I have a question (down by contact rule)

[duenni]

When Landry and the WR went for the ball both somehow collided into each other and the play was whistled dead!!

Didn't we get robbed a TD there??

I mean the WR didn't try tackle Landry or anything they just bumped into each other! Is that really regarded as a tackle???

Was that something Gibbs could have challanged??

I just want to understand the rule. Thanks for the help!!

[Dan T.]

Nah, any contact with an opposing player as the ball carrier is going down or already down is ruled down by contact. It was the right call.

[Hitman#21]

Thats a really good question, it looked like a good call, and with a challenge they wouldnt give us a td anyway.........

[hailtotheskins69]

and it is a reviewable call under the new rules I believe. I may be wrong but im sure it is. He did run it back but if they blew the whistle then the play is dead and he cant review.

[Dick Edds]

When Landry and the WR went for the ball both somehow collided into each other and the play was whistled dead!!

Didn't we get robbed a TD there??

I mean the WR didn't try tackle Landry or anything they just bumped into each other! Is that really regarded as a tackle???

Was that something Gibbs could have challanged??

I just want to understand the rule. Thanks for the help!!

I was confused too, because I thought you couldn't technically be down by contact unless you had possession of the ball? When LL collided with their WR, he had not yet established possession. Looked to me like they both hit each other and then Landry caught the ball and went to the ground.

Shouldn't he have had to be touched to be down? Looked like the same type of situation as last week when Springs collided with Terry Glenn and got up and ran after the INT? Maybe I am grasping for straws here, but that was still a great play by Landry, he had a helluva game!

[DGreenistheBest]

Yeah, I thought it was a close call but the right one. Where the skins really got robbed was the kickoff. The refs called it right but the rule itself is completely arbitrary. I've been trying to come up with a good reason for not advancing a fumble on a kickoff and I can't.

[Smoot Point Really]

I don't believe it is reviewable, down by contact usually means whistles blow and the play is dead and players stop, so you can't give yards or points after that happens... Basically, the only question that I had on the play was if Landry really did have possession of the ball prior to Engram making contact with him. To me, the interception was exactly the same thing that happened to Springs when he picked off Romo sits to pee. There was contact on that play, but Springs wasn't ruled "down by contact". IMO, it was a bad call, but it wasn't reviewable. BTW, didn't we score on that drive anyway to make it 14-13?

BTW, didn't anyone else here think it was funny that CrisC was making the point about Hasslebeck being able to throw to Engram on the slant with his eyes closed, and then Landry picks it off? He even made the point again on the very next Hasslebeck play when they completed it (and CrisC obviously didn't mention that he must've had his eyes closed on the play Landry picked).

[[[ghost]]]

Nah, any contact with an opposing player as the ball carrier is going down or already down is ruled down by contact. It was the right call.

I would say its the correct call, not Right. By right, it seems as if the rule is perfectly okay. The ref enforced the rule, but it was a stupid one.

[RedskinsNation]

We scored a TD anyway a couple plays later after that pick so who cares.

[kuraitengai]

I was confused too, because I thought you couldn't technically be down by contact unless you had possession of the ball? When LL collided with their WR, he had not yet established possession. Looked to me like they both hit each other and then Landry caught the ball and went to the ground.

Shouldn't he have had to be touched to be down? Looked like the same type of situation as last week when Springs collided with Terry Glenn and got up and ran after the INT? Maybe I am grasping for straws here, but that was still a great play by Landry, he had a helluva game!

my dad asked me the same thing after it happened and i brought up the dallas game and springs' int. i think we got away with one there. he did collide with glenn on the int but wasnt ruled down. the difference was he got up and only ran for a few more yards i believe, not more than five. but that one should have been ruled down as well.

it was the right call for LL, as much as i wish it wasnt. but we still scored on that possession.

[Heidenreich]

We scored a TD anyway a couple plays later after that pick so who cares.

Exactly. So in the long run it meant nothing......

[Smoot Point Really]

Exactly. So in the long run it meant nothing......

Actually, an official blows a call like that and it should mean something. There were other issues with officials giving the Redskins' bad spots (like on the Sellers flop) and calling the Collins incompletion a fumble before they got the call right and called it an incompletion. There were points in the game that I thought the fans were actually the 13th man and the 12th man was in stripes on the field.

[TMK9973]

The call was correct.

you are overthinking the rule.

It's simple - The question is, did the runner touch the ground on his own, or because of another player. And if on his own, was he tocuhed while on the ground.

In this case - While Landry was jumping to the ball, the other players foot hit his foot, causing him to fall to the ground when he caught it. The fact that the contact happened before he had control of the ball is irrelvent. Landry hit the ground because of it.

Yes -It could have been challanged, but would have stayed

[BlueTalon]

Yeah, I thought it was a close call but the right one. Where the skins really got robbed was the kickoff. The refs called it right but the rule itself is completely arbitrary. I've been trying to come up with a good reason for not advancing a fumble on a kickoff and I can't.

There's a really good reason you couldn't advance a fumble on that kickoff -- there was never a fumble. No Seahawk player ever touched the ball, which made it a long onside kick rather than a fumble. And the kicking team can't advance a recovered onside kick.

Had we actually fumbled the ball, I believe you could have run it in for the score, and that TD would have counted.

[dfbovey]

Actually, an official blows a call like that and it should mean something. There were other issues with officials giving the Redskins' bad spots (like on the Sellers flop) and calling the Collins incompletion a fumble before they got the call right and called it an incompletion. There were points in the game that I thought the fans were actually the 13th man and the 12th man was in stripes on the field.

If it were an actual blow call it would mean something. But it was the right call.

I agree with you about the spot on that Sellers play though.

[BlueTalon]

That was a bad spot IMO. You guys should have had that 1st down.

I think the refs were feeling a little guilty for how they handled the Sean Alexander non-fumble (making us throw the challenge flag for something that was obvious and should have been called right the first time) and the Kerney/Collins fumble/incomplete, and threw us a bone.

BTW, I hate bad officiating of all kinds. The fact that my team benefits from a bad call doesn't mean I like the call. I'd rather not get any additional benefit in a well called game than get an advantage from bad calls.

[DirtySkin21]

we beas ourselves that game just like we beat ourselves almost every other game we lost this year. WE need to stop making stupid mistakes and then we can actually start dominating

[Dance04]

Yeah, I thought it was a close call but the right one. Where the skins really got robbed was the kickoff. The refs called it right but the rule itself is completely arbitrary. I've been trying to come up with a good reason for not advancing a fumble on a kickoff and I can't.

you can advance a fumble. In this case the ball wasnt fumbled, it never touched a seahawk player. If the seahawk player fumbled it, and THEN mix picked it up, it would have been a TD