selection7 Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 The NFL has changed in recent years since the "gotta make a football move" rule after a catch. I'm not sure if that verbage of the rule still exists, but I nevertheless haven't been a fan of whatever form of this rule we've had in recent years. I've never liked the rule because I see it time and again taking away legit forced fumbles because the player only took a step and a half after the catch or some nonesense...whatever, apparently not enough to clearly show maintained possesion in today's NFL. I have, however, understood that the rule was at least intended to eliminate cheap fumbles that come only an instant after the receiver controls the ball, so implemented sparingly, it can be reasonable. At least there's that. Yet the one time it could help out my team, the refs inexplicably rule that Forte had clear, maintained, control of the ball. ?!? Forte didn't have control until that both-feet-down jump stop (to use a basketball term). The cameras clearly showed the ball still shifting around, so there's no excuse for replay officials. So then he doesn't even take one step...and only barely turns. And a mere instant then after gaining control, Forte has the ball stripped. Doesn't that make this play with Forte the classic example for why the rule was created? If you don't call that incomplete, then are we back to the 1999 NFL rulebook? . Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selection7 Posted November 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 Also here's an interesting recent article on the subject. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/...n-johnson-rule/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockren Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 It was a fumble. It all happened very quickly, but the refs were right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selection7 Posted November 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 It was a fumble. It all happened very quickly, but the refs were right. Just to clarify. I'm looking for discussion. Not just for a yay or nay from every member. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockren Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 Just to clarify. I'm looking for discussion. Not just for a yay or nay from every member. Well I apologize! LOL I think it is pretty clear after he made a move and got turned up field..... I'm more upset about the 2nd fumble to be honest. Don't get me wrog it WAS a fumble, however, how can they determine a "clear recovery" since the ref is blowing the play dead and pounding on the ground to prevent Bears players from potentially attempting to recover the fumble. Players are only allowed to play through the whistle and I didn't much care for that ruling regardless of it being a fumble or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selection7 Posted November 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 Well I apologize! LOL I think it is pretty clear after he made a move and got turned up field..... I'm more upset about the 2nd fumble to be honest. Don't get me wrog it WAS a fumble, however, how can they determine a "clear recovery" since the ref is blowing the play dead and pounding on the ground to prevent Bears players from potentially attempting to recover the fumble. Players are only allowed to play through the whistle and I didn't much care for that ruling regardless of it being a fumble or not. Good point on that second fumble. I actually think the ball was recovered before the whistle blew, which is why it didn't phase me much. The ball was recovered almost the instant it hit the ground (replay makes it look slower than it was I think)...but how would an instant replay official know when the whistle was blown for sure? Are they allowed to use the audio recording too? Don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 I thought Forte had bobbled the ball as he was turning and hadn't yet made a football while in full possession. Did he have full possession right before it was stripped, yes, but not without making a football move IMO. In my rule book it's a fumble, in the NFLs I'm not so sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 From my perspective as an official, I will say that I thought it was VERRRRRY close. I could see it going either way. I thought he maybe had it for half a second in full possession as he was turning, but he certainly didn't have it and THEN take two steps like that dipshit Tirico kept insinuating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 I thought Forte had bobbled the ball as he was turning and hadn't yet made a football while in full possession. Did he have full possession right before it was stripped, yes, but not without making a football move IMO. In my rule book it's a fumble, in the NFLs I'm not so sure. He caught the ball a little low, but it never really left his hands. He had to bring it up to his body, that's the motion that would have been "Bobbling" it if he had taken his hands off of it, but he had a firm grip at that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.