Bad calls happen in a game on both sides of the field, but in my mind the refs blew two calls yesterday, the first one was Tannehills "fumble", his arm was moving forward with the ball, should of been an incomplete pass, and the second was Wallace being down at the one, his ass landed on the goal line, that should of been his 2nd TD of the day IMO. That one wasn't as bad because we scored anyways, but that could of cost us the game winning TD if we didn't punch it in, anyone else see it that way?

I 100% agree with the attempted "fix" re Thill pass called fumble.

Just for an inch of perspective. If the Lady had made that "throw" they would have called it "tuck," or attempted "chuck," or most likely PERSONAL FOUL on the D for 15 bonus yards.

It was a total SHAM call. And I was kind of shocked the refs didn't find another opportunity to hand the game over to Indy 9tho they tried).

That said, they had 1 TD called back for some bonehead move by Reggie -- which accounted for the point differential. But then again -- they should have NEVER been in that position.

I also thought the 4th down QB sneaky type run and fall down by Thill was "seriously inconclusive" relative to PRECISE ball placement. It should NOT have been re-spotted. We would have scored 3-7 points additionally on that drive so...

In the end we won. And we won despite the calls going against us. That's a big deal. In my opinion. Of course.

BNF.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2013 12:15PM by BigNastyFish.

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bad calls happen in a game on both sides of the
> field, but in my mind the refs blew two calls
> yesterday, the first one was Tannehills "fumble",
> his arm was moving forward with the ball, should
> of been an incomplete pass, and the second was
> Wallace being down at the one, his ass landed on
> the goal line, that should of been his 2nd TD of
> the day IMO. That one wasn't as bad because we
> scored anyways, but that could of cost us the game
> winning TD if we didn't punch it in, anyone else
> see it that way?


I could be wrong, but I thought they got both of those calls right.

My issue with the fumble was whether or not it was whistled dead before it was "recovered". If it had been we'd have retained possession. We might even have gotten a 1st down depending on whether or not they spotted it where it came to rest. Worst case they spot it where it came loose and we punt.

On the wallace play, I don't think he had any portion of his body, other than maybe the back of his head across the goal line when his butt hit the ground.

On the road no less!!!

The pass by Thill was absolutely NOT CONCLUSIVE evidence that he had lost control of the ball IN HIS HAND! Not unless the official was privy to super-enhanced 6480 dpi video!

Let me be diplomatic. NO f**king way!!!

That call NEVER happens unless there's a ref "slant" going down in the game. I mean for gods sakes check the unending string of calls that always favor certain teams -- mostly in the NE area with a "highly feminine" coitusback (tho I know "Truth" has a closet Jones for the Lady).

I didnt understand the RT fumble rule... The ball still went forward. I didnt know he had to have the ball in grip the whole time in order for it to not be a fumble... I think that is a weird call... Luck was heaving the ball back hand out of control a couple times as he was being sacked and it wasnt a fumble...

I also thought we got away with at least one pass interference when the Colts were in the redzone..

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

BigNastyFish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The pass by Thill was absolutely NOT CONCLUSIVE
> evidence that he had lost control of the ball IN
> HIS HAND! Not unless the official was privy to
> super-enhanced 6480 dpi video!
>
> Let me be diplomatic. NO f**king way!!!
>
> That call NEVER happens unless there's a ref
> "slant" going down in the game. I mean for gods
> sakes check the unending string of calls that
> always favor certain teams -- mostly in the NE
> area with a "highly feminine" coitusback (tho I
> know "Truth" has a closet Jones for the Lady).


That is a good point, do you think Tom Brady would have been called for a fumble had it been him rather then RT making that play.... My guess is, that would not have been called a fumble had it been Brady... Kind of like the calls in basketball where superstars get the benefit of the doubt in whether they get the foul called, or an extra step when driving...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

Crowder, your last post took the words right out of my mouth.

They have so changed the rules of football since the 60's and damn near every change is for the worse.

It used to be that it didn't matter whether the QB had a grip on the ball or not. As long as the ball is EXCLUSIVELY in his hand (by that I mean that the defender was NOT TOUCHING THE BALL AT ALL because if the defender was touching the ball it would be a forced fumble), EVEN if the defender forcing the QB's arm forward and the ball goes forward, it was regarded as AN INCOMPLETE PASS.

Now they may have monkey-ed with the rules so that the quarterback has to grip the ball and actually throw it forward otherwise it's a fumble.

I think that IS the case because NO WAY on this play can you say EITHER

1: The defender touched the ball
2: The ball went backwards behind the quarterback or even laterally.

Truth also makes a good point about the whistle. I would have thought that the whistle blew almost instantly, far quicker anyone could have recovered the ball.

I forgot, what was the initial ruling on the field? If it was incomplete pass, then it is very likely the recovery was not legit. However, my memory was that it was called incomplete because I remember myself saying.."no way is it 'indisputable' that the ball went backwards or laterally'."

Of course, that was before I begin to be made aware that they have monkeyed with the rules again.

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I didnt understand the RT fumble rule... The ball
> still went forward. I didnt know he had to have
> the ball in grip the whole time in order for it to
> not be a fumble... I think that is a weird call...
> Luck was heaving the ball back hand out of control
> a couple times as he was being sacked and it wasnt
> a fumble...
>
> I also thought we got away with at least one pass
> interference when the Colts were in the redzone..


its about control.

The replay I saw seemed conclusive enough to be that the ball had fallen out of RT's hand before his arm started forward and that it was propelled forward by his wrist hitting it.

All Luck did was a few odd shovel passes under duress.

Chryen, Truth- To me it should be about whether or not the ball went forward.. The QB was in the throwing motion or the ball would not have gone forward, granted as he was being hit the ball moved but he still had enough control for the ball to travel forward over 5 yards past the line of scrimmage., hence to me it was a forward pass... If a Dolphin player caught the ball would it have been a completed pass or fumble recovery... My guess it would have been a completed pass... As long as the QB throwing motion and arm made the ball go forward, what are we talking about.... I do understand the control issues you mention but think it is a bit of a BS call, that someone like Brady would have gotten away with....

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2013 01:28PM by Crowder52.

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chryen, Truth- To me it should be about whether or
> not the ball went forward.. The QB was in the
> throwing motion or the ball would not have gone
> forward, granted as he was being hit the ball
> moved but he still had enough control for the ball
> to travel forward over 5 yards past the line of
> scrimmage., hence to me it was a forward pass...
> If a Dolphin player caught the ball would it have
> been a completed pass or fumble recovery... My
> guess it would have been a completed pass... As
> long as the QB throwing motion and arm made the
> ball go forward, what are we talking about.... I
> do understand the control issues you mention but
> think it is a bit of a BS call, that someone like
> Brady would have gotten away with....


The rule is pretty straight forward even if its sometimes hard to accurately enforce.

If the QB has the ball in his hand, under his control, when his hand starts forward its a pass attempt.

If the ball is out of the QB grip before his hand starts forward its a fumble.

From the replays I saw, it was pretty clear, at least to me, that the ball was out of his grip before his hand started forward.

If a Dolphin would of caught it, would they of called it a complete pass or fumble recovery? Hell, for that matter, if it hit an o-lineman, would it of been an illegal touch? I say no, but you never know.

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If a Dolphin would of caught it, would they of
> called it a complete pass or fumble recovery?
> Hell, for that matter, if it hit an o-lineman,
> would it of been an illegal touch? I say no, but
> you never know.


Interesting question.


It probably would have been ruled a completion if an eligible receiver caught it, although it could have been changed during the week to a fumble recovery by that player when the league reviews games.

If it had been caught by an O-lineman, it would have drawn a flag. It would have been up to Philbin to challenge the play as a fumble and not an illegal pass to an ineligible receiver.

I disagree holic and i havent even read anyof the other posts...

about the fumble..

His arm was going forward but he had no control of the ball. In my opinion it was indeed a fumble.

But its ok....other teams have the right to make plays too.

Here are my thoughts:

Two "since when" questions regarding the Tannehill "fumble"...

1. Since when is a fumble thrown forward 12 yards?

Yes the ball was unsteady in his hand after the hit, but unfortunately for Indy, RT launched the ball 10-12 yards forward. He doesn't need to be gripping the laces with white knuckles. All that matters is he launched the ball forward and the ball left his hand at the pinnacle of his throwing motion and not before. It did not fall down before his arm came forward. His arm completed a full forward motion with the ball in his palm and did so to the extent that he launched it forward. I have seen that same play 100 times before and it is never a fumble. The BS motion penalty they called on the Colts that took away the TD was contrition for that terrible call.

2. Since when does an after-the-fact hindsight decision that a fumble occurred get to stand when the play is called dead?

It was a clear forward pass despite the slight jarring the ball had in RT's hand before he launched it forward 10 or so yards. Every player stopped playing. The play was over. One Colt walked over to it and fell on it. Unfortunately if a call is made you cant go back in time and deem it a fumble when the call on the field prevented either team from responding to the play that way. Otherwise they are just awarding possession to whatever random player leans over and picks up the ball to toss it to the ref after the play. In fact, we have been burned by this very occurrence before. When we should have gotten a fumble recovery credited to us but the play was deemed over so they couldn't do that. This was a terrible call

and the point about brady i agree as well....It would had been called an incomplete pass even if it was a wrong call just because it was the lady on the play. That pu$$y gets all the calls.

Panteraize Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here are my thoughts:
>
> Two "since when" questions regarding the Tannehill
> "fumble"...
>
> 1. Since when is a fumble thrown forward 12
> yards?
>
> Yes the ball was unsteady in his hand after the
> hit, but unfortunately for Indy, RT launched the
> ball 10-12 yards forward. He doesn't need to be
> gripping the laces with white knuckles. All that
> matters is he launched the ball forward and the
> ball left his hand at the pinnacle of his throwing
> motion and not before. It did not fall down before
> his arm came forward. His arm completed a full
> forward motion with the ball in his palm and did
> so to the extent that he launched it forward. I
> have seen that same play 100 times before and it
> is never a fumble. The BS motion penalty they
> called on the Colts that took away the TD was
> contrition for that terrible call.



It got knocked downfield by his arm coming forward. Its a fluke play but its a fumble.




>
> 2. Since when does an after-the-fact hindsight
> decision that a fumble occurred get to stand when
> the play is called dead?
>
> It was a clear forward pass despite the slight
> jarring the ball had in RT's hand before he
> launched it forward 10 or so yards. Every player
> stopped playing. The play was over. One Colt
> walked over to it and fell on it. Unfortunately if
> a call is made you cant go back in time and deem
> it a fumble when the call on the field prevented
> either team from responding to the play that way.
> Otherwise they are just awarding possession to
> whatever random player leans over and picks up the
> ball to toss it to the ref after the play. In
> fact, we have been burned by this very occurrence
> before. When we should have gotten a fumble
> recovery credited to us but the play was deemed
> over so they couldn't do that. This was a terrible
> call


I only saw one replay where they commended the DB for running over and picking the ball up and Wallace for coming over and tackling him.

I was looking for an official waiving the play dead or calling it an incomplete pass. I didn't see one. The official(s) in the camera shot I saw didn't blow the play dead.

The ball would not have gone forward if he wasnt in the throwing motion when the ball came lose... Thus his act of passing moved the ball forward and past the line of scrimmage.... I understand the rule is defined as control in the hand which Truth stated..... IMO That ball was moved forward because of the act of passing and the rule is wrong in that situation... To me it is about where the ball went, as to whether what type of control he had... If you moved the ball forward in the direction of a WR, you had some control...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2013 03:44PM by Crowder52.

also i think..........the 30 plus yard pass to wallace i think he fell into the endzone and it was a td...

They marked the ball at the 1 yard line i believe.

pateraize theball was knocked out before he went forward....when he went forward with hand he just pushed the ballwith his hand but had no control of the ball.

samsam,

Please refer me to one single play in the history of the NFL where a fumble travels forward 10 yards after the ball leaves the QB's hand immediately after the QB has gone through a full throwing motion and has his arm straight at the point of release.


I don't care if the ball wiggled two inches in his hand while his grip was disrupted. The ball did not leave his hand until he completed a fully extended throwing motion

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The ball would not have gone forward if he wasnt
> in the throwing motion when the ball came lose...
> Thus his act of passing moved the ball forward and
> past the line of scrimmage.... I understand the
> rule is defined as control in the hand which Truth
> stated..... IMO That ball was moved forward
> because of the act of passing and the rule is
> wrong in that situation... To me it is about where
> the ball went, as to whether what type of control
> he had... If you moved the ball forward in the
> direction of a WR, you had some control...

If someone is playing QB and tosses the ball over his head and spikes it 20 yards down field like its a volleyball serve, do you consider that a forward pass attempt as well?

The same exact play just happened in the Cincy/Pitt game on Dalton, it was called an incomplete pass.

I guess the thing about this one TSstamper is that there is no dispute as to what the replay showed.

1) No one had his hands on the ball EXCEPT Tanny.

2) Yes Tanny basically only had the same grip as on a volleyball

but 3) he did push it forward even if not throw it forward.

The question is:

Is that a fumble or an incomplete forward pass?

THE Truth is smugly confident that the rule says that when a QB loses his grip on the ball, it is a fumble.

I find it hard to see where in the rule quoted above, that is so.

I see everything stating that it is an incomplete pass unless the ball goes backwards or is knocked out of his hands. Neither happened here.

What happens when the QB is about to pass and the defensive rusher comes from the back and as the QB is in his forward throwing motion, the defensive pass rusher hacks his arm from behind right as he is about to release it and it results in the ball going straight down to the ground? To me there is no question that is an incomplete pass.

Here the only difference is that no pass rusher even hit Tanny arm. Tanny just started to lose grip on the ball and decided to push it (throw it) forward for an incompletion.

I hope the NFL reviews that play.

The 4th down sneak was a bogus call IMO, he prob was short but the Ref said he couldnt tell where the ball eneded up so hes going respot it and remeasure. I was like what the hell is he talking about? If he couldnt tell where the ball was then how could he respot it?

gofinswin1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 4th down sneak was a bogus call IMO, he prob
> was short but the Ref said he couldnt tell where
> the ball eneded up so hes going respot it and
> remeasure. I was like what the hell is he talking
> about? If he couldnt tell where the ball was then
> how could he respot it?

That one hurt, but it was also the right call.

The ref couldn't see the ball in the replay because there was a colts player between RT and the sideline camera. But you could clearly see that no part of RT was past the yard marker, let alone the ball.

And the qb sneak by tannehill was the right call as well...He was definetely short.

I had no complaints about the refs yesterday.

They did a good job.