When you recover a fumble, but did you? NFL says Nope!! (1 Viewer)

I wish I could remember that site that chronicles NFL reffing throughout the year and all the ridiculous calls that happen.

Most of them you never hear about for obvious reasons.
 
That's nuts.

But if I were that player (maybe he did this and I missed it?) I'd have run right up to the ref with the ball.
 
The Ref said Rivers was "in the grasp" on the sack fumble and not reviewable as the play is effectively "dead" when they make that determination.

However, EVERY QB on a sack is deemed "in the grasp" so wouldnt that negate almost 95% of the QB fumbles ??????? is it just up the to the Referee to decide "WHEN" the "in the grasp" applies?

IS IT SUBJECTIVE??? because if so, NFL has a real officiating issue to clarify.

I'm pretty sure the official said he was "in the grass" meaning Rivers was effectively down since his forward momentum was stopped. At least that's what I took from it
 
There was a similar situation in the Saints - Chargers game. There was that fumble that the refs did not see and therefore did not blow the whistle. SP wanted to challenge but was told that that was not possible according to NFL rules. But it surely looked like the Saints had forced a fumble and recovered it from Rivers

Fishy things happen but that wasn't one imo. It was just poor decision from the ref.

We didn't get it bc the whistle was blown prematurely before the runner was down, so the play technically ended before the strip occurred. The ref was too quick bc he thought the runner was stood up and no longer moving forward (which was wrong). There's just no way for the ref to know the ball would be stripped a moment after he blew the whistle. Bad call but not fishy imo.
 
I'm pretty sure the official said he was "in the grass" meaning Rivers was effectively down since his forward momentum was stopped. At least that's what I took from it

it's "in the grasp". Meaning he was wrapped up with no chance of escaping.
 
If I were the Browns coach I would have ordered my players off the field until the refs looked at it. That is so blatant !!!!
 
This is the craziest thing I've seen the refs call. Ridiculous!

How can the Redskins not feel like it was unfair?
 
That's nuts.

But if I were that player (maybe he did this and I missed it?) I'd have run right up to the ref with the ball.

That to me says more than anything.

The fact that the Browns weren't arguing the call tells me that they knew that the Redskins had recovered the ball and the Browns player took it away after the fact.
 
That to me says more than anything.

The fact that the Browns weren't arguing the call tells me that they knew that the Redskins had recovered the ball and the Browns player took it away after the fact.

They did argue it and were told the call had already been confirmed by replay, so there was no reason to stop the game for a review.
 
That to me says more than anything.

The fact that the Browns weren't arguing the call tells me that they knew that the Redskins had recovered the ball and the Browns player took it away after the fact.

Seriously, go watch the video.

The ball hits the ground and then squirts right back into Johnson's hands, who wasn't even in the pile. No one came close to possessing it except him. He stands up with the ball long before they even signal possession. In fact, the refs are still pulling people off the pile as he's standing there lifting the ball into the air yards away from the pile.

It may be the worst call in the NFL in the last decade.
 
BTW, ref who made the change of possession call despite there being no ball in the pile was Sarah Thomas if anyone wants to know who it was.
 
Redskins were -9.5

They won by 11 and covered :9:

I really truly believe that the way games are officiated, there is a direct correlation with the calls on the field and the Vegas spreads. It has become taboo to "blame the refs" for an outcome of a game, but they only need to make a few close calls go one way or the other and it will directly affect the outcome of a game and more specifically the spread.
 
The Ref said Rivers was "in the grasp" on the sack fumble and not reviewable as the play is effectively "dead" when they make that determination.

However, EVERY QB on a sack is deemed "in the grasp" so wouldnt that negate almost 95% of the QB fumbles ??????? is it just up the to the Referee to decide "WHEN" the "in the grasp" applies?

IS IT SUBJECTIVE??? because if so, NFL has a real officiating issue to clarify.


I thought the call was very iffy, and I didn't hear the whistle blow, but that call, I don't think was as blatantly bad as others, because Rivers was pretty much standing in the middle of the pocket, a couple yards from the LoS, with the entire Saints d-line on him. I don't like it, but I can rationalize it... to an extent.

But it is definitely a subjective call.
 
I thought the call was very iffy, and I didn't hear the whistle blow, but that call, I don't think was as blatantly bad as others, because Rivers was pretty much standing in the middle of the pocket, a couple yards from the LoS, with the entire Saints d-line on him. I don't like it, but I can rationalize it... to an extent.

But it is definitely a subjective call.

No whistle was blown.

I rewound it last night 5 times with the volume turned up and couldn't find a whistle being blown anywhere close to when the ball was stripped from Rivers.

They didn't blow the whistle until Rivers was on the ground and we all know the ball was straight up stripped from him while he was standing upright.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom