Fumbles and Incompletes?!

[oldskool138]

I wasn't around during the game. What did you feel about the non-fumbles called in this game? What is the rule about a "football move"? I thought the Pats created a couple of turnovers that weren't called. Well, the net-net was a Pats win but I thought they should have gotten a few of those early incompletions as fumbles by the Bolts.

 

[Kdo5]

Well Hobbs made a nice forced fumble which was overturned. Hobbs played terrific IMO. He prevented some huge plays. That leaping deflection was AWESOME. Talk about rejected!

 

[oldskool138]

Well Hobbs made a nice forced fumble which was overturned. Hobbs played terrific IMO. He prevented some huge plays. That leaping deflection was AWESOME. Talk about rejected!

No doubt but I felt that the Pats got screwed ob a couple of those calls....

 

[italia44]

IMO,Hobbs showed some serious "stones" against Huge,Physical receivers,like Gates and Jackson.
For a "little" guy......he was like the boxer,Wille Pepp,
Even that A-hole Ron Borges,can appreciate this analogy.

 

[oldskool138]

IMO,Hobbs showed some serious "stones" against Huge,Physical receivers,like Gates and Jackson.
For a "little" guy......he was like the boxer,Wille Pepp,
Even that A-hole Ron Borges,can appreciate this analogy.

Yeah but I thought the Pats got screwed on a couple of calls early...

Props to them for not getting rattled. That's just Brady being Brady.

 

[The Gr8est]

By the "football move" rule, it seems that any time you catch a pass, if you immediately drop to the ground a la Marvin Harrison, you can never fumble.

Is this correct?

 

[BelichickFan]

The bottom line is that if there's any doubt this year it's incomplete. I can't explain what a football move is but they lean strongly to incomplete. I was shocked they overturned the Gates one on replay, though, as it's a judgement call.

 

[oldskool138]

By the "football move" rule, it seems that any time you catch a pass, if you immediately drop to the ground a la Marvin Harrison, you can never fumble.

Is this correct?

I guess that only applies to the Colts. We'll find out next week.

 

[emoney_33]

By the "football move" rule, it seems that any time you catch a pass, if you immediately drop to the ground a la Marvin Harrison, you can never fumble.

Is this correct?

Pretty much. As I posted in PFK's thread...

With regards to the fumbles or interceptions, this is how I understand it.

The whole thing about having to make a "football move" didn't come into play in the pass to Gates. In the act of catching the ball and going to the ground you MUST maintain possession of the ball all the way to the ground and come up with it. So when a player goes up for the ball and comes down to the ground with a defender, there can only be three possible outcomes. INC, RECEPTION or INT. There can be no fumble because in order to even be considered a catch you have to be down with the ball. It is the same with all the out of bounds catches / non-catches we see. If you bobble the ball while going out of bounds, INCOMPLETE. Same thing applies when making a catch while going to the ground. THe announcers mentioned also that rule comes into effect when entangled with a defensive player.

Anyhow, that is my understanding of the rule.

It's impossible to fumble if you are in the act of going to the ground when attempting to catch the ball. The whole football move ruling only comes into effect if a receiver is hit AFTER catching the ball. If he goes up for it and comes down to the ground, entangled with a receiver, then it's either INC or CATCH (or INT of course), but can never be a fumble.


Sorry NEM, it's not a case of psychological reffing based on the tuck rule. It's a case of calling it exactly according to the rule book.

 

[The Gr8est]

I guess that only applies to the Colts. We'll find out next week.

But when it comes to the Colts, immediately dropping to the ground after making the catch to avoid being hit IS a football move.

 

[oldskool138]

I suppose. This game wouldn't have been as close as it was if the "Polianites" knew the fricken rules! The crowd at the pub I was at were up in arms after both those calls. I mean, in both cases, the WR came down with the ball cleanly, turned upfield and then had the ball jarred loose!

Well, it'll be a bigger challenge next week in "The House That Polian Built"

 

[oldskool138]

It's impossible to fumble if you are in the act of going to the ground when attempting to catch the ball. The whole football move ruling only comes into effect if a receiver is hit AFTER catching the ball. If he goes up for it and comes down to the ground, entangled with a receiver, then it's either INC or CATCH (or INT of course), but can never be a fumble.


Sorry NEM, it's not a case of psychological reffing based on the tuck rule. It's a case of calling it exactly according to the rule book.

It makes it a little clearer but its a crap rule! If the WR has possesion, gets both feet on the ground and then gets the ball knocked loose it should be ruled a fumble...I'll make sure I implement that rule when I become the next commish of the NFL

 

[sieglo]

It makes it a little clearer but its a crap rule! If the WR has possesion, gets both feet on the ground and then gets the ball knocked loose it should be ruled a fumble...I'll make sure I implement that rule when I become the next commish of the NFL

Yeah, if the WR comes down and has possession and turns upfield, the second he does this he is a runner and is subject to a fumble.

I say the first play on the sideline was a fumble and the second one was not a fumble, according to the rules. The refs score a 50%.

 

[RayClay]

On the first one, he definitely came down, planted his foot and tries to knife sideways past Hobbs, (as I recall).

I assume the refs thought he lost his mind and was backing into the basket for a finger roll. (not a football move. )

The goal line one I still think was a fumble, but he probably hadn't started to make a move under control, so that's the rule, I guess.

Rules a rule, don't want to be a raider fan about it.