Wasn't there a similar fumble earlier...

[tonyballs]

incompetence...by the refs and the Lions!

Incompetence by the Lions? Wtf are you talking about? The only thing done wrong about the Lions in this matter is that they kept their mouths shut.

 

[Mitchrapp]

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.

Hang onto the ball?

 

[inkfreq]

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

Yep, possession is establish by completing the "process of the catch"... which shows you have established possession.

In the case of the runner, he got the ball, and made a football move before ever breaking the plane. His need to establish possession has already been taken care of.

In the case of the Calvin catch, they blew it. He caught the ball. He clearly established possession. He went to the ground with possession. He dropped the ball while getting up.

That's not the rule. You don't have to hold on to it while getting off the turf, and Hochuli knows it to this day.

 

[Mitchrapp]

You change the rules and offensive players will be tossing the ball out of the end zone at will.

 

[inkfreq]

Hang onto the ball?

If that is the only argument, then any time a player fumbles the ball, it should be an automatic turnover. "He should have held on to it".

Because that's really what we're arguing here. There was no recovery by either team. The ball, once knocked free, went wherever a bouncing oblong object goes. And the defense was awarded the turnover based on the direction of the ball... not a recovery...just which way the ball went.

That's just downright silly.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Yep, possession is establish by completing the "process of the catch"... which shows you have established possession.

In the case of the runner, he got the ball, and made a football move before ever breaking the plane. His need to establish possession has already been taken care of.

In the case of the Calvin catch, they blew it. He caught the ball. He clearly established possession. He went to the ground with possession. He dropped the ball while getting up.

That's not the rule. You don't have to hold on to it while getting off the turf, and Hochuli knows it to this day.

But now after he crossed the goal line. Rules severely go against defenses.. You got to give them something.

 

[inkfreq]

You change the rules and offensive players will be tossing the ball out of the end zone at will.

And if they do, that is the batted ball rule, which states they can't do that.

There's a big difference between where the ball goes randomly after a fumble, and a player smacking it out of the end zone to protect their possession on a cheap play, and there are already rules that cover it.

 

[Mitchrapp]

If that is the only argument, then any time a player fumbles the ball, it should be an automatic turnover. "He should have held on to it".

Because that's really what we're arguing here. There was no recovery by either team. The ball, once knocked free, went wherever a bouncing oblong object goes. And the defense was awarded the turnover based on the direction of the ball... not a recovery...just which way the ball went.

That's just downright silly.

I know that's dumb but all I'm getting is if he fumbles at the 50 it should be the same in the end zone? Why, because of consistency?

 

[Mitchrapp]

And if they do, that is the batted ball rule, which states they can't do that.

There's a big difference between where the ball goes randomly after a fumble, and a player smacking it out of the end zone to protect their possession on a cheap play, and there are already rules that cover it.

Remember, judgement call.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Can't be reviewed either.

 

[inkfreq]

But now after he crossed the goal line. Rules severely go against defenses.. You got to give them something.

I agree... which is why I was shocked to real subparagraph B of that rule that states you can't punch the ball out of the players possession.

I understand, the NFL doesn't want to see guys punching the shit out of each other and claiming they were punching at the ball. But I sure wouldn't want to see the Lions flagged for a penalty if they made the amazing play Cam Chancellor did last night.

We've almost hit a point in the game where a DB has to run up and politely ask the receiver to halt his forward progress on a catch.

Defenses have to have something... but a freebie turnover based on the direction a ball goes with no one doing anything to it is not what they need to even the game. That's as random as saying "Hey, the ball went out of bounds... rock, paper, scissors for possession".

 

[tomdalton22]

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.

It's a live ball that goes out of the end zone. When a kick off goes out of the end zone (a live ball) the team defending that end zone gets possession at the 20. It seems consistent.

As far as changing the rule...I really don't care. I don't see anything wrong with the rule as it is. Everybody knows the rule (offense fumbles the ball out of the end zone the defense gets it at the 20)...nobody cared up until now.

 

[inkfreq]

Remember, judgement call.

Actually, it's not a judgement call. And the ref blew that too.

The rule doesn't state "If a player intentionally bats the ball"... it states no bueno. Neither side. Neither end zone.

That's not a judgement call any more than any other call in football.

The ref saying "Well I didn't think he did it on purpose" or "It didn't really affect anything" is no different that a ref saying "Well, yeah, there was holding, but I don't think it really slowed the other guy down" or "Yeah, I saw the facemask, but his head isn't worth keeping attached to his neck, so fuck it".

It's a call that should be made no matter what. And enforcing that the call is always made solves the problem of offensive players doing it, rather than awarding a turnover on randomness.

 

[elrod817]

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.

Why should the d get it? If you can make a logical argument I might be on board. I'm not opposed to change, but I haven't heard anything (yet) as to why your new rule would be a good one.

As far as changing the fumble rule. I haven't asked for it to be changed. I've never thought it made sense, but I've never asked for it to be repealed. The batted ball rule is completely different and was erroneously not applied last evening. Two different things, which one are we discussing?

 

[Mitchrapp]

nobody cared up until now.

I agree here.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Why should the d get it? If you can make a logical argument I might be on board. I'm not opposed to change, but I haven't heard anything (yet) as to why your new rule would be a good one.

As far as changing the fumble rule. I haven't asked for it to be changed. I've never thought it made sense, but I've never asked for it to be repealed. The batted ball rule is completely different and was erroneously not applied last evening. Two different things, which one are we discussing?

Just like I haven't heard a good reason why the end zone fumble should be changed. Works both ways.

 

[elrod817]

It's a live ball that goes out of the end zone. When a kick off goes out of the end zone (a live ball) the team defending that end zone gets possession at the 20. It seems consistent.

As far as changing the rule...I really don't care. I don't see anything wrong with the rule as it is. Everybody knows the rule (offense fumbles the ball out of the end zone the defense gets it at the 20)...nobody cared up until now.

Right, but that same team retains possession. The ball is being kicked to them. A kickoff and a fumble are two entirely different things...

 

[elrod817]

Just like I haven't heard a good reason why the end zone fumble should be changed. Works both ways.

Consistency and logic. If it doesn't change that's fine with me, but that doesn't mean it makes sense.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Consistency and logic. If it doesn't change that's fine with me, but that doesn't mean it makes sense.

And your entitled to that opinion, as I am.

 

[tigermud]

The NFL should just make an exception for the lions given the history of shittyness, they should just officially track wins and loses and then true wins and loses and if the true wins total up to enough wins for the 6th or better playoff spot at the end of the year the lions are to then automatically be awarded the 6th seed playoff spot

They can call it the shitbag franchise cluase or whatever they'd like, then once that shitbag franchise wins a super bowl if and when that ever happens the cluase can then be given to another team..the Browns would be second in line I think