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

[tuckeverlasting]

i didn't think he had it long enough, but i might of had my pats glasses on.

 

[UK_Pat37]

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.

This. He had both hands on the ball and went to turn up field and, had Polamalu not tackled him, he'd have succeeded in doing so.

Some people have mentioned the call on the Steelers where he had the ball between his upper arm and body; I don't think you can define that a catch. He never had too hands or full control of it.

I had no issue with the calls.

 

[Triumph]

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.

Especially when Bolden was running better.

Ridley is what he is. NEs best RB with the potential to bust long runs, but he is going to put the ball on the ground occasionally. You just have to hope it doesn't cost NE a game.

 

[Triumph]

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

Well, that settles it then. Official word from 4 guys.

 

[Triumph]

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

Whats gotten into Walt?

Hes supposed to be on the Pats payroll.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I have no problem with the call. There has to be some judgement involved and it was not an egregious error in judgement. Since the booth reviews TOs, others felt it was within the indeterminacy judgement zone and let the call stand.

Told the guys behind me who were really down on Ridley that "Sometimes the other team has good players who make good plays".

 

[upstater1]

Well, that settles it then. Official word from 4 guys.

You know who they are. The same crew each week. Ladainian, Sharper, HEath Evans and Scott Hanson.

 

[upstater1]

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

I've seen the same rule applied this year in games. Weird.

And, how does this get called in terms of completions then? Say it hits the ground and rolls out of bounds? You think the refs call it a completion? I seem to remember a certain Raven catching a pass in the end zone of the AFCCG in 2012. Ridley's catch was similar.

 

[everlong]

I cannot stand when a receiver makes a catch and clearly has the ball and the defender clearly knocks it out and they rule it incomplete. If a receiver brings the ball in cleanly and tucks, no pun intended, it away and then he gets lit up that's a fumble. It took head and shoulders a full second to tear that away from Ridley. IMO that alone signifies a clear fumble. If that way McCourty on Sanders everybody would want it to be a fumble. With so many rules tilted towards the offense they should get this one right and benefit the defense.

 

[PP2]

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?

I believe the plant counts as the first step.

If the ball had rolled out of bounds, it would count as a fumble without loss of possession, as the play becomes dead. They would still keep the ball but Ridley would still be credited with a fumble.

Even if he had done it in the EZ, it would still be a fumble. If he or one of his teammates recovers the fumble (fall on it, as you say), they are credited with the touchdown. Otherwise, if the other team recovers it, it's a turnover and possession starts at the goal line.

 

[upstater1]

I believe the plant counts as the first step.

If the ball had rolled out of bounds, it would count as a fumble without loss of possession, as the play becomes dead. They would still keep the ball but Ridley would still be credited with a fumble.

Even if he had done it in the EZ, it would still be a fumble. If he or one of his teammates recovers the fumble (fall on it, as you say), they are credited with the touchdown. Otherwise, if the other team recovers it, it's a turnover and possession starts at the goal line.

Go to 10:40 of this video.

What do you think?

GameDay: Ravens vs. Patriots highlights - NFL Videos

 

[PatsDeb]

Beats me. I was there and thought it was, as he never seemed to have control, but I guess they ruled he made a football move and there wasn't enough evidence to overturn it.

 

[PP2]

Go to 10:40 of this video.

What do you think?

GameDay: Ravens vs. Patriots highlights - NFL Videos

Is that the right video? 10:40 shows Brady on the bench..?

 

[upstater1]

Is that the right video? 10:40 shows Brady on the bench..?

10:38 Brady on the Bench
10:40 Flacco getting ready to throw
10:45 Lee Evans catches the winning TD in the end zone
10:46 Ball is knocked out of his hands

 

[Creative Username]

10:38 Brady on the Bench
10:40 Flacco getting ready to throw
10:45 Lee Evans catches the winning TD in the end zone
10:46 Lee Evans loses his job.

Fixed it for ya.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

The propensity of this board to have lengthy arguments about plays and rules without any seeming desire to actually know or apply the rules themselves is amusing.

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.

Keep fighting the good fight rlcarr. Unfortunately, though you're being largely ignored, know that some of us out here know you have the rule correct and are snickering at everyone debating words like "football move," which don't appear in the rule book, or endlessly discussing the question of whether or not there was a "step" as though it matters.

To me, the far more interesting question on this play is not whether he had time to make an act common to the game, but whether he was going to the ground in the process of the catch by virtue of the defensive player's contact. If so, he is required to maintain possession through the ground for it to be a completed pass. I think that's really close (like really really close), but ultimately, I see it as catch not going to the ground, contact by defender, time for an act common to the game, fumble.

Even if he had done it in the EZ, it would still be a fumble. If he or one of his teammates recovers the fumble (fall on it, as you say), they are credited with the touchdown. Otherwise, if the other team recovers it, it's a turnover and possession starts at the goal line.

The offense can never fumble in the end zone in which it is attempting to score. A fumble requires possession. The moment there is possession in the end zone, the play is over and it's a touchdown. (To the extent anyone needs a rules reference on this, in my opinion, obvious point, it's R 3, Sec. 2, Art. 7 (Player Possesion), "Catch" Note 2.)

 

[Bhelmet]

Why do people expect the refs to make the RIGHT call? We have seen time and time again that they are not able to do so - even if it goes OUR way. The refs suck and it appears more and more that calls are agenda driven. Not as bad as the SEC, but those fools will be in the NFL soon enough. Refs are hurting the integrity of the game more than they are helping it.

 

[PP2]

The offense can never fumble in the end zone in which it is attempting to score. A fumble requires possession. The moment there is possession in the end zone, the play is over and it's a touchdown. (To the extent anyone needs a rules reference on this, in my opinion, obvious point, it's R 3, Sec. 2, Art. 7 (Player Possesion), "Catch" Note 2.)

Y! SPORTS

Here's the scenario I was thinking of (or that I thought he was thinking of).

I remember a game in Indianapolis where the ball was fumbled away at the goal line (Maroney?) and one of our linemen fell on it in the EZ for a TD. This was quite a while ago.. perhaps '07?

 

[upstater1]

The propensity of this board to have lengthy arguments about plays and rules without any seeming desire to actually know or apply the rules themselves is amusing.



Keep fighting the good fight rlcarr. Unfortunately, though you're being largely ignored, know that some of us out here know you have the rule correct and are snickering at everyone debating words like "football move," which don't appear in the rule book, or endlessly discussing the question of whether or not there was a "step" as though it matters.

To me, the far more interesting question on this play is not whether he had time to make an act common to the game, but whether he was going to the ground in the process of the catch by virtue of the defensive player's contact. If so, he is required to maintain possession through the ground for it to be a completed pass. I think that's really close (like really really close), but ultimately, I see it as catch not going to the ground, contact by defender, time for an act common to the game, fumble.



The offense can never fumble in the end zone in which it is attempting to score. A fumble requires possession. The moment there is possession in the end zone, the play is over and it's a touchdown. (To the extent anyone needs a rules reference on this, in my opinion, obvious point, it's R 3, Sec. 2, Art. 7 (Player Possesion), "Catch" Note 2.)

Nice strawman arguments.

Maybe we say "football move" because the refs say it.

Here's the former head of refereeing:
"Mike PereiraVerified account ?@MikePereira

Good ruling of incomplete pass. Did not maintain control long enough to make a football move"

Maybe you know more than the former head of NFL refereeing.

And, obviously I am not arguing that Evans fumbled the ball in the end zone. Nice strawman argument there too. I am saying that the player had possession of it as long as Ridley did.

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

I've have, like many of you, seen this play called an incompletion many, many more times than we've seen it called a fumble. Ridley was struggling to hold onto the ball from the start. And Upstarter pegged it - if the ball had rolled out of bounds upon landing on the turf it would have been called incomplete instantly.