Cynical Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 That's not the point, he meekly walked off of the field in acceptance of the call because he knew it was a fumble. So what? The officials are supposed to consider how the players react after the play when reviewing a call? Should the officials ask for the players opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 So what? The officials are supposed to consider how the players react after the play when reviewing a call? Should the officials ask for the players opinion? Once again, not the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 So what? The officials are supposed to consider how the players react after the play when reviewing a call? Should the officials ask for the players opinion? Why are you afraid to answer my question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Perhaps I'm reading a truncated explanation of the rule on the nfl.com sight, but I didn't see that in the definition. Here's the quote: Anyway, it's about as moot a point as can be made. GO BILLS!!! It is indeed moot...but since I'm pedantic enough to care, yes, that's a truncated version. Here's the full one: http://static.nfl.co...Pass_Fumble.pdf Relevant text is under Section 2 (Intentional Grounding), Article 1, Item 2, "Physical Contact". Basically, if the QB initiates a throwing motion toward an eligible receiver, and the throw is altered by contact with another player, it's NOT IG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st pete gogolak Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Last post on this because it's clear that I won't change your mind and you won't change mine but you have to admit that it is far, far from obvious that he is following through on his throwing motion when he is initially hit by KW. It is just as plausible (in my mind much more likely) that he is trying to bring the ball back into his body to protect from a fumble. It's obviously a relatively close play. The key is how it's called on the field. It's not supposed to be a de novo review. It was ruled on the field as a fumble. If the ref was following normal protocol it should have been affirmed. For whatever reason, maybe he forgot the tuck rule had been changed, he blew the call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynical Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 That's kind of the point. If the was no irrefutable evidence as the poster states (as many here are claiming), then the official could have just as easily stated the play stands as called. Ok, simple question. What made the official change the call? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 It is indeed moot...but since I'm pedantic enough to care, yes, that's a truncated version. Here's the full one: http://static.nfl.co...Pass_Fumble.pdf Relevant text is under Section 2 (Intentional Grounding), Article 1, Item 2, "Physical Contact". Basically, if the QB initiates a throwing motion toward an eligible receiver, and the throw is altered by contact with another player, it's NOT IG. Thanks for the edification. Truly appreciated. Can I harp upon the notion that Kyle Williams was the only eligible receiver anywhere near the vicinity? GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrod's Tailor Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 "Just give it to them." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 If the was no irrefutable evidence as the poster states (as many here are claiming), then the official could have just as easily stated the play stands as called. Ok, simple question. What made the official change the call? They're saying the official botched the call and you're saying the official couldn't have botched the call because the official made the call. It's the most transparently circular arguments I've seen in some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynical Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Once again, not the point. Whether or not Johnny felt it was fumble is irrelevant in determining if the play call is correct. Cause that what it appears you are implying. If Johnny says it was a fumble, then it must a fumble. Case closed. All those pesky incompetent officials are wrong. Yeah, we should believe how a "rookie" reacts to a play as a basis in determining the correct play call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Whether or not Johnny felt it was fumble is irrelevant in determining if the play call is correct. Cause that what it appears you are implying. If Johnny says it was a fumble, then it must a fumble. Case closed. All those pesky incompetent officials are wrong. Yeah, we should believe how a "rookie" reacts to a play as a basis in determining the correct play call. Manziel knows what his intentions were is the point since you're incapable of figuring it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st pete gogolak Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 OK, one more in regard to Manziel's post-game reaction. Doesn't that end the speculation of whether he was trying to throw the ball or bring it back into his body? He said it was a fumble. HE SAID HE WAS TRYING TO BRING IT BACK TO HIS BODY!! That's relevant - maybe not to the ref's ultimate call, but it's relevant to this discussion as proof that the ref blew the call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 This was my problem too. Had Marrone been forced to challenge (presumably after watching the replay and saying "are you f'n kidding me?") And the refs wouldn't overturn it that would be one thing. Reversing a call on the field that the replay expert thought was cut and dry... It wouldn't annoy me as much if we didn't hear so much about JF's one decent drive This. THIS. I question the overrule - I don't see where the evidence supported the overturn. It's the sort of thing that makes me wonder if the ref had $$ on the outcome in Fantasy or something. But I'd shrug and say "meh, we won!" if the media weren't all over Manziel for his one good drive and not all over watching him get shoved down and fumble. "Welcome to the NFL, Rook!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 OK, one more in regard to Manziel's post-game reaction. Doesn't that end the speculation of whether he was trying to throw the ball or bring it back into his body? He said it was a fumble. HE SAID HE WAS TRYING TO BRING IT BACK TO HIS BODY!! That's relevant - maybe not to the ref's ultimate call, but it's relevant to this discussion as proof that the ref blew the call. Ding! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 If the was no irrefutable evidence as the poster states (as many here are claiming), then the official could have just as easily stated the play stands as called. Ok, simple question. What made the official change the call? Um, that's kind of what we all want to know? Where is the irrefutable evidence that made the official change the call? Show us the tape and we'll all go "oh, OK". Whether or not Johnny felt it was fumble is irrelevant in determining if the play call is correct. Cause that what it appears you are implying. If Johnny says it was a fumble, then it must a fumble. Case closed. All those pesky incompetent officials are wrong. Yeah, we should believe how a "rookie" reacts to a play as a basis in determining the correct play call. Players usually give themselves the benefit of the doubt. The point you appear to be missing is that if the player making the play (Manziel) felt he had pulled the ball back in and believed it was a fumble, it reinforces what we all saw on film, and makes it even harder to understand where is the clear evidence to overrule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynical Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 What's your opinion of the tuck rule call that enabled Brady to reach his first SB? At the time, I hated it. However, since then, I have come to realize, it was the correct call. I can hate the result of it, but the call was correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 At the time, I hated it. However, since then, I have come to realize, it was the correct call. I can hate the result of it, but the call was correct. Actually it was a horrible call. In plain English all the tuck rule said if the QB baled on a pass but the ball slipped out of his hand as part of that throwing motion then it would not be considered a fumble. Brady brought the ball back to his body and even put his other hand on it before fumbling. The call was beyond bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaaadThingsMan Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 The NFL probably figured it wouldn't matter in the result anyways so let the kid have one more shot. Total BS by the league, I am convinced this is what happened. Graham made a great stop to deny the first to end it thankfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Thanks for the edification. Truly appreciated. Can I harp upon the notion that Kyle Williams was the only eligible receiver anywhere near the vicinity? GO BILLS!!! Harp away good sir. PS Kyle Williams with the play of the game in sacking Hoyer and taking Cleveland out of FG range. Changed the entire game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Who was JFF's intended receiver on that play? Anyone... anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts