Why wasn't Ridley's fumble an incomplete pass?

[lurker1965]

Excuse me if this is a repeat thread. Just wondering.

 

[ahmed]

It should have been.

 

[Big-T]

When is a "Football move" not a Football move and when is it? Why was the Steelers fumble later on incomplete despite the receiver holding onto the ball for longer than what Ridley did?

 

[Archeryaddict12]

He never made a "football" move IMO. He caught it and a second later that overpaid, hairy piss ant jumped on him and got it out. It should have been incomplete IMO.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

Meh, I'm constantly annoyed by the NFL redefining what has been called a catch since the beginning of time so I'm not really bothered they called the catch a catch. Whether it actually meets the NFL's definition is another question. I wish they would just call a catch a catch every time.

 

[PatsSox363804]

I thought it was incomplete too. Surprised the announcers didnt even mention it as a possibility.

 

[Joker]

the good news??? our Pats didn't get flagged for "pushing the pile"...I guess the NFL pushed enough piles last week with their bullshyt calls and apologies...

 

[Snake Eyes]

IMO his turning forward to move upfield was a "football move" but I rather doubt that concept is consistently applied.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Pretty clear he fumbled IMO: a clear clean catch, turn, and a fumble.

If there were a bobble, maybe not. But I didn't see one.

 

[PP2]

When is a "Football move" not a Football move and when is it? Why was the Steelers fumble later on incomplete despite the receiver holding onto the ball for longer than what Ridley did?

Ridley was in clear control of the ball, and that in combination with either turning up field or taking more than one step qualifies the play as being live.

I agree it was a judgmental call, but I think it was the right one.

 

[fnordcircle]

That was a catch and a fumble you people need your big nerd glasses checked if you don't think so.

 

[Claremonster]

It was a fumble.

Good thing BB kept him in the game...I was thinking that he would have rode the bench for a few more weeks after that.

 

[JMC00]

NFL and CBS was worried that their 4:30 national game was on the verge of a blowout so when Walt Coleman went to the booth he got the word to uphold the call.

Next thing you know it's 27-24 going into the 4th quarter instead of 34-10

 

[QuantumMechanic]

IMO his turning forward to move upfield was a "football move" but I rather doubt that concept is consistently applied.

The "football move" requirement was eliminated in 2011 or 2012 (forget which). You no longer have to make a "football move". Instead, you have to control the ball long enough "to perform an act common to the game" but do not actually have to perform the act.

 

[upstater1]

IMO his turning forward to move upfield was a "football move" but I rather doubt that concept is consistently applied.

You have to take more than one step. He didn't.

 

[upstater1]

Ridley was in clear control of the ball, and that in combination with either turning up field or taking more than one step qualifies the play as being live.

I agree it was a judgmental call, but I think it was the right one.

I agree with you on the standard, I disagree with you that he took more than one step. He didn't. He put one foot forward and the other was still planted when he lost the ball.

Put it this way, if that ball had immediately rolled out of bounds, they would have called it incomplete. What if that had happened in the end zone? What if Ridley had fumbled it, same thing happened, then dropped on the ball? You think refs would have called it a TD?

 

[upstater1]

That was a catch and a fumble you people need your big nerd glasses checked if you don't think so.

4 guys on NFL network right after the game all said it wasn't a fumble. Go talk to them.

 

[supafly]

the good news??? our Pats didn't get flagged for "pushing the pile"...I guess the NFL pushed enough piles last week with their bullshyt calls and apologies...

Isn't kind of strange that you can't push a pile on a FG or kick attempt, but in every single game we see offensive linemen literally push the running back or receiver up to 5-10 yds downfield at times?

Just the other day I saw an offensive lineman push his RB a clear 5 yds downfield to pick up a first down or TD.

If I recall correctly, it used to be a rule. I'm not sure why it's not anymore.

 

[supafly]

Watching live in real-time, I immediately yelled out loud "there's no way that's a fumble. He never caught the ball."

However, upon reviewing it on the instant replays, it seemed to be a lot closer to being a fumble than not being a fumble to me.

I suppose it was just one of those judgement calls that we sometimes get or sometimes don't get. It absolutely changed the whole momentum of the game, as we all knew it would as soon as it happened. Luckily, it did not end up mattering.

FWIW---I absolutely agree with Belichick's decision NOT to bench Ridley for even one series. As he said (and I pointed out to my wife) sometimes the defender just makes a great play and there's not much you can do. The only time I think it's good to bench the player is if their technique is wrong, and they need to learn a lesson. Sometimes you see those players carrying the ball like a loaf of bread and they end up putting it on the ground. Those are the players that need to be benched and taught a lesson; otherwise, some fumbles are just part of the game and can't be stopped or prevented.

At this point in time, I'm not sure that we're going to be able to "teach" Ridley any more lessons by benching him that he already knows at the moment. If anything, it may even start to contribute to a lack of confidence and/or mess with his head.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

You have to take more than one step. He didn't.

No, you don't. That changed in 2011 or 2012.