Fumble or Out of Bounds?

[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.