Rufus T Firefly 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. It matters a lot. They are trying to determine whether blowing the whistle affected the recovery. If they can't determine who would have recovered it if everyone hadn't stopped, then they would say "unreviewable". Sellers and the first defender both went for the ball, it popped out and the second defender was the only one who could have recovered it at that point. That's all that matters. It doesn't mean anything that he picked it up slowly or didn't run afterward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows 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. i dont think they should be allowed to play through the whistle at all...... when the whistle is blown the play is dead end of story .... otherwise what control of the game can the refs have if players dont respect the whistle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjcindc 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. Granted, but primarily it does grudgingly look to fumble to me. And it looks like he just let go of the ball... didn't look like the ball got jarred. Why couldn't he have just held onto the ball.... in overtime for gods sake. No fumble and no zebra BS. Sellers is a clutch fumbler. HAIL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 It matters a lot. They are trying to determine whether blowing the whistle affected the recovery. If they can't determine who would have recovered it if everyone hadn't stopped, then they would say "unreviewable". Sellers and the first defender both went for the ball, it popped out and the second defender was the only one who could have recovered it at that point. That's all that matters. It doesn't mean anything that he picked it up slowly or didn't run afterward. No, first they have to determine if the player recovering the "fumble" was doing enough to be declared "playing through the whistle"...THAT is all that matters and that's why it doesn't matte whether or not any other Skins players were around. Imagine 3 other Redskins players within reasonable distance to the ball, but the Saints player who "recovers" the fumble was not playing through the whistle at all but instead just picked it up and threw it over to the ref. Would it still be a fumble recovery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 i dont think they should be allowed to play through the whistle at all...... when the whistle is blown the play is dead end of story .... otherwise what control of the game can the refs have if players dont respect the whistle? Come on man, Hochuli rule. It is important. I think that even know we were on the wrong end of this call, the problems with it do not outweigh the benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 i dont think they should be allowed to play through the whistle at all...... when the whistle is blown the play is dead end of story .... otherwise what control of the game can the refs have if players dont respect the whistle? I agree 1,000% :yes:...However, it's a rule at the current time, so my issues are more on how a ref inteprets "playing through the whistle". If either Sellers of the Saints defender on the ground with him had recovered, I might begrudgingly accept that under the current rules it should be seen as a recovered fumble even though it happened after the whistle (or numerous whistles, actually). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Granted, but primarily it does grudgingly look to fumble to me. And it looks like he just let go of the ball... didn't look like the ball got jarred. Why couldn't he have just held onto the ball.... in overtime for gods sake. No fumble and no zebra BS. Sellers is a clutch fumbler.HAIL I was thinking the same damn thing lol :mad:...I could only assume that since Sellers got hit immediately upon turning up-field that it caught him off guard enough to cause him to fumble. Either that, or the hit caused some serious pain that automatically made his body loosen or something like that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay 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.... You are totally right. I can't believe the mixed messages. The refs are basically saying "STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP!!!!" but that really means "Keep going!" What the hell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADF Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 The more I look at it... I'm not sure Sellers caught the ball. He bobbled it, then BAM! Also, I agree that they need to set a time limit for when the ball can be recovered. This one was on the borderline for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 No, first they have to determine if the player recovering the "fumble" was doing enough to be declared "playing through the whistle"...THAT is all that matters and that's why it doesn't matte whether or not any other Skins players were around. Imagine 3 other Redskins players within reasonable distance to the ball, but the Saints player who "recovers" the fumble was not playing through the whistle at all but instead just picked it up and threw it over to the ref. Would it still be a fumble recovery? No, in that case they would say that the whistle blowing affected the recovery of the ball, and we would have kept. Essentially, the fumble becomes unreviewable at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 No, in that case they would say that the whistle blowing affected the recovery of the ball, and we would have kept. Essentially, the fumble becomes unreviewable at that point. Exactly...because the player picking up the ball dictates whether or not it should be considered a recovered fumble...not whether or not the opposing team had any players close enough to "recover" it. For me, there's just too many "what ifs" for this rule to truly be effective...It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they decided to reverse the rule somewhere down the road, especially if it results in an injury due to some players listening to the whistle and other players continuing to go full speed because it's allowed. I don't need football to be perfect, and I agree with the argument that "human error" on the refs parts is just as much part of the game as "human error" on the players parts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Exactly...because the player picking up the ball dictates whether or not it should be considered a recovered fumble...not whether or not the opposing team had any players close enough to "recover" it. For me, there's just too many "what ifs" for this rule to truly be effective...It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they decided to reverse the rule somewhere down the road, especially if it results in an injury due to some players listening to the whistle and other players continuing to go full speed because it's allowed. I don't need football to be perfect, and I agree with the argument that "human error" on the refs parts is just as much part of the game as "human error" on the players parts... For the record, I was not pointing out that because no Skins had a chance to recover it, this was a reason the rule should be enforced. I just mentioned that to point out that if the ref hadn't blown the whistle, it wouldn't have made a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DixieFlatline Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 i dont think they should be allowed to play through the whistle at all...... when the whistle is blown the play is dead end of story .... otherwise what control of the game can the refs have if players dont respect the whistle? This. It's a stupid rule because you are basically being told to ignore the whistle because it could still be live. Idiotic rule....just idiotic. And I've thought that before the Redskins were affected by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 This.It's a stupid rule because you are basically being told to ignore the whistle because it could still be live. Idiotic rule....just idiotic. And I've thought that before the Redskins were affected by it. Just to play devils advocate again, you might feel differently if you were a Chargers fan. They got SCREWED by the old rule last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zCommander 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 said it in the chat that they looked at the replay when the ball was stripped and not when he actually made the INT as he was down and got up and started running. Why the HELL didn't Zorn counter challenge - unless you can't do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins island connection Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Well Zorn should tell every player to play 3 seconds after they hear the whistle, and wait for the flag to come out; then petition the rule in general. I'm sure he won't have to tell LL this twice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 For the record, I was not pointing out that because no Skins had a chance to recover it, this was a reason the rule should be enforced. I just mentioned that to point out that if the ref hadn't blown the whistle, it wouldn't have made a difference. Well, yeah, that I agree with lol ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Just to play devils advocate again, you might feel differently if you were a Chargers fan. They got SCREWED by the old rule last year. I thought Mike P said this rule has been in effect since 2006?...If so, the old rule wouldn't have screwed anyone over last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DixieFlatline Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Just to play devils advocate again, you might feel differently if you were a Chargers fan. They got SCREWED by the old rule last year. I remember that play, but what's the worst of two evils? 1) Having the whistle end the play even though it should have been a fumble? or 2) Having players ignore whistles because they never know when a play is really dead? Nothing is perfect when it comes to replay, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Why can't we review false starts....pass interference? Heck, even in cases without fumbles, if they rule down by contact and blow the whistle, the runner is deemed down even if replay may show later he never touched the ground. Why should that be different just because there may have been a fumble? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADF Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I thought Mike P said this rule has been in effect since 2006?...If so, the old rule wouldn't have screwed anyone over last year. You would be correct. Here is the play. I can't remember what excuse was given. The play was probably unreviewable for some reason. Here, the ball was recovered just about time the whistle blew. The ball should have gone to the Chargers. In our case, the play went on for about another five seconds with the ref blowing the whistle. Count off five seconds and that's long for football. I'm cool with the rule for immediate recoveries like the Jay Cutler incident but if a ref is continuously blowing a whistle for around five seconds then the play should end there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 You would be correct. Here is the play. I can't remember what excuse was given. The play was probably unreviewable for some reason. Here, the ball was recovered just about time the whistle blew. The ball should have gone to the Chargers. In our case, the play went on for about another five seconds with the ref blowing the whistle. Count off five seconds and that's long for football. I cool with the rule for immediate recoveries like the Jay Cutler incident but if a ref is continuously blowing a whistle for around five seconds then the play should end there. Amen to all of that :yes: ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I thought Mike P said this rule has been in effect since 2006?...If so, the old rule wouldn't have screwed anyone over last year. Hmm I thought the rule was put in effect after the Hochuli debacle, which I thought was last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Hmm I thought the rule was put in effect after the Hochuli debacle, which I thought was last season. Must have been a different rule screwing someone over lol :cool:... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff in D.C. Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 It looked like the ball may have been coming out before his arm was down, who knows. Now I haven't read through all of the posts on this, but has anyone else actually held Sellers accountable for fumbling the ball in the first place? If he had just held on to it none of this would be an issue. We held Suisham accountable for missing crucial, crunch-time kicks but Sellers has made plenty of mistakes this season as well, and remember his fumble in the Bengals game last year. Bottom line is if we're going to have "screw Suisham" rants, then what about Sellers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thirtyfive2seven Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 You know what pisses me off is that it just doesn't ****ing matter anymore. As soon as the play went to review I knew the saints would get the ball. Jason Campbell, as the leader of the team should have hurried to the line and snapped the football as quickly as possible. Anytime you have a questionable call in overtime that should be your first thought. Get the play off before someone reviews it just in case. It doesn't matter if it was or wasn't a fumble if you snap the ball and get on with the next damn play. How long has JC been in the league? You'd think any player would know this, right? I don't mean to be critical of only JC because Landry played like crap and so did plenty of other players. Ultimately, Sellers should have had better ball security. You'd think HE would know that after the Bengals game a few years ago. And that is the other point I want to make. How come none of these players seem to learn anything from prior mistakes? How many times do we have to see Eagles, Broncos, and Saints players running down the field wide open before something gets fixed? Bad coaching? How many times do we have to see players fumble at CRITICAL times during a game? I can rattle off 10 fumbles since Gibbs 2.0 that cost the Skins games just off the top of my head. That's just pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.