Fumble? My Ass!

[Brokenstriker]

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/dp-84602sy0sep29,0,1913990.story?coll=dp-sports-local

Read this about the "new" rule and then somebody please explain why if a man has the ball and runs with the ball and is tackled out of bounds and *gosh fumbles the ball when he hits the ground (out of bounds) ... why ... why WHY? isn't he credited with the catch and why wasn't the ball dead when his knee hit and even if it wasn't when his knee it ... why doesn't he get credit for carrying the ball down the field ... seriously ... who recovered the "fumble?" How the hell can you fumble a ball with out first possessing it ... this seems to say that he possessed the ball ... carried for yardage in excess of the yards needed for a first down ... was tackled out of bounds and then fumbled it ... where nobody could recover the fumble since the ball was out of bounds ...

this is just another load of BS!

[hail2skins]

I don't get this at all.

Within the boundaries, the ground cannot cause a fumble but the ground can cause a fumble out of bounds. What the heck is that.

[NamVet4]

Can anyone on this board reach out to the NFL rules people(?) and get a clarification on this? This does not make sense. I'm not questioning the journalistic statement, but damn, I'd like to get it from the "horse's mouth" or a$$ if that's the way it turns out. :(

[jporterweb]

I know, notice because it's the Redskins none of the major sports people are covering the play. If it would've happened to the Bucs, they would be all over it. Freakin pisses me off. Maybe I'll email pastabelly

[Brokenstriker]

Originally posted by jporterweb
I know, notice because it's the Redskins none of the major sports people are covering the play. If it would've happened to the Bucs, they would be all over it. Freakin pisses me off. Maybe I'll email pastabelly

damn right ... hell if it had been one of the beloved teams we'd have a national day of morning

I mean seriously ... the 3rd rated passer hooks up with the league's leading receiver ... and then gets the "WTFO? bum-fuck" from the Zebras ... that has to be at least as news worthy as 99% of the crap they broadcast now

[JoeDaSchmoe]

I still say that this rule has nothing to do with whether or not Coles caught the ball or not, since the wording says fumble, not incompletion. To fumble, you must have posession of the ball, therefore, the refs should not have been able to use this rule as a reason to uphold the call on the field.

[Skinsfan1906]

I'm not going to TRY to explain stupidity. It gives me a freakin'
headache.

[bfauble83]

Seems to me once a player crosses the out of bounds line the play is over...therefore it should be a catch because getting out of bounds is a football move.

[skinswin'emALL]

Originally posted by Brokenstriker
damn right ... hell if it had been one of the beloved teams we'd have a national day of morning

I mean seriously ... the 3rd rated passer hooks up with the league's leading receiver ... and then gets the "WTFO? bum-fuck" from the Zebras ... that has to be at least as news worthy as 99% of the crap they broadcast now

If it had happen the the Giants, Peter King would have been all over it.

[skinswin'emALL]

Originally posted by JoeDaSchmoe
I still say that this rule has nothing to do with whether or not Coles caught the ball or not, since the wording says fumble, not incompletion. To fumble, you must have posession of the ball, therefore, the refs should not have been able to use this rule as a reason to uphold the call on the field.

You are right, the rule about receptions at the boundries states that the rec must get 2 feet (or 1 Knee) in and not lose pos after falling to the ground -- HOWEVER if a rec catches the ball in the field of play and makes a "football move" (ie. 3,4,5, steps etc or lounges forward for yardage) it is a catch.

Their is also a rule that if a player loses pos because of the ground it is not a fumble (we've all heard of this rule); BUT if it happens out of bounds then it is a fumble and the team of the player who last pos it, retains pos (this rule has nothing to do with receptions -- that's in the 1st paragraph)

The last part of that rule seems unnesessary and confusing. The only reason to call it a fumble, is from a "stats" point of view. It does not change possesion.

They did not make the right call on this one -- it could be worse, just ask Giant fan from last year.

[Shabba]

There was almost an exact play in the Dallas game this past weekend. The Boys receiver, forget now who it was, caught a first down pass as he was going out of bounds. He had his arms extended just like Coles. He got both feet down inbounds and as he was going out of bounds he was hit and when he hit the ground he held the ball in the air.
The anouncer said that the only way it would be considered a catch was if he had control of the ball after he hit the ground. They never questioned wheather it was a catch.

My thing is why inbounds can the ground not cause a fumble but out of bounds it can...really strange.

[Chief Seeway]

It would have been bigger news if we had lost the game.

[hamptonskinsfan]

ok guys here's the scoop on the writer of this particular piece. Warner Hessler is an AVID Skins hater. His team is the 'AINTS' and will only give credit to the skins after the season is over and he feels he has too. Case in point, during our last super bowl he predicted that we were gonna be "Blown Out" by the Bills. Only after the game did he give props to Rypien and company. What baffles me is he is a writer for a newspaper right smack in the middle of Skins country ( Hampton Roads, Virginia) and unless we have the Post imported to the area this is the kind of Sheat we get. I personally hate Hessler and have called his "HOTLINE" numerous times. especially after a game where he bad mouths us prior to the game. just thought you should know about the source of this BS story.

[Green-Is-Good]

Does anybody really benefit from this rule?!