Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

why wasnt that a fumble?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
45 replies to this topic

#16 SCpanther

SCpanther

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 369 posts

Posted 28 December 2008 - 08:07 PM

The ruling is that you come down with the ball and make two football moves after that. The receiver was tackled and stripped before he could make two football moves. I understand the ruling...


No, the rule was changed either last year or this year. A receiver only has to get two feet down, with possession of the ball. The football move is no longer required.

Check the rulebook:
http://www.nfl.com/r...ook/forwardpass

A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball.


The idiot refs in our game didn't know the rules. Colston clearly had both feet down with possession of the ball. Another thing that the refs don't seem to understand is the meaning of the word "indisputable."

#17 hdevonxz

hdevonxz

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,731 posts

Posted 28 December 2008 - 08:09 PM

so whats mike peraira going to say this week.

#18 gotsmart?

gotsmart?

    Your GWU Representative

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts

Posted 28 December 2008 - 08:13 PM

"well, my refs know the rules and if u look really really really close u can almost see it move, so it is definitely not caught"

#19 mantal

mantal

    Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,344 posts

Posted 28 December 2008 - 08:15 PM

No, the rule was changed either last year or this year. A receiver only has to get two feet down, with possession of the ball. The football move is no longer required.

Check the rulebook:
http://www.nfl.com/r...ook/forwardpass



The idiot refs in our game didn't know the rules. Colston clearly had both feet down with possession of the ball. Another thing that the refs don't seem to understand is the meaning of the word "indisputable."



I think you are confusing an "out of bounds" interpretation with a "middle of the field" interpretation. I could be wrong...

#20 dksmith17

dksmith17

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 575 posts

Posted 28 December 2008 - 08:15 PM

The idiot refs in our game didn't know the rules. Colston clearly had both feet down with possession of the ball. Another thing that the refs don't seem to understand is the meaning of the word "indisputable."


I don't think he had posession. But hey its a judgement call and people see it different ways.

#21 SCpanther

SCpanther

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 369 posts

Posted 28 December 2008 - 08:17 PM

I don't think he had posession. But hey its a judgement call and people see it different ways.


The ruling on the field was catch and fumble. There was not indisputable evidence to show he didn't have possession. The key word is indisputable.

#22 dksmith17

dksmith17

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 575 posts

Posted 28 December 2008 - 08:19 PM

The ruling on the field was catch and fumble. There was not indisputable evidence to show he didn't have possession. The key word is indisputable.



I was under the impression the ruling on the field was an interception.

#23 SCpanther

SCpanther

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 369 posts

Posted 28 December 2008 - 08:22 PM

I think you are confusing an "out of bounds" interpretation with a "middle of the field" interpretation. I could be wrong...


No, they changed the rule.
http://www.atlantafa...s_for_2007.aspx

Beginning this season, a receiver that gets two feet down and has control of the ball has a reception.

Traditionally a player needed to make “a football move” after a catch to have it classified a reception. Now, a quick hit from a defender could result in a fumble.



#24 SCpanther

SCpanther

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 369 posts

Posted 28 December 2008 - 08:25 PM

I was under the impression the ruling on the field was an interception.


That's what the commentators said at first but then they corrected themselves.

#25 dksmith17

dksmith17

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 575 posts

Posted 28 December 2008 - 08:34 PM

You are correct it was ruled a fumble originally:

From ESPNs play by play:

2nd and 9 at CAR 36 (1:28) (Shotgun) D.Brees pass deep left to M.Colston to CAR 15 for 21 yards (R.Marshall). FUMBLES (R.Marshall), RECOVERED by CAR-R.Marshall at CAR 16. R.Marshall to CAR 16 for no gain (M.Colston).
The Replay Assistant challenged the fumble ruling, and the play was REVERSED


So yeah I see your point, but I am not suprised it was overturned. Tough call either way IMO.

#26 rubberpantz

rubberpantz

    Trevor, let's go, smokes!

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 191 posts

Posted 28 December 2008 - 10:07 PM

it was a fumble...i wasn't even sweating the replay because it was so obvious.

they totally Hoculied that call...

#27 mwandmw

mwandmw

    Member

  • NEWB
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts

Posted 28 December 2008 - 10:16 PM

Yeah, one of those bullshit, "I'm sorry" letters this week in the mail from the NFL Officials. Of course, it could be worse, ask the Chargers.... I'm glad they are beating the Broncos so it will not keep them from the playoffs........ hopefully.

#28 xXxBretWeedxXx

xXxBretWeedxXx

    Senior Member

  • NEWB
  • PipPip
  • 73 posts

Posted 28 December 2008 - 10:19 PM

I'm still pissed about this call. My roommate left the house because I was throwing such a fit. There was no way that was indisputable, mainly because I'm disputing it. Way to go refs, hand the Saints 7 points. God I wanna break more poo.

#29 Alverez

Alverez

    Hold my beer, and check this out!!

  • ALL-PRO
  • 1,427 posts

Posted 28 December 2008 - 10:34 PM

If you look at the replay, he catches it with 2 hands and pulls it in as he places his feet on the ground... then as he's getting tripped up and tackled, he moves to catch himself and cradles the ball in one arm against his body and puts his other arm out to brace his fall (to maybe stay up).

The Ball was then stripped as a defender stuck his hand in on the way by and popped the ball up. Marshall then caught the ball and the ball was secured by Marshall on the ground along with the WR's foot.

The Ball was caught, and stripped and recovered.

It was a blown call... But what do I know. I've been wrong before. LOL

#30 Upper Deck West End Zone

Upper Deck West End Zone

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 305 posts

Posted 28 December 2008 - 10:38 PM

I didn't get a clear look at the play at wwork but it looked like an obvious fumble to me.

I noticed the refs took a long time reviewing it what was their excuse?


They got it wrong and they also missed a clear helmet-to-helmet hit on Jake toward the end of the game.


Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com