Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Question re: Stewart fumble play


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 Montsta

Montsta

    Rest In Peace

  • Joined: 08-December 08
  • posts: 7,418
  • Reputation: 5,440
SUPPORTER

Posted 10 October 2012 - 05:33 PM

I was drinking and can't recall when it happened, but the play where Stew fumbled near the sidelines after getting a first down, but was then recovered behind the first down marker so it was called as a 3rd down and we punted. My question is could Rivera have challenged that Stewart was actually out of bounds when he recovered the ball, so it should have been ruled down at the spot of the fumble so it would have been a first? Does anybody know the rule on this?

My bad if this has already been discussed/mentioned in some other thread.

#2 I Mean He Was Found Guilty

I Mean He Was Found Guilty

    I MEAN AT LEAST TRADE HIM FOR SOMETHING AMIRITE

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 11,663
  • Reputation: 5,055
  • LocationChapel Hill
SUPPORTER

Posted 10 October 2012 - 05:41 PM

wouldn't he have been flagged for illegal touching though?

edit: nm they couldn't flag a play after replay review. what the fug was i thinking

you know that's an interesting possibility

#3 Hawk

Hawk

    Banned

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 15,399
  • Reputation: 1,894
Moderators

Posted 10 October 2012 - 05:43 PM

ya, london...that's what I was thinking too, that it should have been illegal touching...settle down Grits...not that kind of illegal touching. Was clearly out of bounds and then came back in and was the first on the ball.

#4 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 27,137
  • Reputation: 5,289
Moderators

Posted 10 October 2012 - 05:44 PM

I was drinking and can't recall when it happened, but the play where Stew fumbled near the sidelines after getting a first down, but was then recovered behind the first down marker so it was called as a 3rd down and we punted. My question is could Rivera have challenged that Stewart was actually out of bounds when he recovered the ball, so it should have been ruled down at the spot of the fumble so it would have been a first? Does anybody know the rule on this?

My bad if this has already been discussed/mentioned in some other thread.


would have been a penalty on Stewart which would have pushed us backwards.

#5 Montsta

Montsta

    Rest In Peace

  • Joined: 08-December 08
  • posts: 7,418
  • Reputation: 5,440
SUPPORTER

Posted 10 October 2012 - 05:45 PM

Oh ok I thought I read somewhere that on a fumble the illegal touching didn't apply. So even if Stew would have just swatted it OOB he coulda got the illegal touching flag anyway?

#6 Montsta

Montsta

    Rest In Peace

  • Joined: 08-December 08
  • posts: 7,418
  • Reputation: 5,440
SUPPORTER

Posted 10 October 2012 - 05:47 PM

would have been a penalty on Stewart which would have pushed us backwards.


But if they didn't call the penalty initially aren't they not allowed to assess a penalty because of review?

#7 CatMan72

CatMan72

    KEEP POUNDING

  • Joined: 04-January 09
  • posts: 15,549
  • Reputation: 2,798
SUPPORTER

Posted 10 October 2012 - 05:51 PM

I suspect Rivera didn't want to challenge because the replay would have revealed that Stewart didn't re-establish himself in bounds before recovering the fumble...

#8 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 27,137
  • Reputation: 5,289
Moderators

Posted 10 October 2012 - 05:53 PM

But if they didn't call the penalty initially aren't they not allowed to assess a penalty because of review?


They overturned a NE touchdown bc of an illegal touch during a standard scoring review this year.

#9 I Mean He Was Found Guilty

I Mean He Was Found Guilty

    I MEAN AT LEAST TRADE HIM FOR SOMETHING AMIRITE

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 11,663
  • Reputation: 5,055
  • LocationChapel Hill
SUPPORTER

Posted 10 October 2012 - 05:57 PM

They overturned a NE touchdown bc of an illegal touch during a standard scoring review this year.


what would happen in this case though since it wasn't a scoring play? i don't know if it'd be ball placed at the spot of the touch in light of the illegal touch seen in the replay or ball placed at the spot of the fumble because there wasn't a "clear recovery" in the sense of an eligible player recovering the ball when the play was whistled dead on the field.

#10 Hawk

Hawk

    Banned

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 15,399
  • Reputation: 1,894
Moderators

Posted 10 October 2012 - 05:59 PM

that's what I was wondering when I first saw it too...if the illegal touching was called...would they overturn the recovery and give the ball at that spot to the Hawks or just add on the penalty. Not sure if I remember that happening before...but then...my memory card is full and slow


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users