qb18_200400 Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 when there is a fumble in a game, and the refs call it down by contact, no one has a chance to challenge it. I thought Jordon fumbled, but maybe not. But what I'm saying is, I don't understand why, even if is clearly not a fumble but the ball still comes out, the refs need to call it a fumble and let teams use their challenges. It should really be a rule by the refs. It just seems unfair when they say "down by contact" and we can see on replays that the player fumbled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamSneed36 Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 when there is a fumble in a game, and the refs call it down by contact, no one has a chance to challenge it. I thought Jordon fumbled, but maybe not. But what I'm saying is, I don't understand why, even if is clearly not a fumble but the ball still comes out, the refs need to call it a fumble and let teams use their challenges. It should really be a rule by the refs. It just seems unfair when they say "down by contact" and we can see on replays that the player fumbled. The goal line fumble? Wasnt a fumble. No point in talking about it, the redskins are a ****ty team. As usual, we have to wait till next year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 i think that rule will change next year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSteve Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 At a certain point, the continual pointing to the referees as the bane of our problems is a little like saying a festering, infected wound is not healing because its not covered up. We lose because we beat ourselves. If we did not beat ourselves then we would not be in a position to let the referees beat us. The Raiders are not a good enough team to be that close to the Redskins at their best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Anybody that even TRIES to blame the zebras for this is delusional, if anything we got calls that we didn't deserve (the PI for instance). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 the Redskins ultimately lost vs. the Bucs and Raiders because they didn't make enough plays over 60 minutes. to blame it all on the refs or a significant portion in this case is off base. the Redskins went into the locker room with a 13-3 lead and came out in the second half and did zilch. they were outscored 13-0. no sense of urgency. no playmaking. nobody stepping up to help win this game at home and keep the team in the hunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 this game it wouldn't have mattered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieselfan44 Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 I hate refs as much as the next guy, but that was not a fumble..he reached out to break the plane and had control of the ball when it touched the ground Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 I hate refs as much as the next guy, but that was not a fumble..he reached out to break the plane and had control of the ball when it touched the ground ??? he was on top another player, when it was stripped out. but it's a moot point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskin4ever Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 ??? he was on top another player, when it was stripped out.but it's a moot point Yes, but he put the ball on on the ground and the when his arm hit is when the ball came out. Meaning, he was down by contact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metalhead Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 I think that call was pretty big. That rule does need to change, that's for sure. Hell if the refs don't even know, then don't rule it down. The ball came out of his hand before it was down. That play led to the go-ahead score, so it was obviously a critical call. The only reason it seemed like we got the "benefit" in calls today was because Oakland is worse in discipline than we are and had a lot more mistakes. Our flags were legit, just as their's were (except for holding, I scratch my head after every game). The pi call before the fumble seemed like the right call to me...the receiver has to see the ball to catch it, that's a fact of reality, or he wouldn't know the ball was there. The other guy came over top and clocked him in the helmet. On every pass to a reciever in the nfl, the reciever sees the ball before it gets to them. I don't see why people think we got away with murder on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIDETHEWALRUS Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 I'm not sure of the rule, but the ball popped when it touched the ground, but before any part of his body touched it. I WAS SCREAMING LIKEA BANSHEE WHEN i THOUGHT IT WAS A FUMBLE THOUGH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 Yes, but he put the ball on on the ground and the when his arm hit is when the ball came out. Meaning, he was down by contact. no it doesn't the ground can cause a fumble if the player is NOT down... he wasn't so it was a live football. But the ball was stripped as he was falling down by a redskin player. but again as bad as the offense was playing, we would have gotten a safety anyways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 I'm not sure of the rule, but the ball popped when it touched the ground, but before any part of his body touched it.. the rule states it is a live football. but yet again... it really didn't make a difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donita35 Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 when there is a fumble in a game, and the refs call it down by contact, no one has a chance to challenge it. I thought Jordon fumbled, but maybe not. But what I'm saying is, I don't understand why, even if is clearly not a fumble but the ball still comes out, the refs need to call it a fumble and let teams use their challenges. It should really be a rule by the refs. It just seems unfair when they say "down by contact" and we can see on replays that the player fumbled. I really hope that you are not implying that that play was the deciding factor of the game. Please! When are people going to stop blaming the refs, the offense did not show up. Period. You cannot win like that. It is the usally recipe -- turnovers, droped balls and three and outs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RavenzSuck Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 It should have never came down to this. Ryan Clark had a fumble recovery in his hands a few plays before this. How the hell did the Oakland running back wrestle the ball away from him?? Ryan needs more work in the weight room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qb18_200400 Posted November 21, 2005 Author Share Posted November 21, 2005 I'm not even blaming the refs for this lose, it just pisses me off seeing the down by contact bull****. yeah it may work in our favor sometimes, but to be fair, it needs to done re-thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 It should have never came down to this. Ryan Clark had a fumble recovery in his hands a few plays before this. How the hell did the Oakland running back wrestle the ball away from him?? Ryan needs more work in the weight room. I agree, Ryan should've had that ball no question, but Zach Crockett is a very big boy.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xtreme56 Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 the Redskins ultimately lost vs. the Bucs and Raiders because they didn't make enough plays over 60 minutes. to blame it all on the refs or a significant portion in this case is off base. the Redskins went into the locker room with a 13-3 lead and came out in the second half and did zilch. they were outscored 13-0. no sense of urgency. no playmaking. nobody stepping up to help win this game at home and keep the team in the hunt. Exactly!!! If the offense had done its job then this shouldn't have been an issue, kind of like the San Fran kick/punt return for a TD at the end of the game a few weeks ago. The team did its job during the game by putting enough points up so this wasn't a crucial factor in the outcome, which should have been the situation today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.