered the ball if the ref had not signaled incomplete and may have been able to return it a long way. The reality is the Birds got screwed on that play more than the Bears.

 

[ForCuseSake]

I didn't see the play in question from the Bears game and it sounds absurd.

I don't like refs relying on replay and waiting to blow the whistle. There was a fumble at the goal line in the LAC/BAL game that was originally incorrectly ruled a TD, then correctly reversed as LAC runner was down at the half yard line and the ground caused the fumble.

Maybe the players didn't acknowledge the whistle but it looked like the refs allowed the play to continue as the Ravens scooped it up and ran it back for a defensive TD.

In the process several LAC offensive players, including Rivers, attempted to tackle the ball carrier. Pretty lucky nobody got hurt on that play - especially considering the Ravens could've taken the opportunity to flatten a couple of pursuing tacklers.

I think the "ground can't cause a fumble" concept is dumb and creates too much subjectivity or indecision by refs now that replay is available.

I'd like to see the rule changed to something similar to rugby - if the ball pops out then whoever recovers gets possession and the only thing to review is who had possession of the ball when the play was whistle'd dead.

Probably won't happen but it would make games more interesting - especially when ball carriers extend the ball away from their body to stretch for a first down.

 

[bpo57]

I didn't see the play in question from the Bears game and it sounds absurd.

I don't like refs relying on replay and waiting to blow the whistle. There was a fumble at the goal line in the LAC/BAL game that was originally incorrectly ruled a TD, then correctly reversed as LAC runner was down at the half yard line and the ground caused the fumble.

Maybe the players didn't acknowledge the whistle but it looked like the refs allowed the play to continue as the Ravens scooped it up and ran it back for a defensive TD.

In the process several LAC offensive players, including Rivers, attempted to tackle the ball carrier. Pretty lucky nobody got hurt on that play - especially considering the Ravens could've taken the opportunity to flatten a couple of pursuing tacklers.

I think the "ground can't cause a fumble" concept is dumb and creates too much subjectivity or indecision by refs now that replay is available.

I'd like to see the rule changed to something similar to rugby - if the ball pops out then whoever recovers gets possession and the only thing to review is who had possession of the ball when the play was whistle'd dead.

Probably won't happen but it would make games more interesting - especially when ball carriers extend the ball away from their body to stretch for a first down.

As I recall, with the Raven play he was down by contact and then fumbled afterward. So on that play the ground did not cause a fumble.

 

[ForCuseSake]

As I recall, with the Raven play he was down by contact and then fumbled afterward. So on that play the ground did not cause a fumble.

You're correct. He was down by contact because a Ravens defender hit the LAC ball carrier's leg causing him to stumble before he was down.

The ground caused the fumble as the RB lost possession only after he hit the ground - no other player was in contact with the ball carrier only the ground dislodged the ball.

The play should've been blown dead immediately due to the defender's contact but it appeared the refs missed the initial contact from the Ravens defender AND ignored the fact that the ball didn't pop out until the guy hit the ground.

Edit - They allowed a Ravens defender to scoop up the loose ball in the end zone and run it back the length of the field. Or the players ignored the whistles.

 

[bpo57]

You're correct. He was down by contact because a Ravens defender hit the LAC ball carrier's leg causing him to stumble before he was down.

The ground caused the fumble as the RB lost possession only after he hit the ground - no other player was in contact with the ball carrier only the ground dislodged the ball.

The play should've been blown dead immediately due to the defender's contact but it appeared the refs missed the initial contact from the Ravens defender AND ignored the fact that the ball didn't pop out until the guy hit the ground.

Edit - They allowed a Ravens defender to scoop up the loose ball in the end zone and run it back the length of the field.

That's correct. The interesting thing would have been if the ball carrier had not been hit by Weddle on the way down. How would they have ruled then?

 

[ForCuseSake]

That's correct. The interesting thing would have been if the ball carrier had not been hit by Weddle on the way down. How would they have ruled then?

Without any opposing contact (and no forward pass) it would be ruled a fumble and the ball would be live.

If the Ravens had scooped and scored it would've stood.

That's why I dislike the goofiness of "the ground can't cause a fumble." A ball carrier shouldn't be allowed to retain possession simply because the ball pops out after he's tackled.

Replay has made this a riskier proposition because you don't want to be the guy who quit on the play.

Hold onto the ball and leave no doubt.

 

[upperdeck]

so the part that is funny is that had the same catch happened in the end zone its a td but if happens everywhere its incomplete.

had it been a running play fumble and then not a clear recovery they just mark it and that happens all the time. i dont get why they didnt just put it at the spot of the fumble or why the rule would have ever precluded this from being a possible outcome. i mean it can be fumbled out of bounds and that counts but not staying on the field.. the same thing if there had been a wild scrum and no clear recovery then the play never happens?