PDA

View Full Version : (Most) everyone is wrong on the Tebow fumble


RunSilentRunDeep
12-04-2011, 07:15 PM
While I thought the refs sucked, many of you complaining about the refs' call on Tebow's fumble are wrong.

It was a fumble because Tebow had the ball solely in his hand. Since the hand doesn't count as a point of contact, the ball was merely an extension of his hand. The ball was clearly loose before hit knee hit.

If Tebow had been able to maintain control of the ball and regain his balance without any other part of his body touching the ground, he would have been able to continue to advance the ball and not been ruled down.

McDman
12-04-2011, 07:23 PM
I thought that was pretty clear.

Tebow is an awesome runner but he does kind of carry the ball dangerously.

Mogulseeker
12-04-2011, 07:31 PM
While I thought the refs sucked, many of you complaining about the refs' call on Tebow's fumble are wrong.

It was a fumble because Tebow had the ball solely in his hand. Since the hand doesn't count as a point of contact, the ball was merely an extension of his hand. The ball was clearly loose before hit knee hit.

If Tebow had been able to maintain control of the ball and regain his balance without any other part of his body touching the ground, he would have been able to continue to advance the ball and not been ruled down.

See, I thought he had it in his hand while his knee was touching.

Dagmar
12-04-2011, 07:36 PM
That call was questionable but the double TO by Ponder was unforgivable.

BroncsCheer
12-04-2011, 07:40 PM
That call was questionable but the double TO by Ponder was unforgivable.

yeah, WTF was that? A "do-over" really?

jhns
12-04-2011, 07:41 PM
If his knee was down, nothing can cause a fumble. What is the rule for the ground not causing a fumble then?

gyldenlove
12-04-2011, 07:45 PM
If his knee was down, nothing can cause a fumble. What is the rule for the ground not causing a fumble then?

That is just a bad interpretation, it is a fumble any time the ball comes lose except of the runner is down by contact. If a runner has the ball in his arm and he goes down after being touched by an opposing player, if impact with the ground causes the ball to come lose the player is ruled down by contact prior to the fumble. In this case since Tebow was not down by contact prior to the ball coming lose it was a correctly called fumble.

If the runner is not touched but just falls over and the ball comes lose upon impact with the ground it is a fumble regardlessly in the NFL, but in college it would be down by contact.

That One Guy
12-04-2011, 07:45 PM
If his knee was down, nothing can cause a fumble. What is the rule for the ground not causing a fumble then?

That rule has basically gone by the wayside as they are able to actually review and get the call correctly now. They've redefined fumbles in ways they couldn't before.

Shananahan
12-04-2011, 07:45 PM
If his knee was down, nothing can cause a fumble
His knee wasn't down. It was a fumble.

jhns
12-04-2011, 07:46 PM
That is just a bad interpretation, it is a fumble any time the ball comes lose except of the runner is down by contact. If a runner has the ball in his arm and he goes down after being touched by an opposing player, if impact with the ground causes the ball to come lose the player is ruled down by contact prior to the fumble. In this case since Tebow was not down by contact prior to the ball coming lose it was a correctly called fumble.

If the runner is not touched but just falls over and the ball comes lose upon impact with the ground it is a fumble regardlessly in the NFL, but in college it would be down by contact.

He had a guy wrapping him up. There is a rule that the ground can't cause a fumble. That isn't needed if you are talking about after his knee is down. Nothing can cause a fumble then.

jhns
12-04-2011, 07:47 PM
That rule has basically gone by the wayside as they are able to actually review and get the call correctly now. They've redefined fumbles in ways they couldn't before.

So there is no rule about the ground not causing a fumble then?

HAT
12-04-2011, 07:51 PM
So there is no rule about the ground not causing a fumble then?

Correct.

Urban legend.

bowtown
12-04-2011, 07:52 PM
If his knee was down, nothing can cause a fumble. What is the rule for the ground not causing a fumble then?

Basically if the ball pops out due to hitting the ground at the same time you make contact with the ground--knee or elbow--it is not a fumble. You generally see that rule come into effect when a carrier dives or comes down with their whole body. So the ball pops out as they are downed. Really it should be called "ground can't cause a fumble as long as you are simultaneously down." But you are right it's a dumb term because technically nothing can cause a fumble as long as you are simultaneously down.

SonOfLe-loLang
12-04-2011, 07:54 PM
That is just a bad interpretation, it is a fumble any time the ball comes lose except of the runner is down by contact. If a runner has the ball in his arm and he goes down after being touched by an opposing player, if impact with the ground causes the ball to come lose the player is ruled down by contact prior to the fumble. In this case since Tebow was not down by contact prior to the ball coming lose it was a correctly called fumble.

If the runner is not touched but just falls over and the ball comes lose upon impact with the ground it is a fumble regardlessly in the NFL, but in college it would be down by contact.

Correctly called, but dumb rule in my opinion.

That One Guy
12-04-2011, 07:55 PM
Basically if the ball pops out due to hitting the ground at the same time you make contact with the ground--knee or elbow--it is not a fumble. You generally see that rule come into effect when a carrier dives or comes down with their whole body. So the ball pops out as they are downed. Really it should be called "ground can't cause a fumble as long as you are simultaneously down." But you are right it's a dumb term because technically nothing can cause a fumble as long as you are simultaneously down.

I've been trying and trying to come up with the term "simultaneous" but I'm much too Heinekened to get it. And now you've taken the glory. Shame on you.

bowtown
12-04-2011, 07:56 PM
Correctly called, but dumb rule in my opinion.

So you think anytime the ball touches the ground, even if the player is not down, the play should be whistled dead?

That One Guy
12-04-2011, 07:56 PM
Correctly called, but dumb rule in my opinion.

There is no excuse for a player going to the ground from a tackle to not have the ball secured. None. Zilch. Nada.

sinuous sausage
12-04-2011, 07:58 PM
So you think anytime the ball touches the ground, even if the player is not down, the play should be whistled dead?

if the ball touches the ground to prevent the player from going down by contact, yes

SonOfLe-loLang
12-04-2011, 08:04 PM
So you think anytime the ball touches the ground, even if the player is not down, the play should be whistled dead?

No, if the player is being tackled, and the ball breaks his fall, yet he has clear possession of it until it hits the ground, then it should be down by contact.

if someone is just running it and loses it without being touched, then thats on them.

enjolras
12-04-2011, 08:04 PM
So there is no rule about the ground not causing a fumble then?

I scoured the rulebook on nfl.com/rulebook and I can't find any mention of such a rule. It is only post down-by-contact.

Agamemnon
12-04-2011, 08:05 PM
There is no excuse for a player going to the ground from a tackle to not have the ball secured. None. Zilch. Nada.

Except a for QB scrambling and looking to throw...

SonOfLe-loLang
12-04-2011, 08:06 PM
There is no excuse for a player going to the ground from a tackle to not have the ball secured. None. Zilch. Nada.

i honestly have zero doubt that ball carriers have cradled the ball, had the ground knock it out a millisecond before their forearm touched the ground, and its down by contact.

The rule is the rule. But its a stupid rule. Down by contact should be down by contact.

bowtown
12-04-2011, 08:08 PM
i honestly have zero doubt that ball carriers have cradled the ball, had the ground knock it out a millisecond before their forearm touched the ground, and its down by contact.

The rule is the rule. But its a stupid rule. Down by contact should be down by contact.

But he wasn't down by contact when the ball came out.

sinuous sausage
12-04-2011, 08:11 PM
But he wasn't down by contact when the ball came out.

he wasn't down by contact because the ball came out?

That One Guy
12-04-2011, 08:12 PM
he wasn't down by contact because the ball came out?

Because nothing had touched down. If he braces himself with the ball, maintains his balance, and goes running - it's fair game.

SonOfLe-loLang
12-04-2011, 08:14 PM
But he wasn't down by contact when the ball came out.

He was in the process of being tackled. He didnt fall on his own. The ball broke his fall and was clearly knocked out by the ground.

Again, its the rule, so its fine. I just think its a stupid rule.

Blart
12-04-2011, 08:16 PM
I thought it was screwed up until I googled it.

sinuous sausage
12-04-2011, 08:22 PM
I thought it was screwed up until I googled it.

c'est la vie

snowspot66
12-04-2011, 09:40 PM
He was called down on the field correct?

My issue is that there is no indisputable evidence that he had lost the ball until AFTER his knee clearly hit the ground. So the ball moved a little bit. He still had his hand clearly on the ball when his knee came down. That seems like the definition of disputable evidence.

SonOfLe-loLang
12-04-2011, 09:43 PM
im pretty sure it was called a fumble on the field.

That One Guy
12-04-2011, 09:48 PM
im pretty sure it was called a fumble on the field.

Yep.

It may have stood either way but it would either be indisputable or a fumble. There was nothing clearly showing that it wasn't a fumble.

troya900
12-04-2011, 09:49 PM
I may be wrong here, but I can swear there's been instances where a runner has been tripped up etc. (like Tebow was) then they stretch out their arm to get extra yardage and the ball comes slamming down into the ground and is fumbled, but it ruled not a fumble because the "ground cannot cause a fumble"? Am I wrong here I swear this has happened before like this and Tebows "fumble" is exactly like that situation.

That One Guy
12-04-2011, 09:53 PM
I may be wrong here, but I can swear there's been instances where a runner has been tripped up etc. (like Tebow was) then they stretch out their arm to get extra yardage and the ball comes slamming down into the ground and is fumbled, but it ruled not a fumble because the "ground cannot cause a fumble"? Am I wrong here I swear this has happened before like this and Tebows "fumble" is exactly like that situation.

Has it happened? Maybe. Was it the right call? Probably not. Does the NFL seem to change their rules on a week by week basis? Sometimes.

By every logical application of the current rules, the ruling seems valid. I wouldn't be opposed to a scenario where the ball touching the ground denotes down, though. It'd help clean up a lot of these fumbles, I think. Make it open hand on the ground is the only thing that is allowed.

snowspot66
12-04-2011, 09:58 PM
im pretty sure it was called a fumble on the field.

I could have sworn both the fumble and the Thomas catch were called in our favor on the field.

That One Guy
12-04-2011, 10:09 PM
I could have sworn both the fumble and the Thomas catch were called in our favor on the field.

Thomas was, Tebow wasn't. Jared Allen was doing his celebration and everything.

snowspot66
12-04-2011, 10:20 PM
Thomas was, Tebow wasn't. Jared Allen was doing his celebration and everything.

Well if true that lessens my anger towards the ref. Their so damned scared to pull another Hoculi they call everything a fumble and sort it out later.

SonOfLe-loLang
12-04-2011, 10:22 PM
I may be wrong here, but I can swear there's been instances where a runner has been tripped up etc. (like Tebow was) then they stretch out their arm to get extra yardage and the ball comes slamming down into the ground and is fumbled, but it ruled not a fumble because the "ground cannot cause a fumble"? Am I wrong here I swear this has happened before like this and Tebows "fumble" is exactly like that situation.

i have no doubt this has happened numerous times before and has gone uncalled.

ZONA
12-04-2011, 11:11 PM
I may be wrong here, but I can swear there's been instances where a runner has been tripped up etc. (like Tebow was) then they stretch out their arm to get extra yardage and the ball comes slamming down into the ground and is fumbled, but it ruled not a fumble because the "ground cannot cause a fumble"? Am I wrong here I swear this has happened before like this and Tebows "fumble" is exactly like that situation.

That is correct. I don't know what everybody else is talking about. For example, a RB is in the flat and a CB comes up and takes his legs out and the RB's legs fly up in the air but his forearms (while controlling the ball) slam into the ground and force the ball free, he is down because of his forearms/elbows touching the ground the same time the ball comes free. In that case, the ground cannot cause the fumble.

However in this case, Tebow did not have a leg, ankle, shoulder or forearm touching before the ball "started" to get lodged from his control. It was a fumble. It's doesn't have to be all the way free before any of those body parts touch the ground. It only needs to start to become free of the players control.

KevinJames
12-04-2011, 11:13 PM
While I thought the refs sucked, many of you complaining about the refs' call on Tebow's fumble are wrong.

It was a fumble because Tebow had the ball solely in his hand. Since the hand doesn't count as a point of contact, the ball was merely an extension of his hand. The ball was clearly loose before hit knee hit.

If Tebow had been able to maintain control of the ball and regain his balance without any other part of his body touching the ground, he would have been able to continue to advance the ball and not been ruled down.

You sir are wrong and a lot of you believing this are wrong too I see only a few people in this thread that mention the actual rule.

NFL rules state the ground cannot cause a fumble unless the runner is untouched.

Unless I am blind I am pretty sure Jared Allen tripped him up, which would count as contact, and once the runners contacted the ground can't cause the fumble.

Refs ****ed that up just like the refs ****ed up that no-call delay of game on the double time outs.....but we won so ^5

NUB
12-04-2011, 11:19 PM
Could someone find the rulebook? As far as I know:

- The ground can cause a fumble if the player has not been touched. Which would essentially be like dropping the ball as you're running around.

- But I have often seen it called that if a player is touched then the second the ball lands on the turf, in his hands, he is considered down. That is I have seen these "fumbles" ruled no fumbles, but more importantly, players have been called "down" when they try to support themselves with the ball, implying you can't put the ball on the ground and keep running. I've seen sacks called this way in the past.


But I think this particular interpretation is irrelevant as his knee was down anyway.

cutthemdown
12-04-2011, 11:24 PM
It was a good call, fumble all the way IMO. What pisses me off is the hands to the face call on Clady while both players had hands to the face. You don't call that and wipe out a big play. Let them play IMO or at least call offsetting and give us another shot.

Also 2 more missed facemask penalties. I've never seen 4-5 uncalled facemasks like i have for Broncos this yr. They got out returner and Mcghee today. No call.

ZONA
12-04-2011, 11:40 PM
Could someone find the rulebook? As far as I know:

- The ground can cause a fumble if the player has not been touched. Which would essentially be like dropping the ball as you're running around.

- But I have often seen it called that if a player is touched then the second the ball lands on the turf, in his hands, he is considered down. That is I have seen these "fumbles" ruled no fumbles, but more importantly, players have been called "down" when they try to support themselves with the ball, implying you can't put the ball on the ground and keep running. I've seen sacks called this way in the past.


But I think this particular interpretation is irrelevant as his knee was down anyway.


Downed player

A player carrying the ball (the runner) is downed when any of the following occurs:

Any part of the runner other than his hands or feet touches the ground. Ankles and wrists count as downed. This may be as a result of:
Contact by an opponent (called down by contact) where the opponent tackles the runner by pushing him, grasping him and pulling him to the ground, sliding into his legs, or touching him in any manner prior to any part of the runner other than his hands or feet touching the ground. Unlike the use of the word tackle in other sports, if the opposing player fails to down the ball carrier, it is merely an attempted tackle. If the ball carrier falls onto another player but he doesn't make contact with the ground, he can still get up and keep playing. A player on the ground is not considered part of the ground.
Intentionally downing the ball: intentionally kneeling, verbally declaring "I'm down" (except in college), or similar actions. For example, to protect himself from violent hits by opponents attempting to tackle him, the quarterback may choose to slide to the ground feet-first. This slide is interpreted as intentionally downing the ball, and opponents may then be penalized for hitting him.
In amateur football, a runner is downed when any part of his body other than his hands or feet touches the ground at any time (unless he is the holder for a place kick). In professional football, the runner is not down for such accidental contact; he must be down by contact with an opponent as described above.
The runner goes out of bounds: that is, any part of his body (including his hands or feet) touches the ground, or anything other than another player or an official, on or past a sideline or an endline. Note that the sideline itself is out of bounds, so that the runner is deemed out of bounds if he steps on or touches any part of it. Note also that a runner may carry the ball in such a manner that it is over the sideline, so long as the ball or runner does not touch anything out of bounds.
The runner's forward progress toward the opponents' goal line is stopped by contact with an opponent, with little chance to be resumed. The exact moment at which the player's forward progress stops is subject to the judgment of the officials. In particular, for the protection of the quarterback, he is considered down as soon as an official judges that he is in the grasp of an opponent behind the line of scrimmage, and the tackling defensive player(s) will be awarded with a sack. If he is driven backward by the opponent, the ball will be spotted where his forward progress was stopped.



Tebow was not down yet. If the ball had not came free and he regained his balance without any other parts of his body touching the ground except for his feet and hands, the play would still be alive and he could have run with the ball. So the fact that he was not down yet, the ball did come free, it was a fumble.

vonqkilla
12-05-2011, 12:10 AM
How hell was it not a penalty when minn called back to back timeouts. Refs should have flagged them after play clock ran out, that was bs.

vonqkilla
12-05-2011, 12:12 AM
:

Yes, however the second time out must be called before the referee blows his whistle signaling the ball is ready for play and starting the 25 second clock. If the coach waits to call the second time until after the referee blows the whistle signaling the ball ready to play, a 15 yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty is assessed.

I don't think thats right though, if used to ice a kicker, 15 penalty.

elsid13
12-05-2011, 02:02 AM
How hell was it not a penalty when minn called back to back timeouts. Refs should have flagged them after play clock ran out, that was bs.

It was penalty and Fox choose the 10 second run off over the yards.

That One Guy
12-05-2011, 04:47 AM
It was penalty and Fox choose the 10 second run off over the yards.

They told the guy merely to get back to the line and the ref announced 10 seconds on the clock. I heard no declaration of a runoff. A runoff also coincides with a penalty in most cases. I'm not under the impression that's what happened.

That One Guy
12-05-2011, 04:48 AM
You sir are wrong and a lot of you believing this are wrong too I see only a few people in this thread that mention the actual rule.

NFL rules state the ground cannot cause a fumble unless the runner is untouched.

Unless I am blind I am pretty sure Jared Allen tripped him up, which would count as contact, and once the runners contacted the ground can't cause the fumble.

Refs ****ed that up just like the refs ****ed up that no-call delay of game on the double time outs.....but we won so ^5

Do they really? $10 virtual money says you can't find that line anywhere in the rulebooks.

ol#7
12-05-2011, 05:15 AM
The problem with this is, Tebow went to the ground as a result of being tackled. He couldn't have gotten up and advanced the ball. I still don't agree that is a fumble, and if at some future point it goes in our favor I still wont agree.

That One Guy
12-05-2011, 05:17 AM
The problem with this is, Tebow went to the ground as a result of being tackled. He couldn't have gotten up and advanced the ball. I still don't agree that is a fumble, and if at some future point it goes in our favor I still wont agree.

The ball starts sliding before his knee hit. He used the ball to brace his fall and avoid anything hitting down.

There's nothing more to say. I don't understand what could be argued at this point. Maybe the one guy who thinks his knee and the ball hit at the same time but I don't personally believe that to be the case. If you're still stuck on the ground causing the fumble aspect, that train left and it was a hollow argument.

edog24
12-05-2011, 05:20 AM
It was a good call, fumble all the way IMO. What pisses me off is the hands to the face call on Clady while both players had hands to the face. You don't call that and wipe out a big play. Let them play IMO or at least call offsetting and give us another shot.

Also 2 more missed facemask penalties. I've never seen 4-5 uncalled facemasks like i have for Broncos this yr. They got out returner and Mcghee today. No call.

Yup, the fumble was one of the (few) correct calls they made. The facemasks need to be called on Tebow, do the officials just ignore it if they hit his facemask? I hope Fox is talking to the league office about that item in particular.

Willis was out, not a safety.

Was that a catch by their TE? He looked like the ball was flailing around a lot, could go either way.

Intentional Grounding, should have gone our way, bs call.

there are more I am not thinking of right now.

WolfpackGuy
12-05-2011, 05:27 AM
Intentional Grounding, should have gone our way, bs call.


I remember Neil O'Donnell getting flagged for the exact same thing back when he played with the Jets.

That probably would've knocked MIN out of FG range, and I don't know how that was not a penalty.

Archie
12-05-2011, 06:54 AM
They told the guy merely to get back to the line and the ref announced 10 seconds on the clock. I heard no declaration of a runoff. A runoff also coincides with a penalty in most cases. I'm not under the impression that's what happened.

The rule states that the refs should have simply ignored the request. Presumably they would have then been penalized for delay of game. It was a complete fail by the refs. Probably didn't have a major impact on the game (although that was leading up to their field goal if I recall). But, piled on top of other non-calls (face masks for example) or picking sides with Allen and Clady, etc... the game was poorly officiated and the Broncos seemed to get the raw side of the deal.

Peoples Champ
12-05-2011, 07:20 AM
While I thought the refs sucked, many of you complaining about the refs' call on Tebow's fumble are wrong.

It was a fumble because Tebow had the ball solely in his hand. Since the hand doesn't count as a point of contact, the ball was merely an extension of his hand. The ball was clearly loose before hit knee hit.

If Tebow had been able to maintain control of the ball and regain his balance without any other part of his body touching the ground, he would have been able to continue to advance the ball and not been ruled down.


I thought it was a fumble. And obviously we all know the outcome, and are happy that the team can overcome adversity on the road and win. I know ponder gave us some gimmies, but we also gave them a safty, and two fumbles in our own end.

Broncos4tw
12-05-2011, 07:26 AM
The ground can cause a fumble if the knee isn't down. Call was fine. The lack of an intentional grounding.. that was fine too. No pressure, no penalty. There were plenty of other bad calls though, or non-calls.. I was going ballistic several times thorought the game.

Peoples Champ
12-05-2011, 07:28 AM
The ground can cause a fumble if the knee isn't down. Call was fine. The lack of an intentional grounding.. that was fine too. No pressure, no penalty. There were plenty of other bad calls though, or non-calls.. I was going ballistic several times thorought the game.


Ya the Jared Allen hands to the face call on clady was BS. Allen had his hands in cladys face just as bad.

They also missed several facemasks that the Vikings did against us.

jhns
12-05-2011, 07:36 AM
Correct.

Urban legend.

Seems to be. Commentators say it a lot though.

That One Guy
12-05-2011, 08:14 AM
The ground can cause a fumble if the knee isn't down. Call was fine. The lack of an intentional grounding.. that was fine too. No pressure, no penalty. There were plenty of other bad calls though, or non-calls.. I was going ballistic several times thorought the game.

Agreed, I believe everyone when they say that's the rule but I've never seen it called that way. I'd just like them to be consistent. After this though, I'm sure it'll remind everyone of the clause and it will be called correctly.

edog24
12-05-2011, 08:41 AM
[QUOTE=That One Guy;3404951]Agreed, I believe everyone when they say that's the rule but I've never seen it called that way. I'd just like them to be consistent. After this though, I'm sure it'll remind everyone of the clause and it will be called correctly.[/QUOTE

I guess the tricky part is how to define pressure. Ponder wasn't under diress, but the pocket was collapsing.

That One Guy
12-05-2011, 08:43 AM
Agreed, I believe everyone when they say that's the rule but I've never seen it called that way. I'd just like them to be consistent. After this though, I'm sure it'll remind everyone of the clause and it will be called correctly.

I guess the tricky part is how to define pressure. Ponder wasn't under diress, but the pocket was collapsing.

Good call. I'd say as soon as they start moving around the pocket from their preferred and original point, they're under duress. Somebody during it all, I believe, made the comment that he has to be in imminent danger of being sacked. There could be too many perception issues. This could get ugly as we see more calls blown, I guess.

crush17
12-05-2011, 08:53 AM
That non-call on the intentional grounding just eats me up. TERRIBLE officiating overall during that game.

NUB
12-05-2011, 03:51 PM
Tebow was not down yet. If the ball had not came free and he regained his balance without any other parts of his body touching the ground except for his feet and hands, the play would still be alive and he could have run with the ball. So the fact that he was not down yet, the ball did come free, it was a fumble.

He's down if the ball counts as an extension of the body which I have seen happen. Here is why I don't think it is a fumble, or maybe that Denver was simply stuck in a no-win position: I am certain that if Tebow did not drop the ball and he did not drop to a knee and instead continued running they would have called him down where the ball touched the turf. This applies on players trying to one-hand extend as they are being dragged to the ground; vast majority of the time, even though the ball cranks out of their hands, the play is simply called dead at the spot.

A buddy told me that it used to be a rule that the ball hitting the turf = down, but he doesn't know anymore. If this is a rule change it came at the behest of technology and instant replay, but I cannot find anything in the rules about the relationship between the ball and the carrier. Consider me unconvinced. I believe the NFL has a lot of murky definitions in their rulebook that even they don't know how to interpret consistently (hence the ordinary becoming extraordinary: Calvin Johnson no-TD; sudden tuck rule emergence, etc.).

~Crash~
12-05-2011, 04:13 PM
WR's pushing off is what I am pissed about ! it is going on really bad this year in the NFL. not being called . The hand to the face by Clady look at it and see the D player doing the same damn thing.

~Crash~
12-05-2011, 04:15 PM
This had to be one of the worst officials in the league

Boogerboots
12-05-2011, 06:11 PM
I remember Neil O'Donnell getting flagged for the exact same thing back when he played with the Jets.

That probably would've knocked MIN out of FG range, and I don't know how that was not a penalty.

Out of all the referee miscues, this blown call was to me the worst. But given the outcome... I wouldn't change a thing.

Broncos4tw
12-05-2011, 07:05 PM
That non-call on the intentional grounding just eats me up. TERRIBLE officiating overall during that game.

But it wasn't intentional grounding. That means he was intentionally throwing it into the ground to avoid the sack. That wasn't the case. He was just being stupid. While being stupid might lose you games, you won't get penalized for it. He thought his guy was running an out pattern, he didn't. He wasn't trying to avoid a sack.

But there were tons of other non-calls on the Vikes that -were- being called against the Broncos. That is what was pissing me off. I don't mind if they let both sides play. I don't even mind if they are going to go penalty-city, as long as they are consistent. That one-sided crap was bull.

theAPAOps5
12-05-2011, 07:09 PM
While I thought the refs sucked, many of you complaining about the refs' call on Tebow's fumble are wrong.

It was a fumble because Tebow had the ball solely in his hand. Since the hand doesn't count as a point of contact, the ball was merely an extension of his hand. The ball was clearly loose before hit knee hit.

If Tebow had been able to maintain control of the ball and regain his balance without any other part of his body touching the ground, he would have been able to continue to advance the ball and not been ruled down.

You would be right if his knee wasn't touching while the ball hit the ground while he had control. But other than that you are dead on.

TotallyScrewed
12-05-2011, 08:12 PM
I can see where Vegas is going to want to know which group of referees are calling a game in order the set the odds.

That One Guy
12-05-2011, 10:08 PM
You would be right if his knee wasn't touching while the ball hit the ground while he had control. But other than that you are dead on.

The ball crashed to the turf before his knee hit. He'd have to have incredible grip for it to not move right away. You can see the ball shifting before his knee finally hits. He had already lost control at that point.

HAT
12-05-2011, 10:12 PM
I can't believe this is an actual 3 page thread at this point.

Fumbles are fumbles...get over it.

theAPAOps5
12-05-2011, 10:33 PM
The ball crashed to the turf before his knee hit. He'd have to have incredible grip for it to not move right away. You can see the ball shifting before his knee finally hits. He had already lost control at that point.

I disagree but I only saw a few angles I was trying to stall leaving for a family get together and was distracted so may have missed it on fox. To me his knee hit almost simultaneously when the ball with his hand still grasping it hit the ground. After that momentum rolled him over the ball and his hand lost grip but play was dead since Allen had tripped him up. Its a moot point but I wouldn't say everyone is wrong. It left a lot of room for both sides of the argument.

The Refs sucked and this was by far not the worse call of the night. Like so many have said a double time out is just crazy. So from now on if a team calls time out and doesn't like what they see they can just call time out and get a 10 second run off and a stern warning by the ref to get to the line, WTF

HAT
12-05-2011, 10:39 PM
It left a lot of room for both sides of the argument.

Only for people who have no ****ing clue what they are talking about.....

You said it yourself......ALMOST simultaneously.

If MJD gets tripped up from behind and the ball starts to come loose ALMOST before his knee hits...It's a fumble. Period.

There is no such thing as "the ground can't cause a fumble" rule.

SportinOne
12-06-2011, 01:47 AM
1. The ball hit the ground before the knee. More importantly, the ball began to move before the knee hit the ground. At that point, he does not have possession of the ball and cannot be ruled down if he does not have possession. The ground CAN cause a fumble, under the right circumstances, and this was one of them.

2. Kudos to technology. It didn't help us, but that was one hell of a shot. It showed the ref exactly what he needed to see in order to make the correct call.

3. As for fairness of the rule: As stated above, if he does not fumble that ball, and is better able to prop himself up with the ball on the ground (which is completely plausible considering the added stability of holding the ball against the ground) then he would be able to advance the ball and would not be called down. Since this is not deemed "down," then it's much more crazy to expect that he is considered down without the ball in his hand with possession.

this is not about ****ty reffing or bias or perception of the rules.. this is about some individuals lack of knowledge of the rules and the emotional reaction that comes with your team coughing it up.

the hands to the face on Clady was horrid.

there was a late non-call on a holding with Dumervil closing in on Ponder late in the game..

i'm still angry about the Decker touchdown against Detroit. that WAS a touchdown. Decker needs to be a professional and do what is expected in that situation by dragging the toe, but he did have two feet in and had the touchdown.

ZONA
12-06-2011, 03:00 AM
Yup, the fumble was one of the (few) correct calls they made. The facemasks need to be called on Tebow, do the officials just ignore it if they hit his facemask? I hope Fox is talking to the league office about that item in particular.

Willis was out, not a safety.

Was that a catch by their TE? He looked like the ball was flailing around a lot, could go either way.

Intentional Grounding, should have gone our way, bs call.

there are more I am not thinking of right now.

Face mask on the return not called
Face mask on McGehee not called
Offensive PI against Harris on Harvin TD not called
Hands to Face on Clady when DE went to his face first

Just a few more to add to the list.