WOW, Detroit gets SCREEEEWED, the refs are terrible.

[Fezmid]

and I thought the ground can't cause a fumble.

Like I said in an earlier post, the ground didn't cause a fumble this time either. You can't fumble until after it's a reception. The ground most definitely can cause an incomplete pass though.

 

The rules clearly state that you have to have the ball all the way through falling/bouncing on the ground. You catch the ball, you hit the ground, you roll around, you stop rolling, you still have the ball in your hands -- catch. You don't have the ball in your hands after rolling around, no catch. Rule has been interpreted that way for years.

[The Dean]

I agree! He was down by contact long before he rolled over and I thought the ground can't cause a fumble.

 

 

The ground can't cause a fumble (actually it can*) but it certainly cause an incompletion. In this case he has control when his two feet hit, when he turns, when his but hits the ground AND when the ball hits the ground. He is in control of the ball when it is on the ground...then he lets it go, willingly. He was never out of control of the ball the entire sequence.

 

This is an example of the rule the way it is meant to be interpreted, IMO:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnBS8tTsnWE

 

Here, the WR loses possession of the ball as it hits the ground. He doesn't place it on the ground, and then let go...it bounces from his hand. He was NOT in control.

 

Pretty crappy rule, either way, but there is a big distinction here, I think.

 

*Everyone says "the ground can't cause a fumble" but that is incorrect. If the ball carrier falls w/o being contacted by an opponent, and the ball is forced out of his hand when he hits the ground, it IS a fumble. The ground CAN cause a fumble.

[DC Tom]

You may not agree with it, but it's been the rule for 6+ years.... Nobody botched anything, except for Johnson letting go of the ball as he rolled over on the field.

 

I was talking about the rule, bonehead.