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

[PatsFaninAZ]

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.

If a fan wants to say "football move" instead of "act common to the game," I don't have a problem with that and it wasn't the point of my post -- although if that someone is Mike Periera, I actually do have a problem with it. My problem with the discussion is that whatever one calls it, the entire focus of the thread for pages other than rlcarr's post was whether he actually made one (in addition to all that stuff about taking a step or what constitutes a "step"). That's the problem, since there is no requirement that a "football move" or an act common to the game actually be made. Whether or not one insists on being able to use out of date terms no longer in the rule book, I'm glad your post recognizes that there is no requirement of a "football move" -- only a requirement that there was time to make one.

As for the fumble in the end zone, yours was not the post I was responding to.

But as for the larger question, if the Ridley play had occurred in the offensive end zone, I think the correct call would have been touchdown, and very much hope and expect that is the call that would have been made.

 

[brdmaverick]

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.

I agree. Kudos for the good analysis

 

[upstater1]

If a fan wants to say "football move" instead of "act common to the game," I don't have a problem with that and it wasn't the point of my post -- although if that someone is Mike Periera, I actually do have a problem with it. My problem with the discussion is that whatever one calls it, the entire focus of the thread for pages other than rlcarr's post was whether he actually made one (in addition to all that stuff about taking a step or what constitutes a "step"). That's the problem, since there is no requirement that a "football move" or an act common to the game actually be made. Whether or not one insists on being able to use out of date terms no longer in the rule book, I'm glad your post recognizes that there is no requirement of a "football move" -- only a requirement that there was time to make one.

As for the fumble in the end zone, yours was not the post I was responding to.

But as for the larger question, if the Ridley play had occurred in the offensive end zone, I think the correct call would have been touchdown, and very much hope and expect that is the call that would have been made.

I'll say this one last time: Pereira thinks all the rules above that rlcarr do apply. in fact, I found the current official referee organization also saying the same thing. Everyone is saying these parameters apply except for rlcarr.

I disagree with you that Ridley's fumble would have been called a TD in th end zone, but that's not the crux of this matter.

 

[upstater1]

https://twitter.com/MikePereira/status/389929105220575232

Click this link and tell me that Pereira isn't going into detail about number of steps.

He is even saying what happens with the hands is irrelevant.

He berates one guy who said that an incomplete in the Colts-Chargers game should have been called a fumble because the receiver had the wherewithal to snag the ball, and then actually tuck it and switch it from one arm to the other.

Pereira practically berates the tweeter by telling him that it's irrelevant what his hands are doing and that the only thing that matters is that he takes two steps (one with each foot) and makes a football move (which really is just a change of direction).

Some wiseacre then asks, what if he stands still like a statue for 10 seconds?

And Pereira responds with more of the rule.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

I don't understand twitter enough to follow what's going on there. But if what you're saying is that Pereira is saying there must be a football move, he's wrong. I can't say it any more plainly than that. There is no requirement of a football move in the rulebook.

The top tweet in that chain, he says, "Good ruling of incomplete pass. Did not maintain control long enough to make a football move."

That's pretty inartful, but essentially right and certainly does not imply that a football move has to be made, just whether control was maintained long enough to make one, which is the rule. I have some quibble with his use of the term "football move." That term simply doesn't exist in the rulebook any more. The change happened after he retired and became an analyst, which may explain why he doggedly sticks to it, even though it's gone. But, putting that quibble to the side, and assuming he's using "football move" as a synonym for the term "act common to the game," what he's saying there is ok. The question is whether the ball was held long enough to make a football move, not whether one was actually made.

Now, I'll grant that if an act common to the game is made, it's important, because it means for certain there is a catch. (Assuming it's not a going-to-ground situation.) By definition if a person engages in an act common to the game, he had time to do so. However, the obverse is not true -- a person need not engage in act common to the game (or football move) to have a catch. He only needs to have time to have done so, and again, if Pereira is saying otherwise, he's simply misapplying the rule. Pereira does not speak for Blandino or Riveron, and I have a hard time believing that either of them would butcher the rule like that.


online photo storage