Wagon Circler Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Of course you never know what the idiot replacement refs are gonna do these days. But I thought at some point that somebody would tell them that this play was not reviewable. The ball hits the ground and the whistle blows. We've seen it a hundred times and the explanation is always "can't be reviewed". The explanation was something ridiculous like " he recovered it soon enough". This is the kind of decision making we've gotten this year, . These guys just don't know the rules. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 It was a fumble with a clear recovery. I'm not gonna get too broken up about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markgbe Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 (edited) i just don't get how its a fumble when the ball is moving forward.... through the air.... its called a pass... as terrible as it was. LOL Â The rule should be changed. Edited September 24, 2012 by markgbe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebug Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 It was a fumble with a clear recovery. I'm not gonna get too broken up about it  This ^^^^^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 It wasn't i just don't get how its a fumble when the ball is moving forward.... through the air.... its called a pass... as terrible as it was. LOL Â The rule should be changed. This ^^^^^^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebug Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 It wasn't  This ^^^^^^^  Yeah it was.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Of course you never know what the idiot replacement refs are gonna do these days. But I thought at some point that somebody would tell them that this play was not reviewable. The ball hits the ground and the whistle blows. We've seen it a hundred times and the explanation is always "can't be reviewed". The explanation was something ridiculous like " he recovered it soon enough". This is the kind of decision making we've gotten this year, . These guys just don't know the rules. Thoughts? Â the rule is with a clear recovery it can change hands there. it happens frequently. Â the refs know the current rule. you are remembering an old rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Yeah it was.... No, it wasn't. It's simple physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wagon Circler Posted September 24, 2012 Author Share Posted September 24, 2012 Missing the point here. The fact is, it should not have been reviewed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Missing the point here. The fact is, it should not have been reviewed. Â it can be reviewed. if there is a fumble, even if the whistle blows, if there is a clear recovery the play the refs can reverse the call on a challenge. Â it happened in the saints game also with the mccluster fumble yesterday. ruled down, blew whistle, review play and ruled a fumble saints ball at the spot of the recovery but cannot be advanced. Â Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TC in St. Louis Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 The only way the ball could have gone forward toward the line of scrimmage is if it were impacted by Fitz's forward throwing motion. If it were a fumble, it would have fallen sideways or behind him. It was a forward pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebug Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 No, it wasn't. It's simple physics. Â Really? because it was going forward? He fumbled it before the forward motion, making it a fumble that was knocked forward. If a running back fumbles the ball and it hits his knee (causing it to go forward) is it not a fumble because it went forward? Would that make it a pass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 The only way the ball could have gone forward toward the line of scrimmage is if it were impacted by Fitz's forward throwing motion. If it were a fumble, it would have fallen sideways or behind him. It was a forward pass. Â right and his hand hitting it is not the same as his hand controlling the ball to throw it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forward_Lateral Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 I don't understand why they told Chan the Cribbs challenge on the kickoff was not challengeable. It worked out good because it wouldn't have been overturned anyways, but that play was 100% challengable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Â Â Really? because it was going forward? He fumbled it before the forward motion, making it a fumble that was knocked forward. If a running back fumbles the ball and it hits his knee (causing it to go forward) is it not a fumble because it went forward? Would that make it a pass? Â a far more extreme example (but perhaps situationally closer related physics) would be using the idea of a volleyball serve. loose ball impacted by a forward motion of a hand, but its certainly not a throw in any sense of the word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 (edited) Â How exactly was it knocked forward? Are you suggesting that he fumbled it and then somehow slapped it forward, because I saw no evidence of that? Â The ref ruled empty hand. If his hand was empty during the throwing motion, physics dictates that the ball would continue to move behind Fitz. Since the ball went forward about 5 yards, its pretty obvious that the ball slipped out of his hand during the throwing motion. Incomplete pass. Â That was the worst sports analogy I've ever seen. Â but if he didnt have control going back, how could he have "thrown" it forward? theres a certain element of control needed for a throw and it not just being a hand hitting a ball. Â id guess most consider it controlling a ball as you bring it back and change direction to move it forward - without controlling it through that rebound in the motion.... im not sure what wed call it in plain english but i dont think throw would be the first to come to mind. Edited September 24, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloWest Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 That was a fumble...It came out when his arm was cocking back, not coming forward. This guy is simply not very good. The stats don't tell the whole story. Fantasy wise he looks pretty damn good right now, and it was another win. Fitz has bought himself a few more weeks, and can make a statement next week with a solid performance and a "W" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterpan Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Can anyone post a video? On my 52" HDTV with slow-mo replay I and the 5 other people watching it (3 non-bills fans) clearly saw the ball slip out of his hand as he attempted to throw it forward which resulted in an un-arguable incomplete forward pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmy10 Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Meh. Bad calls happen with the regular refs, bad calls happen with these foot locker scabs. I'm just happy the Bills didn't fold like a cheap suit when any adversity struck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 (edited) The way I understand it is the hand was already empty when Fitzpatricks hand started to go forward so it was called a fumble. Players actual momentum in the direction they were moving could propel the football so you can't just go by the trajectory of the football. Edited September 24, 2012 by Fig Newton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts