Wasn't there a similar fumble earlier...

[tonyballs]

I get that. I'm just addressing your point about how it affected you more than the wild card game. I think it's just a build up and it's still fresh in your mind. But, I can't change how you feel about it. I don't blame you for being pissed, I just can't agree with it being a bigger call than Dallas, that's all.

Maybe not a bigger call in the grand scheme of things because the Lions were possibly going to advance in a playoff game, but this one stings like no other right now. The flag was even thrown apparentley and picked up AGAIN!!! How does that happen?

 

[tomdalton22]

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

ok...but the other teams gets the ball and 2 points.

I think the rule is fair. If the offensive player loses the ball and it goes out of the endzone the other team should get the ball at the 20. It's been like that for ever. Every rule in the NFL is arbitrary.

 

[tomdalton22]

Maybe not a bigger call in the grand scheme of things because the Lions were possibly going to advance in a playoff game, but this one stings like no other right now. The flag was even thrown apparentley and picked up AGAIN!!! How does that happen?

incompetence...by the refs and the Lions!

 

[Mitchrapp]

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?

I'm just trying to point out they're different, ie. getting ball at 20 or getting ball at 40.

Regardless, I like the fumble out of end zone being a TO. Someone mentioned the defense has a chance to get ball.. How about when the ball crosses the goal line and immediately goes out of bounds by the orange cone. They don't have a chance there.

And yes it is an advantage to the offense. They just have to hold on to the ball, why the D would have to grab a rolling ball to get it? Or a bouncing ball. What happens if both team are fighting for the ball and the offense pushes it out? But yet not so obvious. How is that fair.

 

[tonyballs]

I don't think it has anything to do with no respect for the Lions....just incompetent officiating. This shit happens to every team from time to time...it just seems like it happens more to the Lions lately.

Absolute bullshit! Ok, this happens to other teams...i get that, but it consistently happens to the Lions. The NFL shits on Detroit all the time. Listen to Mike Valenti's rant today and he tells it like it is. He nails it. In a nutshell he says that the NFL doesn't respect the Lions. The organization, Stafford, Calvin, Caldwell, Mayhew say NOTHING on the matter. Valenti rips into them because someone needs to have a voice but they choose to take the high road? Are you fucking kidding me?? It has to stop but it never will because NOBODY cares about Detroit. Someone in that organization needed to have a meltdown after the fact, but we got it from a radio guy in Detroit that HATES this team. Don't you find this a little disturbing? I sure as hell do...

 

[inkfreq]

I'm just trying to point out they're different, ie. getting ball at 20 or getting ball at 40.

Regardless, I like the fumble out of end zone being a TO. Someone mentioned the defense has a chance to get ball.. How about when the ball crosses the goal line and immediately goes out of bounds by the orange cone. They don't have a chance there.

And yes it is an advantage to the offense. They just have to hold on to the ball, why the D would have to grab a rolling ball to get it? Or a bouncing ball. What happens if both team are fighting for the ball and the offense pushes it out? But yet not so obvious. How is that fair.

In the very specific case of last night's game, we see a player that clearly could have grabbed the ball, clearly could have fallen on the ball.

If Wright falls on it in the end zone, it's a touchback. Why does he get rewarded with a turnover if he does nothing and watches it go out?

Now, the batted ball is a whole different story. I believe that ball was going out on it's own... but it is football. If the ball bounces on it's tip and squirts, there's no telling where it will end up. We've all seen them headed one way, and then with a single bounce, they are going the exact opposite way.

I understand why, not knowing the batted ball rule, Wright made the play he did and smacked it on it's way.

But if he had done nothing at all... it's a clean legit turnover.... for doing nothing. That makes no sense.

Essentially, we're saying the direction the ball travels all on it's own, with no further interference from anyone, will determine who gets the ball on the next play. Why not just roll dice for it? Or cut cards?

It's rewarding someone based on the random travel and bounce of an oblong object. If it goes left... Detroit's ball. Since it went straight... Seattle's ball. It makes no sense within the context of the rules.

 

[Mitchrapp]

I have a hard time believing the NFL has it in for the Lions. I think it would be better for them if we won more.

Agree with the meltdown. I can understand Calvin saying what he did but Caldwell needs to get mad.

 

[elrod817]

ok...but the other teams gets the ball and 2 points.

I think the rule is fair. If the offensive player loses the ball and it goes out of the endzone the other team should get the ball at the 20. It's been like that for ever. Every rule in the NFL is arbitrary.

I have no idea how that's fair.

Also things change...it's called progression...by that logic we never should have moved on from horse and carriages, shouldn't use electricity, or any other amenities that we've developed over the years, because well things had been like that "forever". Per Mike Pereira, the rule came to be in 1931 to separate the NFL from the college game at the time.

 

[Mitchrapp]

In the very specific case of last night's game, we see a player that clearly could have grabbed the ball, clearly could have fallen on the ball.

If Wright falls on it in the end zone, it's a touchback. Why does he get rewarded with a turnover if he does nothing and watches it go out?

Now, the batted ball is a whole different story. I believe that ball was going out on it's own... but it is football. If the ball bounces on it's tip and squirts, there's no telling where it will end up. We've all seen them headed one way, and then with a single bounce, they are going the exact opposite way.

I understand why, not knowing the batted ball rule, Wright made the play he did and smacked it on it's way.

But if he had done nothing at all... it's a clean legit turnover.... for doing nothing. That makes no sense.

Essentially, we're saying the direction the ball travels all on it's own, with no further interference from anyone, will determine who gets the ball on the next play. Why not just roll dice for it? Or cut cards?

It's rewarding someone based on the random travel and bounce of an oblong object. If it goes left... Detroit's ball. Since it went straight... Seattle's ball. It makes no sense within the context of the rules.

So what if the defense makes an attempt to grab it but couldn't.. Why give it back to the offense. And what happens if the offense grabs it but it squirts though the end zone.. Why should they get ball back?

 

[tigermud]

Caldwell doesn't need to get mad, he needs to be fired

 

[Mitchrapp]

Why can someone run with the ball and barely touch the goal line, TD. But a guy who catches it, need to land on two feet and then make a move?

 

[elrod817]

So what if the defense makes an attempt to grab it but couldn't.. Why give it back to the offense. And what happens if the offense grabs it but it squirts though the end zone.. Why should they get ball back?

Maybe because that's what happens on any other fumble? Nothing wrong with logical consistency...

 

[tigermud]

I don't understand that either, it's pretty stupid IMO, the NFL has a lot of nonsensical rules, stupid game really

 

[inkfreq]

Why can someone run with the ball and barely touch the goal line, TD. But a guy who catches it, need to land on two feet and then make a move?

Because he's already established himself having possession before he broke the the plane of the endzone.

The receiver has to actually establish that possession while making the catch.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Maybe because that's what happens on any other fumble? Nothing wrong with logical consistency...

If that's the case why not it be a TO when the offense fumbles out of bounds at the 30 yard line? It could be the same as fumbling out of the end zone.

 

[elrod817]

Why can someone run with the ball and barely touch the goal line, TD. But a guy who catches it, need to land on two feet and then make a move?

Because he needs to establish possession? The guy running has possessed the ball the entire time.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Because he's already established himself having possession before he broke the the plane of the endzone.

The receiver has to actually establish that possession while making the catch.

You need more than a possession, it's called the Calvin Johnson rule.

 

[elrod817]

If that's the case why not it be a TO when the offense fumbles out of bounds at the 30 yard line? It could be the same as fumbling out of the end zone.

Because that doesn't really make sense which is the point...

 

[inkfreq]

So what if the defense makes an attempt to grab it but couldn't.. Why give it back to the offense. And what happens if the offense grabs it but it squirts though the end zone.. Why should they get ball back?

Same as any other fumble... possession remains with the offense unless the defense actually recovers it.

If the ball goes out of bounds on a fumble at the 50... the offense retains possession.

If it happens at the 5 inch mark and the ball goes over the plane of the endzone on it's way out.... Defense gets a freebie turnover?

Sorry bud, makes no sense. It is a rule designed to prevent a QB or Punter in his own end zone from knocking a ball out of play to avoid a safety on a bad snap.

To apply that to every situation when you already have the batted ball rule we've all come to know and love in the last 20 hours is ridiculous.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Because that doesn't really make sense which is the point...

Why? You said you want consistency. Why have the offense get the ball in both scenario's. Why not let the D get it in both situations. The only reason you want it changed is because of a batted ball.