Fezmid Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Well, I saw the rule in effect for the first time today. Plummer (Den) was sacked and fumbled, Indy recovered, but the refs had blown the whistle saying the QB was already down. After hearing about the rule in the offseason, and now seeing it in practice, I still don't like it. I also wonder what would've happened if the ball had bounced around on the ground instead of it falling righ tinto the defender's hands. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILoveTomBrady Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I like the rule if only because it was a fumble and Indy deserved the ball. Change of possession is huge and it is more important to get that right than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I'm confused.....who recovered the ball? Fezmid says..."but the refs had blown the whistle saying the QB was already down"....implying the ball remained DEN. ILove...says "I like the rule if only because it was a fumble and Indy deserved the ball"....implying IND got possession. It's not me here is it? One of the two is either wrong.....or written wrong. Maybe it is me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I'm confused.....who recovered the ball?Fezmid says..."but the refs had blown the whistle saying the QB was already down"....implying the ball remained DEN. ILove...says "I like the rule if only because it was a fumble and Indy deserved the ball"....implying IND got possession. It's not me here is it? One of the two is either wrong.....or written wrong. Maybe it is me? 820008[/snapback] good question Im wondering the same exact thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike32282 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I'm confused.....who recovered the ball?Fezmid says..."but the refs had blown the whistle saying the QB was already down"....implying the ball remained DEN. ILove...says "I like the rule if only because it was a fumble and Indy deserved the ball"....implying IND got possession. It's not me here is it? One of the two is either wrong.....or written wrong. Maybe it is me? 820008[/snapback] 3-13-DEN17 (10:55) (Shotgun) J.Plummer sacked at DEN 12 for -5 yards (sack split by G.Brackett and D.Freeney). Play Challenged by IND and REVERSED. (Shotgun) J.Plummer sacked at DEN 12 for -5 yards (sack split by G.Brackett and D.Freeney). FUMBLES (G.Brackett), RECOVERED by IND-R.Brock at DEN 12. R.Brock to DEN 12 for no gain (J.Plummer). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 3-13-DEN17 (10:55) (Shotgun) J.Plummer sacked at DEN 12 for -5 yards (sack split by G.Brackett and D.Freeney). Play Challenged by IND and REVERSED. (Shotgun) J.Plummer sacked at DEN 12 for -5 yards (sack split by G.Brackett and D.Freeney). FUMBLES (G.Brackett), RECOVERED by IND-R.Brock at DEN 12. R.Brock to DEN 12 for no gain (J.Plummer). 820014[/snapback] Thanks. Now I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 But the whistle blew, right? That means the play is over and you can't challenge it... It should have been Denver's ball. I thought the whistle was the one over-riding element on the field and within total ref control... I am still confused... Can somebody give me this thread in the "...For Dummies" version... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 But the whistle blew, right? That means the play is over and you can't challenge it... It should have been Denver's ball. I thought the whistle was the one over-riding element on the field and within total ref control... I am still confused... Can somebody give me this thread in the "...For Dummies" version... 820041[/snapback] They changed that rule this year. Now you can challenge a fumble even if it's blown dead. So the play is dead when the whistle blows, unless it's not. Yeah it's crazy, that's why Fezmid and a lot of others don't like the new rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 They changed that rule this year. Now you can challenge a fumble even if it's blown dead. So the play is dead when the whistle blows, unless it's not. Yeah it's crazy, that's why Fezmid and a lot of others don't like the new rule. 820053[/snapback] Okay... I get it... But, you can't challenge "progres" still... Take the Bears v. Cards... The Edge fumble that was caused by Urlacher... Even if the whistle would have blown... The Bears could have still challenged and won? WTF?? In the Cards case the whistle didn't blow, so the Cards challenged and lost... Because it looked like a fumble yet, Edges' progress was totally stopped and YOU CAN'T CHALLENGE PROGRESS... No phuckin' wonder why Denny Green went ballistic! This game is rigged! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 They changed that rule this year. Now you can challenge a fumble even if it's blown dead. So the play is dead when the whistle blows, unless it's not. Yeah it's crazy, that's why Fezmid and a lot of others don't like the new rule. 820053[/snapback] While watching the game, the refs explanation was something like" the ball was revovered immedialetly by the Colts" , therefore able to overturn. If you did not see the play, ball bounced right to an Indy player.I think that was the key. If the ball had hit the turf and there was a scramble for the ball, and the whistle had sounded, I think Denver would have kept the ball. Still, i agree stupid rule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloWings Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 While watching the game, the refs explanation was something like" the ball was revovered immedialetly by the Colts" , therefore able to overturn. If you did not see the play, ball bounced right to an Indy player.I think that was the key. If the ball had hit the turf and there was a scramble for the ball, and the whistle had sounded, I think Denver would have kept the ball. Still, i agree stupid rule 820151[/snapback] I can understand why one wouldn't like the rule, but I think the NFL is on the right track with it. I've seen it a number of times where the ref blew the whistle far too early, thus negating a fumble recovery and change of possession. The one I'm reminded of is the Bills vs Packers in Lambeau in 2002 - Ahman Green fumbled the ball on a screen play, subsequently picked up by a Bills DB (I believe it was Winfield or Clements) and would have been returned for a TD. But since the whistle was blown, the play wasn't reviewable - the call on the field was an incompletion, but it looked to me like it was a catch and fumble, so this hurt the Bills in a hugely important game. IMO, the rule should have stayed as it was - once the whistle blows and the official calls the play dead, then it's done and not reviewable. However, the officials should also just let something like that play out...let the play finish and then go review it afterwards. This way, the referee can more clearly determine exactly what happened. Using my above example, the official lets Buffalo recover the "fumble" and run back for a TD. **Presuming GB is smart enough to challenge** (this being the key), the ref can then determine whether or not Ahman Green actually caught and had possession of the ball, then lost possession. If it was a legitimate fumble, then the play would stand as called. If it wasn't, Green Bay gets the ball at the previous line of scrimmage for the next down. I'd much rather see the officials let something close play out than to make a half-hearted and incorrect "down-by-contact-and-unreviewable" call. This is what video replay is there for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I can understand why one wouldn't like the rule, but I think the NFL is on the right track with it. I've seen it a number of times where the ref blew the whistle far too early, thus negating a fumble recovery and change of possession. 820254[/snapback] The answer, though, isn't to create new and arcane rules, it's to stop treating QBs like prima ballerinas, train the officials to not be so quick on the whistle, and let the teams play ball. How is it that the league hasn't yet noticed that every new rule introduced to fix a problem with the rules actually creates more problems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts