Was Eli in the grasp?

I was wondering if anyone knew the rule regarding possession after a fumble. It seems clear that Woods had the ball, was down, and was touched by a Giants player. I can see the ref missing the clear possession, but can such a play be challenged? Does a player need to show clear possession before the ball is given to them?

dante828 said:

I was wondering if anyone knew the rule regarding possession after a fumble. It seems clear that Woods had the ball, was down, and was touched by a Giants player. I can see the ref missing the clear possession, but can such a play be challenged? Does a player need to show clear possession before the ball is given to them?

Click to expand...

Yes that play can be challenged and I was hoping they were going to.

During the 80s, in the grasp was called much more often. There were a bunch of QB injuries prior to this that the NFL was trying to cut down on. It seemed as if you got near the QB, the whistle blew. The refs went overboard with the call. The interpretation changed later.

Eli was clearly not in the grasp to me.

The fumble is an interesting question. I would think the rule book would have something about hands on the ball, which I don't think he had. If only my chest is on the ball, do I have possession?

God, who cares? The Giants won. Let's move on...

no he got away

it was a good call

Not once have I thought that the play should be whistled dead. I don't think there's any way you make that call at that point of the game with that much on the line. I would have like to have seen a D holding though, but there's an equal chance of that happening.

There were just too many other lost opportunities for that play to stick in my craw.

Obi-Wan said:

Yes that play can be challenged and I was hoping they were going to.

Click to expand...

There's just no way Bradshaw should have been able to get that ball away from Woods. A lot of no-good goes on in the bottom of those piles. That's no condemnation of Bradshaw BTW. He did what he should have done. I think that play was somewhat emblematic of the teams' different mentalities.

pheenix11 said:

Yeah they had his jersey but they never had him. Of course the fact that AD was held not once but twice on that play and the fact that Seymour was practically clotheslined made it pretty difficult to wrap him up. I'm all in favor of "letting them play" but there were 3 holds on that one play.

Click to expand...

Sorry but that happens on every single play in every NFL game. Go watch the Chargers/Patriot playoff games the last two years and tell me the Patriots don't do the same exact thing. There is no holding in the NFL unless you take the player down or you get them in a bearhug from behind. The Patriots have benefited many times this season from calls and noncalls. Hopefully they even out, if not you just have to move on and forget about it. Here is an example of the Patriots being the beneficiary of the "letting them play" syndrom....

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9282/vlcsnap611036iv6.png

...that's from the AFCCG this year against the Chargers. Clearly Pass Interferance. On the other side of this pass Teddy Brewski is tripping Phillip Rivers. Neither penalty was called and this play led directly to a Patriot TD. I'm not complaining about it just pointing out it's part of the game. I don't like it but take a look at the scoreboard, being right doesn't change it.

pao

PATSNUTme said:

I've seen the play rerun many times. And here is the rule from the NFL Digest of Rules.

In my opinion (biased) he was clearly in the grasp. The play should have been whistled dead as a sack before he escaped and threw the ball which Tyree made the helmet catch. I won't get into the holding that took place during that play which was obvious.

Protection of Passer

1. By interpretation, a pass begins when the passer -- with possession of ball -- starts to bring his hand forward. If ball strikes ground after this action has begun, play is ruled an incomplete pass. If passer loses control of ball prior to his bringing his hand forward, play is ruled a fumble.
2. When a passer is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional movement forward of his arm starts a forward pass. If a defensive player contacts the passer or the ball after forward movement begins, and the ball leaves the passer’s hand, a forward pass is ruled, regardless of where the ball strikes the ground or a player.
3. No defensive player may run into a passer of a legal forward pass after the ball has left his hand (15 yards). The Referee must determine whether opponent had a reasonable chance to stop his momentum during an attempt to block the pass or tackle the passer while he still had the ball.
4. No defensive player who has an unrestricted path to the quarterback may hit him flagrantly in the area of the knee(s) or below when approaching in any direction.
5. Officials are to blow the play dead as soon as the quarterback is clearly in the grasp and control of any tackler, and his safety is in jeopardy.

Click to expand...

The referees didn't call it... so he wasn't in the grasp. It's that simple. I am more concerned about your well being. You need to back off, go to a movie or something and FORGET IT!! PATS LOST...IT'S OVER!!

dante828 said:

I was wondering if anyone knew the rule regarding possession after a fumble. It seems clear that Woods had the ball, was down, and was touched by a Giants player. I can see the ref missing the clear possession, but can such a play be challenged? Does a player need to show clear possession before the ball is given to them?

Click to expand...

One of he most frustrating things about football to me is the fumble "scrum". It is part of the NFL and tough to argue with. If they can't see it they can't call it so there is a violent tug of war going on for every fumble around a group of players. You didn't see Woods arguing did you? Clearly it LOOKED like he had control but there was no angle that I saw that showed him with absolute possesion of that ball. Did you?

pao

i don't think he was, but i'm not an expert and i surely don't want to watch that play again.

i don't think we should go in this direction as pats fans. it sounds like sour grapes and reminds me of people who are still revisiting the "tuck" call all these years later.

pao said:

Sorry but that happens on every single play in every NFL game. Go watch the Chargers/Patriot playoff games the last two years and tell me the Patriots don't do the same exact thing. There is no holding in the NFL unless you take the player down or you get them in a bearhug from behind. The Patriots have benefited many times this season from calls and noncalls. Hopefully they even out, if not you just have to move on and forget about it. Here is an example of the Patriots being the beneficiary of the "letting them play" syndrom....

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9282/vlcsnap611036iv6.png

...that's from the AFCCG this year against the Chargers. Clearly Pass Interferance. On the other side of this pass Teddy Brewski is tripping Phillip Rivers. Neither penalty was called and this play led directly to a Patriot TD. I'm not complaining about it just pointing out it's part of the game. I don't like it but take a look at the scoreboard, being right doesn't change it.

pao

Click to expand...

Get a clue, the defender has just as much right to the ball as the receiver. He was going for the ball, thats not PI.

What else you got?

pao said:

One of he most frustrating things about football to me is the fumble "scrum". It is part of the NFL and tough to argue with. If they can't see it they can't call it so there is a violent tug of war going on for every fumble around a group of players. You didn't see Woods arguing did you? Clearly it LOOKED like he had control but there was no angle that I saw that showed him with absolute possesion of that ball. Did you?

pao

Click to expand...

Well, I am pretty certain his hands were not at his sides, they were on the ball (then again, I don't have the play in front of me, total memory and I could be wrong). The replays I saw during the game made it seem pretty clear he had possession right has he was originally hit by a Giants player and lost possession when the Bradshaw and others tried to get the ball from him. Woods may have argued, just not like an absolute jerk like some people, we just don't know. In the end, its a hard call for an official to make on the field because they can't see 12 camera angles that show every inch of the play, and I totally understand why the officials called it the way they did from what they say, when teh scrum cleared, Bradshaw and Woods had their hands on the ball and the rules says that offense wins in that situation, I can't blame them for that, and I don't.

The main point of my post was a curiosity question...are there specific rules regarding fumble possession that are different from the rules regarding being down and touched by an opponent? And second whether the call could be challenged by the officials?

I have had my second question answered, so thanks. I think the sense is that the rules are no different for fumbles as they are for other plays.

Please don't yell at me, or criticize me for being curious, I am not looking for excuses, I am just curious about the rules, I think most people on this thread are, and those critisizing them need to get a life...

pheenix11 said:

Get a clue, the defender has just as much right to the ball as the receiver. He was going for the ball, thats not PI.

What else you got?

Click to expand...

Look you can argue all you want but it is pass interference. The defender DOES have the right to the ball but he can't go THROUGH the offensive player to get to it. Additionally, by rule, he may not contact the receiver in any way. Look at Samuel's left hand. Even if he hadn't been going "through" the receiver, which he was, his left hand is clearly restraining Chambers from catching the ball. That's not "going for the ball" my friend. It is interfering with the receiver's attempt to catch the ball. Like I said, I'm not complaining I'm pointing out that every team catches a break from time to time on calls/non calls. It's part of the game. Look at the scoreboard, that is the only important call.

pao

dante828 said:

Well, I am pretty certain his hands were not at his sides, they were on the ball (then again, I don't have the play in front of me, total memory and I could be wrong). The replays I saw during the game made it seem pretty clear he had possession right has he was originally hit by a Giants player and lost possession when the Bradshaw and others tried to get the ball from him. Woods may have argued, just not like an absolute jerk like some people, we just don't know. In the end, its a hard call for an official to make on the field because they can't see 12 camera angles that show every inch of the play, and I totally understand why the officials called it the way they did from what they say, when teh scrum cleared, Bradshaw and Woods had their hands on the ball and the rules says that offense wins in that situation, I can't blame them for that, and I don't.

The main point of my post was a curiosity question...are there specific rules regarding fumble possession that are different from the rules regarding being down and touched by an opponent? And second whether the call could be challenged by the officials?

I have had my second question answered, so thanks. I think the sense is that the rules are no different for fumbles as they are for other plays.

Please don't yell at me, or criticize me for being curious, I am not looking for excuses, I am just curious about the rules, I think most people on this thread are, and those critisizing them need to get a life...

Click to expand...

Hey I'm sorry if you felt I was yelling at you or criticizing you. I didn't mean it that way and I apologize. It is a good question. I actually feel that he should have been given possesion because he obviously fell right on it with his entire body on top of it. But we see it all the time, some guy that joined the party late comes out with the ball. It's a tough call. Again I apologise for anything I wrote that offended you.

pao

cblesz said:

Seymour was held the ENTIRE game...why would they start calling it then?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know what you mean about holding. It's ignored sometimes and usually seems to be on a big play. Check out this picture from the Steeler / jags playoff game this year. This was the run by Gerrard for 32 yards on fouth down that salted the game away for the Jags. Would you say number 67 is holding???? Funny thing is, it's on page 46 of S.I. for the whole world to see.... Holding Personafied....

jamin3204 said:

The referees didn't call it... so he wasn't in the grasp. It's that simple. I am more concerned about your well being. You need to back off, go to a movie or something and FORGET IT!! PATS LOST...IT'S OVER!!

Click to expand...

I don't really need your advise. I have been viewing your other 28 post and find that you seem to want to go personal rather that addres issues. Here are some of your greatest hits.

.


Posted By jamin3204


Well since you are a free speech advocate, I am sure you will understand when I say "YOU ARE IGNORANT!"



Posted By jamin3204

Re: OT: Picture of Colts new stadium

By the stupidity of your post, you should try some fried cowbrains!







Posted By jamin3204

Re: Would you rather face SD or IND in AFCCG?

Your right. He was too busy making bast--d babies.









Posted By jamin3204

Re: OT: Colts and Titans Had "Agreement"

Quit crying like a baby. You are paranoid because no one likes the Pats outside of Pats land.





So is there any reason that we shouldn't say good bye to you?

There were several incidences in that game where it was clear that the play should have been blown dead and wasn't. The Maroney return comes to mind, but regardless, Manning should have been thrown to the ground so hard he came out in china. Green should have made it even more obvious he was being held. However, I don't think the refs wanted to make a call like that as they seemed to let plays go the whole time. What about the giants player that smacks the ball away as our guy is throwing his body at it? That 10 yard penality from the spot was generous considering what was at stake. A turnover at that juncture could have been critical assuming our offense showed up.

pao said:

Sorry but that happens on every single play in every NFL game. Go watch the Chargers/Patriot playoff games the last two years and tell me the Patriots don't do the same exact thing. There is no holding in the NFL unless you take the player down or you get them in a bearhug from behind. The Patriots have benefited many times this season from calls and noncalls. Hopefully they even out, if not you just have to move on and forget about it. Here is an example of the Patriots being the beneficiary of the "letting them play" syndrom....

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9282/vlcsnap611036iv6.png

...that's from the AFCCG this year against the Chargers. Clearly Pass Interferance. On the other side of this pass Teddy Brewski is tripping Phillip Rivers. Neither penalty was called and this play led directly to a Patriot TD. I'm not complaining about it just pointing out it's part of the game. I don't like it but take a look at the scoreboard, being right doesn't change it.

pao

Click to expand...

I hate to break it to you, but there is no PI going on there

pao said:

Look you can argue all you want but it is pass interference. The defender DOES have the right to the ball but he can't go THROUGH the offensive player to get to it. Additionally, by rule, he may not contact the receiver in any way. Look at Samuel's left hand. Even if he hadn't been going "through" the receiver, which he was, his left hand is clearly restraining Chambers from catching the ball. That's not "going for the ball" my friend. It is interfering with the receiver's attempt to catch the ball. Like I said, I'm not complaining I'm pointing out that every team catches a break from time to time on calls/non calls. It's part of the game. Look at the scoreboard, that is the only important call.

pao

Click to expand...

dude, that play wasn't even close to PI..learn the game son