Wasn't there a similar fumble earlier...

[dubbsco]

Or at the very least, make an attempt that you are trying to grab the ball. Reach out for it with both hands, and have it hit off your gloves and show some frustration that you didn't grab it.

 

[zyxt9]

Or at the very least, make an attempt that you are trying to grab the ball. Reach out for it with both hands, and have it hit off your gloves and show some frustration that you didn't grab it.

Which would be actual real frustration if by not grabbing it, the ball is placed where it was last possessed. Now you have the REAL emotion instead of guys pretending. I want it kept real.

 

[biggunsbob]

Brewer was all over the rule or someone on the board. I think they put it in place after the dave casper fumble play. You cannot bat a ball foward... punters and qbs are batting it back to avoid a td and just given up the safety. As soon as we Calvin fumble ( and he was not protecting it as good as he should have) the Seattle defense cannot bat the ball foward which the defender addmited he did..he thought it was back .darn it...

 

[biggunsbob]

That Said If We Can beat Az. I think we go into green bay
4-4... az, minn,bears all at home and beatable kc on the road...

 

[Mitchrapp]

That Said If We Can beat Az. I think we go into green bay
4-4... az, minn,bears all at home and beatable kc on the road...

Keep the faith, brother.

 

[tomdalton22]

That Said If We Can beat Az. I think we go into green bay
4-4... az, minn,bears all at home and beatable kc on the road...

AZ will be tough. MN & KC are winnable but they could easily lose both of those games too. They should be able to beat the Bears at home. My guess is they go 2-2 in their next 4 games.

 

[tigermud]

The key word in this rule was "egregious" well shit was it egregious? idk it was surely a "bat" but egregious. basically, they got together and one guys says I think he batted that, other ref says are you sure, this could be the game, and we are in Seattle, you want to get out of here alive? oh shit yeah I don't think it was egregious game over.

Same thing happens in Detroit and we get the call i'll bet.

Well that and it is still a rigged for entertainment purposes game keep in mind..Your ticket does not ensure you of a fair game, rather just entitles you to an entertainment event.


Lot of these rules are written with intentional ambiguity, that way it can be left up to the ref and or league office in the case of a review. the NFL wants it that way so they can control outcomes better.

I think the big reason we saw that retired guy and blando came out so quickly to basically announce to the world that we got jobbed prolly goes towards the reality that the NFL has been fking the lions over for so many years, they may actually want to help end the suffering, then after the conjob in the playoffs last year they were supposed to do everything they could to ensure we at least get back to the playoffs this year, not everyone appears to have gotten the memo. stupid refs.

Now this may sound crazy but I think the Lions end up getting their shit together and end up only losing one more game this year. Packers at lambo of course.

11-5!

j/k they end up 2-14 then next year the NFL still stop screwing with us!? next year, next year, next year, always got next year. Maybe next year!

Fords! for the love of gawd, Fire Caldwell Joe, then sell the team please.

 

[inkfreq]

My entire problem with this rule, which I wasn't familiar with before last night to be honest, is the way the rule is written.

Every damned rule in football is based on intent. Intent to injure. Intentionally batted ball. Intentional grounding. Yet here was have this rule about the ball going out of the end zone, and intent doesn't matter.

They say "Well, if this rule wasn't there, a QB snapping out of his own end zone could just bat the ball out on a bad snap rather than taking the sack for a safety."

Okay, but isn't that already covered by the "intentionally" batted ball rule? We already know from all this that if Wright had attempted to recover the ball, and it bounced off him and went out... no harm no foul. It's an issue because he intentionally batted the ball out instead.

So why it is when a player fumbles in the end zone, and goes out the back of the end zone unrecovered, it's a touchback??? The intent makes no difference at all?

To say we need this to stop players from batting the ball out, when there is clearly a rule preventing batting the ball out... it makes no sense. What you want to avoid is already clearly covered under the rules, so this touchback rule is really an unnecessary punishment added on for no reason.

The ball, unrecovered, should be placed at the spot of the fumble like any other fumble would be.

 

[Mitchrapp]

The ball, unrecovered, should be placed at the spot of the fumble like any other fumble would be.

No.

 

[inkfreq]

Here is the entire rule from the NFL rulebook...

A player may not bat or punch:

(a) A loose ball (in field of play) toward his opponent’s goal line or in any direction in either end zone.

(b) A ball in player possession.

Note: If there is any question as to whether a defender is stripping or batting a ball in player possession, the official(s) will rule the action as a legal act (stripping the ball).

Exception: A forward or backward pass may be batted, tipped, or deflected in any direction at any time by either the offense or the defense.

Note: A pass in flight that is controlled or caught may only be thrown backward, if it is thrown forward it is considered an illegal bat.


So, section A says nothing about how it's not a penalty if this or that happens. it says, black and white, no can do.

Section B I find really odd. It states that under no circumstances can a defensive player punch the ball out of the arms of an offensive player. That happens a number of times, or is attempted a number of times, every season.

I was stunned to see section B. The very move that started the fumble, by definition, is illegal. Cam Chancellor punched, with closed fist and punching motion included, the ball out of Calvins arm. And that happens many many times all season long.

Why is that rule even in there given how often we see it and it's not called a penalty??? I'd actually be angry if the enforced that.

However, the ref said "I didn't think it was an overt play. He didn't mean to knock the ball out of the end zone". Okay, yes he did.. he said so. But furthermore, the rule doesn't say jack or squat about his intent and more than the touchback rule says he has to intend to fumble out of the end zone.

Long argument short... every rule that might have come into play on that one is stupid. The touchback rule is stupid. The bat rule is stupid. The punching the ball out rule is very stupid. This whole section of the rulebook should be burned.

 

[inkfreq]

No.

Yes. Absolutely. It's a fumble out of bounds, no different than any other fumble out of bounds.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Yes. Absolutely. It's a fumble out of bounds, no different than any other fumble out of bounds.

But it's not out of bounds, out of the end zone. Like a touchback on a kickoff vs out of bounds on kickoff. Either way, whether the rules makes sense or not.. I would hate if they changed the rule. Offense shouldn't get rewarded for fumbled through the end zone.

 

[kalinecountry]

http://www.freep.com/picture-galler...t--weirdest-lions-losses-since-2000/73469744/
Going batty: The worst & weirdest Lions losses since 2000.
Freep

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/10/06/worst-losses-detroit-lions-history
The 10 worst losses in Lions history.
SI

 

[LKP]

Season under protest and does not count. Refs should be fired. Lions won that game and chargers game and Broncos game if not for refs

Chargers cheated on int and Stafford arm going forward on fumble. Bull pi on ebron too on big first down to Tate. Two pis in a row on Denver not called

Lions 3-1

 

[tomdalton22]

Season under protest and does not count. Refs should be fired. Lions won that game and chargers game and Broncos game if not for refs

Chargers cheated on int and Stafford arm going forward on fumble. Bull pi on ebron too on big first down to Tate. Two pis in a row on Denver not called

Lions 3-1

go back to Jamaica mon!

 

[zyxt9]

But it's not out of bounds, out of the end zone. Like a touchback on a kickoff vs out of bounds on kickoff. Either way, whether the rules makes sense or not.. I would hate if they changed the rule. Offense shouldn't get rewarded for fumbled through the end zone.

How are they being rewarded when it gets spotted at the point of last possession? It would be no different than if the ball was fumbled at the 10 but rolled out of bounds at the 1...it gets spotted back at the 10, but how dare that ball roll just a little bit further, cross the goal line and then roll out? Come on, that's just not logical. Ball should be at the same spot regardless of where it rolled out of bounds, it should go back to spot of last possession. There is no benefit to either offense or defense with that. Both teams have a shot to get the ball after the fumble, but once it crosses the goal line, the defense magically deserves the ball??? How is THAT fair?

 

[Mitchrapp]

How are they being rewarded when it gets spotted at the point of last possession? It would be no different than if the ball was fumbled at the 10 but rolled out of bounds at the 1...it gets spotted back at the 10, but how dare that ball roll just a little bit further, cross the goal line and then roll out? Come on, that's just not logical. Ball should be at the same spot regardless of where it rolled out of bounds, it should go back to spot of last possession. There is no benefit to either offense or defense with that. Both teams have a shot to get the ball after the fumble, but once it crosses the goal line, the defense magically deserves the ball??? How is THAT fair?

Just the way I feel. If they change the rule then the offense can just shove it out of the end zone if they can't get to it.. I just like the rule as it is now.

 

[tomdalton22]

How are they being rewarded when it gets spotted at the point of last possession? It would be no different than if the ball was fumbled at the 10 but rolled out of bounds at the 1...it gets spotted back at the 10, but how dare that ball roll just a little bit further, cross the goal line and then roll out? Come on, that's just not logical. Ball should be at the same spot regardless of where it rolled out of bounds, it should go back to spot of last possession. There is no benefit to either offense or defense with that. Both teams have a shot to get the ball after the fumble, but once it crosses the goal line, the defense magically deserves the ball??? How is THAT fair?

rules are different for the end zone.

If the QB is in the end zone and there is a hold it isn't 1/2 the distance to the goal it is a safety.

If the offense fumbles the ball out of the back of the endzone (like the snap over Manning's head in the SB) the defense gets a safety. With your logic the offense should get the ball back at the line of scrimmage where the center snapped the ball.

 

[elrod817]

But it's not out of bounds, out of the end zone. Like a touchback on a kickoff vs out of bounds on kickoff. Either way, whether the rules makes sense or not.. I would hate if they changed the rule. Offense shouldn't get rewarded for fumbled through the end zone.

I don't follow Mitch...in any of your kick scenarios the team being kicked to keeps the ball. In this instance possession changes. Why should the defense get bailed out for not even recovering a fumble?

 

[elrod817]

rules are different for the end zone.

If the QB is in the end zone and there is a hold it isn't 1/2 the distance to the goal it is a safety.

If the offense fumbles the ball out of the back of the endzone (like the snap over Manning's head in the SB) the defense gets a safety. With your logic the offense should get the ball back at the line of scrimmage where the center snapped the ball.

No, because that's a fumble backwards...