Peter Posted September 21, 2006 Posted September 21, 2006 One of the best segments on the NFL Network is with Mike Pereira, the vice-president of officiating. I think that Pereira does a very good job of directly addressing the previous week's controversial calls as well as explaining the rules. On the way home last night, I was listening to the NFL Network on Sirius, which carries some of the NFL Network's television programs. I heard Mike Pereira's explanation for the whistle that occured on that play. According to Pereira, the reason for the quick whistle was that one of the Dolphin defenders had JP within his grasp and control while another defender was bearing down on him. Given that combination (QB, grasp and control, and another defender bearing down on the QB), the refs are instructed to blow the whistle. That is why, even though there was a "fumble," the whistle was correct and the play was not reviewable. In any event, I thought that some of you may be interested in how this worked in the event you did not see or hear the official explanation.
Heitz Posted September 21, 2006 Posted September 21, 2006 I caught that too - it *still* seems like a fumble to me! The "Grasp and Control" rule is supposed to stop the QB from getting killed by a second defender when he is under control of another. On that play JP was clearly cocking back to throw and the second defender knocked the ball away. I guess Pereira was right, you have to enforce the rules as they are written. Still if the shoe were on the opposite foot, I'd be pissed!
Rubes Posted September 21, 2006 Posted September 21, 2006 I was a little surprised at the call at first, but after reviewing it I agreed with it. It's still a pu$$y rule, but it's the rule. After that one, he also explained the call on the Giants receiver in the final minutes of the NYG-Philly game. The WR caught the ball and was tackled out of bounds, but the refs called it "forward progress" and kept the clock moving. Rich Eisen couldn't understand the call, but to me it was pretty clear. I couldn't tell if Eisen was just acting that way to make him explain it better, or if he really is that thick-headed.
Peter Posted September 21, 2006 Author Posted September 21, 2006 I caught that too - it *still* seems like a fumble to me! The "Grasp and Control" rule is supposed to stop the QB from getting killed by a second defender when he is under control of another. On that play JP was clearly cocking back to throw and the second defender knocked the ball away. I guess Pereira was right, you have to enforce the rules as they are written. Still if the shoe were on the opposite foot, I'd be pissed! 781867[/snapback] That play happened right in front of me (I was at the game). One of the interesting things about the play was that NEITHER the Bills nor the Dolphins picked up or recovered the ball after the "fumble." If the play had been reversed, I do not see how they could have given the ball to the Dolphins given that there was never a change of possession. You are absolutely correct about how I would feel if the shoe were on the other foot. I would have been pissed. Yet, as I told the Dolphins fans who were with me, the Dolphins never recovered the ball after the "fumble." They have no one but themselves to blame because nothing could have changed.
Peter Posted September 21, 2006 Author Posted September 21, 2006 Rich Eisen couldn't understand the call, but to me it was pretty clear. I couldn't tell if Eisen was just acting that way to make him explain it better, or if he really is that thick-headed. 781884[/snapback] Rich seemed to go and on and on about that call. You are right about that.
bluv Posted September 21, 2006 Posted September 21, 2006 I caught that too - it *still* seems like a fumble to me! The "Grasp and Control" rule is supposed to stop the QB from getting killed by a second defender when he is under control of another. On that play JP was clearly cocking back to throw and the second defender knocked the ball away. I guess Pereira was right, you have to enforce the rules as they are written. Still if the shoe were on the opposite foot, I'd be pissed! 781867[/snapback] My words exactly as I watched. I mean the defender didn't have a defnite hold and control of him; the only reason the whistle was blown was because of the second defender who swipe for the ball instead of going for the kill. I can see if the defender had his arms wrapped around JP as was getting ready to put him down and a defender was bearing in to knock him to next week. Blowing the play dead that quickly doesn't give the QB a chance to be a playmaker. What if JP had broke lose from the first defender and the second defender had missed on his attempt to swipe the ball and completed a pass for a TD? That would be shown in all the highlights and he would be hailed as a playmaker. They might as well put a flag on the Qb's these days. If that was a RB and a second defender came up and blasted him then that would be a fumble no doubt. Why protect the QB when you don't protect the RB's? I know some will say you need to protect the QB's and I agree to a point. If they are trying to break grasp from a defender to get free to make a play they shouldn't be treated any different than any other position on the field. But this is a violent game and players are going to get hurt no matter what protection is in place and ending such plays immaturely that quickly to protect QB's is a little iffy. Let the players decide the outcome.
John from Riverside Posted September 21, 2006 Posted September 21, 2006 I thought it was a fumble....but I didn't worry about it too much because there was a bills player to fall on it anyway.....
MDH Posted September 21, 2006 Posted September 21, 2006 That play happened right in front of me (I was at the game). One of the interesting things about the play was that NEITHER the Bills nor the Dolphins picked up or recovered the ball after the "fumble." If the play had been reversed, I do not see how they could have given the ball to the Dolphins given that there was never a change of possession. 781886[/snapback] This play could have been a textbook example of why I'm not in favor of the new rule that says down by contact can be reviewed and overturned. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the whistle the ref blew was because of down by contact, not in the grasp. Let's also say that at the very end of the play a Dolphin walked by and pick up the ball (which I think actually happened like 3 seconds after the play). According to the new rule the Dolphins could have been awarded the ball after a review. Of course, there were 2 Bills just standing over the ball (and no Dolphins) but they both stopped the moment they heard the whistle. The new reviewable down by contact rule has the potential to blow up in somebody's face this year. I still can't fathom how they can award the ball to a team when they gain possession after the whistle was blown. Of course, this is all just hypothetical but when I saw Saban try to challenge it I was screaming at the TV, “I knew when they changed this rule we’d be the first to get the shaft!” Thankfully it didn’t turn out that way.
OCinBuffalo Posted September 21, 2006 Posted September 21, 2006 I caught that too - it *still* seems like a fumble to me! The "Grasp and Control" rule is supposed to stop the QB from getting killed by a second defender when he is under control of another. On that play JP was clearly cocking back to throw and the second defender knocked the ball away. I guess Pereira was right, you have to enforce the rules as they are written. Still if the shoe were on the opposite foot, I'd be pissed! 781867[/snapback] The thing is - if you watch the replay - there were two of our guys standing right there. Even if they hadn't blown the whistle based on what I saw there was no way the Dolphins would have recovered the ball. In fact, you can see our guy going for the ball uncontested but as soon as they blow the whistle he stops. That's my only complaint. With the new rules about fumbles, we have almost have to play after the whistle. He should have recovered the ball anyway. Also, IMO, the new fumble rules are gonna get a lot of people hurt this year. In any event it's not like the Dolphins lost the game on that call - see 7 sacks, JP/Willis, Moorman, and Crowell's pick (I felt bad for Denney - he was standing right there to get the pick and Crowell jumped in front )
bluv Posted September 21, 2006 Posted September 21, 2006 The thing is - if you watch the replay - there were two of our guys standing right there. Even if they hadn't blown the whistle based on what I saw there was no way the Dolphins would have recovered the ball. In fact, you can see our guy going for the ball uncontested but as soon as they blow the whistle he stops. That's my only complaint. With the new rules about fumbles, we have almost have to play after the whistle. He should have recovered the ball anyway. Also, IMO, the new fumble rules are gonna get a lot of people hurt this year. In any event it's not like the Dolphins lost the game on that call - see 7 sacks, JP/Willis, Moorman, and Crowell's pick (I felt bad for Denney - he was standing right there to get the pick and Crowell jumped in front ) 781919[/snapback] I agree with all your points. But that should have been a fumble and a fight for the ball. Who knows; maybe those Bills players around the ball get stupid and try to pick it up and the Dolphins recover. Or what if those Bills players hadn't been there and the Doplhins had fell on it? Or worse, what if it was Culpepper; a big, strong QB who in struggling trying to break loose from a Bill's defender briefly in the grasp for a second as this play was and the ball was stripped by a second defender and they blow a quick whistle? There would be outrage here on TwoBillsDrive! I just want to let the players decide the game and have the refs "judgement" calls mean as little as possible; based on another ref's judgement of the play he probably doesn't blow the whistle as quick and it is ruled a fumble. If a QB is fighting to break lose from a defender and he hasn't been controlled for more than 2-3 seconds, then the play shouldn't be ruled dead.
ganesh Posted September 21, 2006 Posted September 21, 2006 One of the interesting things about the play was that NEITHER the Bills nor the Dolphins picked up or recovered the ball after the "fumble." If the play had been reversed, I do not see how they could have given the ball to the Dolphins given that there was never a change of possession. 781886[/snapback] One of the reasons I remember Fewell pushing his players to pick the ball even if was deemed the end of play.
TDRupp Posted September 21, 2006 Posted September 21, 2006 I caught that too - it *still* seems like a fumble to me! The "Grasp and Control" rule is supposed to stop the QB from getting killed by a second defender when he is under control of another. On that play JP was clearly cocking back to throw and the second defender knocked the ball away. I guess Pereira was right, you have to enforce the rules as they are written. Still if the shoe were on the opposite foot, I'd be pissed! 781867[/snapback] Pereiri was right. If JP gets the ball off and hits a receiver for positive yards it does not count b/c the whistle blew and he was sacked. Its the rule and was a good call by the refs.
TDRupp Posted September 21, 2006 Posted September 21, 2006 That play happened right in front of me (I was at the game). One of the interesting things about the play was that NEITHER the Bills nor the Dolphins picked up or recovered the ball after the "fumble." If the play had been reversed, I do not see how they could have given the ball to the Dolphins given that there was never a change of possession. You are absolutely correct about how I would feel if the shoe were on the other foot. I would have been pissed. Yet, as I told the Dolphins fans who were with me, the Dolphins never recovered the ball after the "fumble." They have no one but themselves to blame because nothing could have changed. 781886[/snapback] The play was blown dead. Dead ball so no reason to pcik it up. This is an instance (rule) that is an exception to the guidelines where refs are to err on the side of caution and let play continue with regards to fumbles/interceptions/completions so it can be reviewed later. And it does make sense b/c the last thing you want is your QB's legs being held as Shawn Merriman, London Fletcher or Spikes, et. al. come in to finish him off.
Peter Posted September 21, 2006 Author Posted September 21, 2006 The play was blown dead. Dead ball so no reason to pcik it up. This is an instance (rule) that is an exception to the guidelines where refs are to err on the side of caution and let play continue with regards to fumbles/interceptions/completions so it can be reviewed later. And it does make sense b/c the last thing you want is your QB's legs being held as Shawn Merriman, London Fletcher or Spikes, et. al. come in to finish him off. 781951[/snapback] That was basically my point. See my original post to start the thread. Yet, even still, there was no change of possession.
Nanker Posted September 21, 2006 Posted September 21, 2006 "Grasp and Control" of his weighted red hanky is what Coach Genius Saban need to perfect.
Recommended Posts