BurgGold75 Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 long drawn out breakdown of 'the fumble' In case anyone still cares...no explanation on why NO got their TO back, but whatever..... http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/09000d5d814d957a/Official-Review Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidFan Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Mike P rarely cites mea culpa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Fried Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 That's total bull. The fact that you can't even tell in one view and the other is sketchy, it's not grounds for calling it conclusive evidence. Plus, they don't account for the fact that the ball was ruled dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 The fix is in..... does anyone think the NFL was going to admit their screw job? yes I'm still bitter :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goflyhelo Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 The call was wrong... it's fitting Mike P wears glasses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I think the whole "They players played through the whistle" response that Mike P gave is complete bull****...even the guy who "recovered" the fumble was only going at about 25% speed when he picked up the ball...they all heard the whistle and it did effect their play. The only two players who even remotely "played through the whistle" were Sellers and a Saints defender who came in afterwards...and NEITHER of them recovered the football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I think the whole "They players played through the whistle" response that Mike P gave is complete bull****...even the guy who "recovered" the fumble was only going at about 25% speed when he picked up the ball...they all heard the whistle and it did effect their play. The only two players who even remotely "played through the whistle" were Sellers and a Saints defender who came in afterwards...and NEITHER of them recovered the football. The Saint who picked up the ball, did it causally, he made no attempt to score, heck he went to hand it to the official. :gus: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgGold75 Posted December 10, 2009 Author Share Posted December 10, 2009 I think the whole "They players played through the whistle" response that Mike P gave is complete bull****...even the guy who "recovered" the fumble was only going at about 25% speed when he picked up the ball...they all heard the whistle and it did effect their play. The only two players who even remotely "played through the whistle" were Sellers and a Saints defender who came in afterwards...and NEITHER of them recovered the football. I was at the game and the play happened right in front of me and there was MULTIPLE whistles before anyone picked up the ball...and a ref signaling down adamantly. I just don't think this is an example of how playing through the whistle is suppose to work.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 The Saint who picked up the ball, did it causally, he made no attempt to score, heck he went to hand it to the official.:gus: Exactly...yet this doofus is saying "Clear recovery, though, by New Orleans, that's a key factor here...nobody stopped playing..." Um, the guy who "RECOVERED THE DAMN BALL" stopped playing as he casually picked up the ball and made a few jogs with it, then stopped...it should take a helluva LOT more to establish recovering of a fumble after the whistle tells every single player on the field that it's a dead ball than merely picking it up lol :doh:... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 i am very bitter.... and i know in my heart that..... the ball was loose prior to him hitting the ground..... the ball was fumbled..... however..... i know also that the whistle was blown and the ref called the ball down and dead..... and the guy that picks up the ball ........i dont think he even knew at that point ...that he had recovered a fumble.... the game was clearly given to the saints and it wasnt by accident..... i think it is the leagues desire that the saints continue their streak...... ultimately we exploited their weaknesses and exposed them as being less than invincible..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Pause the video at 42 seconds in and tell me that's not a fumble. Also, as for the playing through the whistle thing, the only players who had a chance to pick up the ball if there was no whistle were Saints players. Sorry, still can't agree with you guys that it wasn't a fumble. I think the side angle shows it's clearly coming out before any part of his arms hit the ground. I know this is an unpopular opinion on here, but imo the officials got it right. Both Sellers and the guy who tackled him lunged right for the ball and knocked it away. The only person who had a chance to get it at that point was the guy who ended up recovering. He didn't run anywhere because the whistle was already blown. It was the correct call based on the Hochuli rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rypien1191 Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I still think it was an incomplete pass. Ive seen guys hold onto a pass for longer than that and still have it ruled incomplete since theyve instituted the new completion rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I was at the game and the play happened right in front of me and there was MULTIPLE whistles before anyone picked up the ball...and a ref signaling down adamantly. I just don't think this is an example of how playing through the whistle is suppose to work.... I don't, either...and that's what this whole thing hinges on, according to Mike P...whether or not it actually WAS a fumble seems less relevant than whether or not players kept playing through the whistle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Pause the video at 42 seconds in and tell me that's not a fumble. Also, as for the playing through the whistle thing, the only players who had a chance to pick up the ball if there was no whistle were Saints players. Sorry, still can't agree with you guys that it wasn't a fumble. I think the side angle shows it's clearly coming out before any part of his arms hit the ground. I know this is an unpopular opinion on here, but imo the officials got it right. None of what you're saying is relevant, though. Hardly matters if only Saints players had a chance at recovering it... Whether or not it was a fumble is secondary to whether or not having a ref blow the play dead should be overridden...and if it IS overridden, whether or not the guy "recovering" the fumble was actually doing enough to classify it as "playing through the whistle". Because from the explanation, if nobody jumped on the ball and a Saints player walked over a few seconds later to pick the ball up and give it to the ref, it wouldn't have been ruled a recovered fumble...it would have been ruled a fumble, but not a recovered one. Which is why it doesn't really matter whether or not the ball was fumbled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 None of what you're saying is relevant, though. Hardly matters if only Saints players had a chance at recovering it...Whether or not it was a fumble is secondary to whether or not having a ref blow the play dead should be overridden...and if it IS overridden, whether or not the guy "recovering" the fumble was actually doing enough to classify it as "playing through the whistle". Because from the explanation, if nobody jumped on the ball and a Saints player walked over a few seconds later to pick the ball up and give it to the ref, it wouldn't have been ruled a recovered fumble...it would have been ruled a fumble, but not a recovered one. Which is why it doesn't really matter whether or not the ball was fumbled. He did "play through the whistle" by going for the ball and picking it up. He only stopped after he had already recovered it. It's not like a Redskins player was standing right there and didn't go for it because he heard the whistle. Then we would have legitimate beef with the refs over that play. Fact is that Saints player was the only one who could have recovered that and he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 the whistle was blown and he was down by contact...... end of story...... i think the problem is the review rule..... why is it.... the league is the only ones capable of challenging a call in OT? why cant they just award each team one challenge in overtime and continue under the reg game rules..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportjunkie07 Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 so if the saints player would have ran the ball into the end zone would it have been a touchdown?? what a stupid rule, when the whistle blows the play should be over... i really wished they would have reviewed the int-strip-saints touchdown. i would love to see their explanation on that officiating/play fiasco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Pause the video at 42 seconds in and tell me that's not a fumble. Also, as for the playing through the whistle thing, the only players who had a chance to pick up the ball if there was no whistle were Saints players. Sorry, still can't agree with you guys that it wasn't a fumble. I think the side angle shows it's clearly coming out before any part of his arms hit the ground. I know this is an unpopular opinion on here, but imo the officials got it right.Both Sellers and the guy who tackled him lunged right for the ball and knocked it away. The only person who had a chance to get it at that point was the guy who ended up recovering. He didn't run anywhere because the whistle was already blown. It was the correct call based on the Hochuli rule. I agree. Would have liked for them to look at the Moore INT clusterf.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgGold75 Posted December 10, 2009 Author Share Posted December 10, 2009 i am very bitter.... and i know in my heart that..... the ball was loose prior to him hitting the ground..... the ball was fumbled..... however..... i know also that the whistle was blown and the ref called the ball down and dead..... and the guy that picks up the ball ........i dont think he even knew at that point ...that he had recovered a fumble....the game was clearly given to the saints and it wasnt by accident..... i think it is the leagues desire that the saints continue their streak...... ultimately we exploited their weaknesses and exposed them as being less than invincible..... For the first time in my life, after this fumble, and this game was over I thought maybe we are cursed by the redskins name...I have never seen so much voodoo things happen in one game. BTW - i mean that in a joking way, i'm not really serious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 so if the saints player would have ran the ball into the end zone would it have been a touchdown?? what a stupid rule, when the whistle blows the play should be over...i really wished they would have reviewed the int-strip-saints touchdown. i would love to see their explanation on that officiating/play fiasco. Nope, with the Hochuli rule the recovering team always gets the ball at the spot of the recovery I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I agree.Would have liked for them to look at the Moore INT clusterf.... That I would have liked them to look at, but I still don't have a problem with the call on the field. It was VERY close whether or not Moore should have been called down by contact, but I don't think there was enough to overturn it. Imagine that instead of what happened, Moore returns the INT for a TD. Saints challenge and it gets overturned saying he was down at the point of the INT. I think we would probably be even more pissed if that was the case, and rightfully so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 That I would have liked them to look at, but I still don't have a problem with the call on the field. It was VERY close whether or not Moore should have been called down by contact, but I don't think there was enough to overturn it. Imagine that instead of what happened, Moore returns the INT for a TD. Saints challenge and it gets overturned saying he was down at the point of the INT. I think we would probably be even more pissed if that was the case, and rightfully so. I doubt I would be. But I also am unconvinced he caught the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I doubt I would be. But I also am unconvinced he caught the ball. Yeah it was really hard to tell on the replays they showed on TV. I would have liked them to review that play as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 He did "play through the whistle" by going for the ball and picking it up. He only stopped after he had already recovered it. Don't agree at all...he looks like he slacked up after Sellers and the other Saints defender started diving for it. Once the ball squirted out from beneath them, he picked it up and did a few half-hearted jogs with it before just stopping. I also think that "playing through the whistle" should entail a time limit as to what occurs after the whistle...1 or 2 seconds after the whistle, maybe...anything beyond that and you HAVE to assume that the whistle being blown effected the outcome of what occurs after it's blown. No other real way of approaching it and having it be fair. It's not like a Redskins player was standing right there and didn't go for it because he heard the whistle. Then we would have legitimate beef with the refs over that play. Fact is that Saints player was the only one who could have recovered that and he did. Again, it doesn't matter one iota whether or not no Skins player was there to try and recover it or if the entire offense was close enough to recover it. Not sure why you keep bringing that up since it doesn't effect the call or the overturn by review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Don't agree at all...he looks like he slacked up after Sellers and the other Saints defender started diving for it. Once the ball squirted out from beneath them, he picked it up and did a few half-hearted jogs with it before just stopping. I also think that "playing through the whistle" should entail a time limit as to what occurs after the whistle...1 or 2 seconds after the whistle, maybe...anything beyond that and you HAVE to assume that the whistle being blown effected the outcome of what occurs after it's blown. No other real way of approaching it and having it be fair.Again, it doesn't matter one iota whether or not no Skins player was there to try and recover it or if the entire offense was close enough to recover it. Not sure why you keep bringing that up since it doesn't effect the call or the overturn by review. Well I can't explain my point of view any further. Agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.