And it wasnt called, just like probably 20 other penalties in the game, and the hundred other ones over the weekend. It happens.
Lions deserve something for that? Yes, the penalty to be called and the ball at the 1/2 yard mark.
And it wasnt called, just like probably 20 other penalties in the game, and the hundred other ones over the weekend. It happens.
Simple question Childs. Why did the Seahawks deserve to get the ball?
It appears Buffalo defenders are spot on about Odell Beckham's disposition on his "status" in the league.
He's appealing his fine without even bothering to give a crap what he was fined for.
Throw punches and then expect not to get fined. Prima donna indeed.
That touchback rule is one of the dumbest in football IMO.. If a fumble goes out of bounds it doesn't go to the other team, but cause it happens in an the end zone it does..
Simple question Childs. Why did the Seahawks deserve to get the ball?
From the link it sounds like he knew what it was for, the whole "appealing w/o opening the letter" thing is kind of moot. He knew what he was getting fined for, so why bother opening it?
Also, that has nothing to do with the prima donna thing, which he probably is. However, how many top WRs aren't? Meh.
And on a technical level:
The ref looking right at the play didnt deem it intentional
The no call is not reviewable
That all adds up to Seahawks ball.
The gut reaction:
The play in general...Chancellor forced the fumble.
A batted ball is a judgement call, and its all about intent.
If Wright knew the rule he wouldnt have done it. The ball basically landed right in his bread basket. Based on his action he obviously wasnt aware of the rule.
I didnt remember the rule
The rule in general is kinda lame, because I think its a result of what the Raiders did like 40 years ago. The Raiders benefited, so screw Al Davis it will never happen again kind of thing. If anything, calling the penalty in that situation seems like a way to circumvent the outcome of the play via technicality.
I can understand being enraged by a call or no call when it happens, but missed calls or ticky-tack calls away from the ball happen all the time. The human element is part of football.
All that and you didn't answer the question. Why did the sea hawks deserve to get the ball back. No one recovered the ball. Again, No one recovered the ball. In any other place on the field the ball would revert back to the offence.
Wright chose to bat the ball out of the end zone making sure noone could recover it. The Seahawks got the ball back on a stupid technicality, yet you are criticizing the technicality that tries to prevent what Wright did from happening.
And I'm curious why you think whether he knew the rule or not should matter.
Honestly, I am so confused at your argument. Let's try again. Why do you think the Seahawks deserved to get the ball? You do know the act of forcing a fumble doesn't mean you get the ball back.
And Btw: I'm sure the ref just didn't know the rule and the league saying he didn't think it was intentional is a cover up to limit the damage. Everyone who saw it live thought it was intentional. And somehow the ref who was 5 feet away didn't? I'm calling Bullshit.
All that and you didn't answer the question. Why did the sea hawks deserve to get the ball back. No one recovered the ball. Again, No one recovered the ball. In any other place on the field the ball would revert back to the offence.
Wright chose to bat the ball out of the end zone making sure noone could recover it. The Seahawks got the ball back on a stupid technicality, yet you are criticizing the technicality that tries to prevent what Wright did from happening.
Honestly, I am so confused at your argument. Let's try again. Why do you think the Seahawks deserved to get the ball? You do know the act of forcing a fumble doesn't mean you get the ball back.
And I'm curious why you think whether he knew the rule or not should matter.
And Btw: I'm sure the ref just didn't know the rule and the league saying he didn't think it was intentional is a cover up to limit the damage. Everyone who saw it live thought it was intentional. And somehow the ref who was 5 feet away didn't? I'm calling Bullshit.
That touchback rule is one of the dumbest in football IMO.. If a fumble goes out of bounds it doesn't go to the other team, but cause it happens in an the end zone it does..
Yeah, you're right - we'll put an asterisk next to Seahawks in the 2015 record books. Happy?
Or you can just accept that calls sometimes don't go the way you want and life is unfair. Especially considering the Lions' playoff hopes aren't going to depend on this one game, or anything other than them finishing 0-16. Personally I'd go for the second option but that's just me.
I didnt think that needed to be explained. According the rules if the ball is fumbled out of the end zone and its caused by the defender, its the defenders ball. If Johnson was just running into the end zone and fumbled it own his own, it would be Lions ball where he fumbled it. There are different rules for the end zone. There is probably some history on it, and its probably Raiders related.
Anyways, its not a subjective rule. It wasnt like they made up that rule on the spot. He probably would have grabbed the ball instead of batting it if that rule was different. Its not as obscure of a rule as batting, because it comes up more often.
That goes to intent. No one in their right mind would intentionally do that if they knew the rule, so I think the no call is within the spirit of the rule. If they wanted it black and white it wouldnt be subjective, and also reviewable.
That may very well be, but refs miss calls all the time. They also huddle up to determine what is a penalty or what isnt, take back penalties, etc. There were probably at least 3 other refs looking towards the play and one of them could have thrown the flag, but they didnt.
That touchback rule is one of the dumbest in football IMO.. If a fumble goes out of bounds it doesn't go to the other team, but cause it happens in an the end zone it does..
See my post above esp. the pretzel part. You are making absolutely no sense.
I agree. Hopefully this is the impetus to change it. But would like to hear the discussion as to why they had it in the first place. Maybe there is something I'm missing.
That may very well be, but refs miss calls all the time. They also huddle up to determine what is a penalty or what isnt, take back penalties, etc. There were probably at least 3 other refs looking towards the play and one of them could have thrown the flag, but they didnt.
Just spitballing, but like I said above maybe to discourage "intentional" fumble plays to score a touchdown?
Like, lining up in a heavy goal-line set, handing it off to your running back to suck the defense in to play the run. Running back pretend fumbles the ball toward far corner of the end zone in a way such that either a tight TE/WR is the first one there and recovers (since he knows the ball is going there, he has an advantage over the defense), or the ball shoots out of bounds, returning possession to the offense.
I dont have twist into any position, as the play stands everything is legit. If you want to argue a subjective call thats fine, but no calls or even bad calls are a part of the game. If this was the first time a no call or bad call happened in a game I could understand being shocked, but stuff like this happens literally every week. What else in the game do you want changed so your team can get a win?
Just spitballing, but like I said above maybe to discourage "intentional" fumble plays to score a touchdown?
Like, lining up in a heavy goal-line set, handing it off to your running back to suck the defense in to play the run. Running back pretend fumbles the ball toward far corner of the end zone in a way such that either a tight TE/WR is the first one there and recovers (since he knows the ball is going there, he has an advantage over the defense), or the ball shoots out of bounds, returning possession to the offense.
Fumble
The distinction between a fumble and a muff should be kept in mind in considering rules about fumbles. A fumble is the loss of player possession of the ball. A muff is the touching of a loose ball by a player in an unsuccessful attempt to obtain possession.
A fumble may be advanced by any player on either team regardless of whether recovered before or after ball hits the ground.
A fumble that goes forward and out of bounds will return to the fumbling team at the spot of the fumble unless the ball goes out of bounds in the opponent’s end zone. In this case, it is a touchback.
On a play from scrimmage, if an offensive player fumbles anywhere on the field during fourth down, only the fumbling player is permitted to recover and/or advance the ball. If any player fumbles after the two-minute warning in a half, only the fumbling player is permitted to recover and/or advance the ball. If recovered by any other offensive player, the ball is dead at the spot of the fumble unless it is recovered behind the spot of the fumble. In that case, the ball is dead at the spot of recovery. Any defensive player may recover and/or advance any fumble at any time.
A muffed hand-to-hand snap from center is treated as a fumble.
I think it would have been easier to add a rule that if a ball is fumbled into the endzone at any time in the game, it reverts to the place it was fumbled if the team that fumbled it doesn't recover it.
Fumbling rules.
Ok, thought of a reason that rule may be in place. If the offense has the back to the endzone (thay are at their on goal line say on the 1 yard line and have to march 99 yards up field) and the quarterback is going to be sacked, what would stop him from just running back and ending the play. Or just chucking "fumbling" the ball out of bounds behind him.
If you applied the normal rule for a forward fumble to one in the endzone it wouldn't result in a touchdown, it'd be the offense's ball at the spot of the fumble. I'm sure there was a reason for the rule, but perhaps other rule changes make it moot?
I'm struggling to think of an example for why this rule exists and shouldn't go away next year.
The "normal" rule in place right now results in a touchdown if the offense recovered a fumble in-bounds in the endzone.
I'm hypothesizing that the rule is in place to discourage intentional fumble plays, because if the offense intentionally fumbles the ball and it goes out of bounds in the end zone, they lose the ball automatically.