Fumble or Out of Bounds?

[Houston's #1 Bills Fan]

This might have been covered, but I really was confused about the Charger's receiver going out of bounds, but loosing the football BEFORE his elbow hit the turf. To me, that ball was loose and falling out of his hand and the Bills should have been awarded the turnover. Thoughts?

[Laughing Coffin]

Out of bounds.  He lost the ball before going out of bounds but as he was out of bounds (his elbow was touching the white) the ball touched him.  As soon as the ball touches any player that even has a toe out of bounds, it's a dead ball.

[BillsfanAZ]

1 minute ago, Houston's #1 Bills Fan said:

This might have been covered, but I really was confused about the Charger's receiver going out of bounds, but loosing the football BEFORE his elbow hit the turf. To me, that ball was loose and falling out of his hand and the Bills should have been awarded the turnover. Thoughts?

I agree....I thought the ball was coming loose. I was suprised it held up.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Because he was touching the ball and had a body part touching out of bounds, he became an extension of the sideline thus the ball was fumbled was out of bounds. 

 

I guess thats the rule, sux but interpretation was by the book

[BeginnersMind]

11 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Because he was touching the ball and had a body part touching out of bounds, he became an extension of the sideline thus the ball was fumbled was out of bounds. 

 

I guess thats the rule, sux but interpretation was by the book

 

Same thing happened last week on the punt. Bunch of Bills had the ball the ball was never out...but parts of their bodies were. 

 

That rule is clear and so was the call. Bummer in the moment, but it was right. 

[Houston's #1 Bills Fan]

Damn rules!!!

 

Thanks guys for the explanation. Still sucks, but I still liked how we played in the second half. Loved "Poy-ay" punching the ball out. That's what we need!

[Doc]

What was worse was the fumble that was recovered by the Bills but given to the Chargers.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

10 minutes ago, Doc said:

What was worse was the fumble that was recovered by the Bills but given to the Chargers.

The refs don’t want the Bills to cover the spread 

 

[plenzmd1]

google "dead Patriot"... the first replay i told everyone in our section this is the rule..Charger Ball..they said I was an idiot..i knew from Dead Patriot Game.

 

They also said I was an idiot on touchback call was going to happen and first touched rule...don't mess with me on arcane NFL rules!!!!

 

 

[Rochesterfan]

8 hours ago, Houston's #1 Bills Fan said:

This might have been covered, but I really was confused about the Charger's receiver going out of bounds, but loosing the football BEFORE his elbow hit the turf. To me, that ball was loose and falling out of his hand and the Bills should have been awarded the turnover. Thoughts?

 

 

This is so easy - yes it was a fumble - ball came out before the elbow hit out of bounds.

 

The WR then landed out of bound (elbow) while still touching the ball - therefore it is a dead ball out of bounds.

 

The Bills have seen this exact thing at least 3 times in the last 2 years - where a guy fumbles on the sideline and either lands out of bounds and touches the ball - ala LA this weekend or the Dolphins last year OR the Bills trying to recover end up touching the ball out of bounds ala last week in Baltimore.

[Mr. WEO]

48 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

google "dead Patriot"... the first replay i told everyone in our section this is the rule..Charger Ball..they said I was an idiot..i knew from Dead Patriot Game.

 

They also said I was an idiot on touchback call was going to happen and first touched rule...don't mess with me on arcane NFL rules!!!!

 

 

 

 

Ok , so you're saying they were only wrong twice...

[ehfeuh57]

This happens to all all the time

 

I am very surprised bills fans don't understand the rule yet

 

Most famously cost us a game against the Pats of course, in the "unconscious head resting out of bounds game":

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2001/12/17/ruling-david-patten-fumble-helps-patriots-beat-bills/Q15dQ696eN1xN4VZ887edI/story.html

Edited September 18, 2018 by DrDare

[Jay_Fixit]

1 hour ago, plenzmd1 said:

google "dead Patriot"... the first replay i told everyone in our section this is the rule..Charger Ball..they said I was an idiot..i knew from Dead Patriot Game.

 

They also said I was an idiot on touchback call was going to happen and first touched rule...don't mess with me on arcane NFL rules!!!!

 

 

Both were pretty standard calls if you know how rules work. Sounds like your section was full of Seahawks fans.

[Scott7975]

10 hours ago, Houston's #1 Bills Fan said:

This might have been covered, but I really was confused about the Charger's receiver going out of bounds, but loosing the football BEFORE his elbow hit the turf. To me, that ball was loose and falling out of his hand and the Bills should have been awarded the turnover. Thoughts?

He was touching the ball when out of bounds.  As soon as that happens the ball is out of bounds.

[row_33]

kind of surprised that NCAA and NFL officials and replay reviews this year are getting it right more than it seemed they used to

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

I swear from the replay the ball came out before any body part touched the ground. 

 

Is there any video or screen caps of it? 

[plenzmd1]

22 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

I swear from the replay the ball came out before any body part touched the ground. 

 

Is there any video or screen caps of it? 

it did, but then his hand( i think hand, could have been his elbow) was touching the ball whist he was out of bounds, making the ball dead at that point.

 

I think it is  Belichick and the Pats who also instruct their KO return guys..if the ball on the kickoff is close to boundary but you are not sure if it is going to go out...make sure you stand out of bounds first with at least one foot, then pick up the ball. The ball is declared to be out of bounds and the penalty is enforced just as if the ball went  20 yards out of bounds.

 

The key is the dude has to standing OOB before he touches the ball.

[SoCal Deek]

I said it last year and I’ll say it again here. I believe the rule is being poorly interpreted and applied. The ‘intent’ of the rule is so that the RECOVERING player cannot be laying out of bounds. It makes no sense at all that a player who’s out of bounds can effectively stop ANOTHER player from recovering a fumble just by having a body part touch the football!

[Boatdrinks]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

I said it last year and I’ll say it again here. I believe the rule is being poorly interpreted and applied. The ‘intent’ of the rule is so that the RECOVERING player cannot be laying out of bounds. It makes no sense at all that a player who’s out of bounds can effectively stop ANOTHER player from recovering a fumble just by having a body part touch the football!

It may also be so a member of the recovering team cannot have say, a toe OB and bat the ball towards his teammate before it’s recovered. Anyway, the rule has been around awhile. I recall the Bills being on the wrong end of a call like this recovering a ( Brady?) fumble vs the Pats @BUF in 2001. Anyone else remember this play? It was a close game and the overturned recovery was critical. 

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

I said it last year and I’ll say it again here. I believe the rule is being poorly interpreted and applied. The ‘intent’ of the rule is so that the RECOVERING player cannot be laying out of bounds. It makes no sense at all that a player who’s out of bounds can effectively stop ANOTHER player from recovering a fumble just by having a body part touch the football!

 

That's not the intent of the rule.

 

When a player who is out of bounds he touches the ball, the ball is out of bounds.  It can't then become "in bounds".  It's the same as a player covering a punt with their foot  on the goal line as they try to prevent a touchback.  As soon as they touch the ball, it's out of bounds--or in this case, a touchback.  Even if he taps it backwards and keeps it in bounds, no other player who is in bounds can then possess (or down) it.

 

  No one questions that and it happens all the time.

[BuffaloBillyG]

17 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

google "dead Patriot"... the first replay i told everyone in our section this is the rule..Charger Ball..they said I was an idiot..i knew from Dead Patriot Game.

 

They also said I was an idiot on touchback call was going to happen and first touched rule...don't mess with me on arcane NFL rules!!!!

 

 

Googled dead Patriot. Only football related stuff I saw was Aaron Hernandez.

[plenzmd1]

1 minute ago, No Place To Hyde said:

Googled dead Patriot. Only football related stuff I saw was Aaron Hernandez.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2001/12/17/ruling-david-patten-fumble-helps-patriots-beat-bills/Q15dQ696eN1xN4VZ887edI/story.html

[SoCal Deek]

9 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

That's not the intent of the rule.

 

When a player who is out of bounds he touches the ball, the ball is out of bounds.  It can't then become "in bounds".  It's the same as a player covering a punt with their foot  on the goal line as they try to prevent a touchback.  As soon as they touch the ball, it's out of bounds--or in this case, a touchback.  Even if he taps it backwards and keeps it in bounds, no other player who is in bounds can then possess (or down) it.

 

  No one questions that and it happens all the time.

I understand what the rule says.  I just think, like any rule, it can be badly applied. In this case, just like last year, it seems to wrongly 'bail-out' the player that fumbled the ball. The player clearly loses possession, while still in play.  Then, while laying on the sideline, he touches the ball (maybe accidently) and the recovering player, who is completely in the field of play, loses a turnover?  I would definitely change that rule.  It makes no sense.

[Alaska Darin]

19 hours ago, Doc said:

What was worse was the fumble that was recovered by the Bills but given to the Chargers.

Right?  Football games have swung on plays like that.  Has the NFL given an explanation of that one?  Have the BILLS even asked?

 

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

Right?  Football games have swung on plays like that.  Has the NFL given an explanation of that one?  Have the BILLS even asked?

 

I think I know the play you're referring to, and I cannot recall that the Bills were shown to have clear possession of it under the pile. Did they?

[Mr. WEO]

3 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I understand what the rule says.  I just think, like any rule, it can be badly applied. In this case, just like last year, it seems to wrongly 'bail-out' the player that fumbled the ball. The player clearly loses possession, while still in play.  Then, while laying on the sideline, he touches the ball (maybe accidently) and the recovering player, who is completely in the field of play, loses a turnover?  I would definitely change that rule.  It makes no sense.

 

It was applied in the way it was meant to be.  There's not right or wrong to it.  It simply defines what an out of bounds ball is, just like the touchback rule does.

 

If they had awarded the Bills possession, it would have been, per the rule, "wrongly" applies and easily overturned on mandatory review.

 

It's not the rule you don't like, it's the outcome of the play.  Had the Bills player been the one who fumbled and then touched the ball while out of bounds, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be screaming for a rule change.......

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

It was applied in the way it was meant to be.  There's not right or wrong to it.  It simply defines what an out of bounds ball is, just like the touchback rule does.

 

If they had awarded the Bills possession, it would have been, per the rule, "wrongly" applies and easily overturned on mandatory review.

 

It's not the rule you don't like, it's the outcome of the play.  Had the Bills player been the one who fumbled and then touched the ball while out of bounds, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be screaming for a rule change.......

Wrong. You do realize that other than the Ten Commandments, all rules were written by PEOPLE....right?  I think it's a dumb 'rule' no matter which team benefits from it.  I still say they should re-look at the way it is being applied.  That's why they have a competition committee...to tweak things like this.  It really doesn't make any sense.

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

Wrong. You do realize that other than the Ten Commandments, all rules were written by PEOPLE....right?  I think it's a dumb 'rule' no matter which team benefits from it.  I still say they should re-look at the way it is being applied.  That's why they have a competition committee...to tweak things like this.  It really doesn't make any sense.

 

 

You are saying that if the Bills were the beneficiary of that rule and kept possession after what appeared to be a lost fumble...you would still be here pasting that it's a terrible rule that needs to be changed??

 

 

Now you are clearly violating Commandment #9 (and there might be some of #10 flavoring your posts as well..)

[plenzmd1]

13 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Wrong. You do realize that other than the Ten Commandments, all rules were written by PEOPLE....right?  I think it's a dumb 'rule' no matter which team benefits from it.  I still say they should re-look at the way it is being applied.  That's why they have a competition committee...to tweak things like this.  It really doesn't make any sense.

Has to be this way..you are saying the ball is not dead until THE BALL is out of bounds..think of all the weird plays that can happen as a result of that. 

[Avisan]

19 hours ago, Doc said:

What was worse was the fumble that was recovered by the Bills but given to the Chargers.

The Chargers recovered it

 

It was trapped behind Edmunds' leg (not arm) when the Chargers player dove on it.  Yeah there was a sea of Bills, but Edmunds' final position meant he couldn't actually get possession of it.  The next/last clear shot we got of it (which was shown on the broadcast, btw) had a Bills player trying to rip it away from the Chargers player, who was by that point on his back.

[BuffaloBillyG]

48 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2001/12/17/ruling-david-patten-fumble-helps-patriots-beat-bills/Q15dQ696eN1xN4VZ887edI/story.html

Thank you.

[plenzmd1]

10 minutes ago, No Place To Hyde said:

Thank you.

I forgot to add dead patriot" rule"...

 

but believe that game also gave us this..never gets old

 

 

Edited September 18, 2018 by plenzmd1

[SoCal Deek]

29 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Has to be this way..you are saying the ball is not dead until THE BALL is out of bounds..think of all the weird plays that can happen as a result of that. 

Not exactly, I'm saying that the PLAY should not be dead if the ball is on the field and no player on that field has possession of it.  Put another way, if the ball is left lying on the field...all alone...and a player lying completely out of bounds, reaches out and touches it with his fingernail....NO...I do not think that should end the play.  Sorry, I just don't.

46 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

You are saying that if the Bills were the beneficiary of that rule and kept possession after what appeared to be a lost fumble...you would still be here pasting that it's a terrible rule that needs to be changed??

 

 

Now you are clearly violating Commandment #9 (and there might be some of #10 flavoring your posts as well..)

I've been watching football way too long to be worried about whether things hurt of help the Buffalo Bills.

[Mark80]

On 9/17/2018 at 1:48 PM, Laughing Coffin said:

Out of bounds.  He lost the ball before going out of bounds but as he was out of bounds (his elbow was touching the white) the ball touched him.  As soon as the ball touches any player that even has a toe out of bounds, it's a dead ball.

 

What was funny is that the announcers had no idea this was the case until the rules guy came on and told them.  I was screaming, hey idiots, it doesn't matter if he lost he ball before he went out or not, he clearly touched it while out, end of story.  How do they hire such idiots in the booth?

Edited September 18, 2018 by Mark80

[Mr. WEO]

3 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Not exactly, I'm saying that the PLAY should not be dead if the ball is on the field and no player on that field has possession of it.  Put another way, if the ball is left lying on the field...all alone...and a player lying completely out of bounds, reaches out and touches it with his fingernail....NO...I do not think that should end the play.  Sorry, I just don't.

I've been watching football way too long to be worried about whether things hurt of help the Buffalo Bills.

 

So on short field punts the punting team should have a bunch of guys rush to the end zone so they can stand there and volleyball tap the ball back to their team mates standing on the 1 yard line to down it.

[ehfeuh57]

4 hours ago, No Place To Hyde said:

Thank you.

Did you just skip over my entire post?

 

Hi

 

You just thanked the guy who simply copy and pasted my hyperlink from an earlier reply in this same thread

 

I explained everything in one of the first replies, did a lot of work finding that gem.

 

(its not actually called dead patriot fwiw)

 

 

4 hours ago, Mark80 said:

 

What was funny is that the announcers had no idea this was the case until the rules guy came on and told them.  I was screaming, hey idiots, it doesn't matter if he lost he ball before he went out or not, he clearly touched it while out, end of story.  How do they hire such idiots in the booth?

Yes, happens every time

 

i guess they don't watch enough Bills games, they would know all the screw you over rules there are

Edited September 19, 2018 by DrDare

[Dadonkadonk]

On 9/17/2018 at 10:48 AM, Laughing Coffin said:

Out of bounds.  He lost the ball before going out of bounds but as he was out of bounds (his elbow was touching the white) the ball touched him.  As soon as the ball touches any player that even has a toe out of bounds, it's a dead ball.

Perfect explanation. Close the thread.