The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Orange Mane Discussion > Orange Mane Central Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-04-2011, 07:15 PM   #1
RunSilentRunDeep
Ring of Famer
 
RunSilentRunDeep's Avatar
 
I root for laundry

Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,426

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Julius Thomas
Default (Most) everyone is wrong on the Tebow fumble

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.
RunSilentRunDeep is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 12-04-2011, 07:23 PM   #2
McDman
Ring of Famer
 
McDman's Avatar
 
Huzzah!

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,693

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

I thought that was pretty clear.

Tebow is an awesome runner but he does kind of carry the ball dangerously.
McDman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 07:31 PM   #3
Mogulseeker
Formerly mightysmurf
 
Mogulseeker's Avatar
 
Eat greedy

Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Boulder... Vail when it snoooows
Posts: 16,631

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Lamin Barrow
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RunSilentRunDeep View Post
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.
Mogulseeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 07:36 PM   #4
Dagmar
...there ain't no devil
 
Dagmar's Avatar
 
..there's just God when he's drunk.

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Morrison
Posts: 16,755

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tim Tebow
Default

That call was questionable but the double TO by Ponder was unforgivable.
Dagmar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 07:40 PM   #5
BroncsCheer
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagmar View Post
That call was questionable but the double TO by Ponder was unforgivable.
yeah, WTF was that? A "do-over" really?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 07:41 PM   #6
jhns
Ring of Famer
 
but you still can't C me!

Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Omaha
Posts: 12,362

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

If his knee was down, nothing can cause a fumble. What is the rule for the ground not causing a fumble then?
jhns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 07:45 PM   #7
gyldenlove
Ring of Famer
 
gyldenlove's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Nęstved, DK
Posts: 11,093

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Spencer Larsen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhns View Post
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.
gyldenlove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 07:45 PM   #8
That One Guy
Producer of Nonsense
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sun and Beachville
Posts: 14,066

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhns View Post
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.
That One Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 07:45 PM   #9
Shananahan
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhns View Post
If his knee was down, nothing can cause a fumble
His knee wasn't down. It was a fumble.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 07:46 PM   #10
jhns
Ring of Famer
 
but you still can't C me!

Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Omaha
Posts: 12,362

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gyldenlove View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 07:47 PM   #11
jhns
Ring of Famer
 
but you still can't C me!

Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Omaha
Posts: 12,362

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by That One Guy View Post
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?
jhns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 07:51 PM   #12
HAT
I think, therefore I ham.
 
HAT's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,809

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Adam Weber
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhns View Post
So there is no rule about the ground not causing a fumble then?
Correct.

Urban legend.
HAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 07:52 PM   #13
bowtown
Ring of Famer
 
bowtown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,342

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Aaron Brewer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhns View Post
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.
bowtown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 07:54 PM   #14
SonOfLe-loLang
Young Buck
 
SonOfLe-loLang's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 20,055

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Thunder (RIP)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gyldenlove View Post
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.
SonOfLe-loLang is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 07:55 PM   #15
That One Guy
Producer of Nonsense
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sun and Beachville
Posts: 14,066

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bowtown View Post
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.
That One Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 07:56 PM   #16
bowtown
Ring of Famer
 
bowtown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,342

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Aaron Brewer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang View Post
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?
bowtown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 07:56 PM   #17
That One Guy
Producer of Nonsense
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sun and Beachville
Posts: 14,066

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang View Post
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.
That One Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 07:58 PM   #18
sinuous sausage
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bowtown View Post
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
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 08:04 PM   #19
SonOfLe-loLang
Young Buck
 
SonOfLe-loLang's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 20,055

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Thunder (RIP)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bowtown View Post
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.
SonOfLe-loLang is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 08:04 PM   #20
enjolras
Ring of Famer
 
enjolras's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 7,697
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhns View Post
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.
enjolras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 08:05 PM   #21
Agamemnon
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by That One Guy View Post
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...
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 08:06 PM   #22
SonOfLe-loLang
Young Buck
 
SonOfLe-loLang's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 20,055

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Thunder (RIP)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by That One Guy View Post
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.
SonOfLe-loLang is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 08:08 PM   #23
bowtown
Ring of Famer
 
bowtown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,342

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Aaron Brewer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang View Post
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.
bowtown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 08:11 PM   #24
sinuous sausage
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bowtown View Post
But he wasn't down by contact when the ball came out.
he wasn't down by contact because the ball came out?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 08:12 PM   #25
That One Guy
Producer of Nonsense
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sun and Beachville
Posts: 14,066

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sinuous sausage View Post
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.
That One Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:40 PM.


Denver Broncos