question about the 1st rogers dropped INT

[grego]

havent seen anything on this, even perusing the rogers threads, but i'm sure i'm not the only one to wonder.....

if rogers had been ruled to have possession, as he goes to the ground, he makes contact with the WR. if the ball comes out upon contact with the ground, wouldnt it have been our ball there, as the ground cant cause a fumble.

its my understanding the the 'finish the catch' rule applies to TD"s and falling out of bounds calls, and thats in order to establish possession. my question is , if he had been said to have possession, isnt it a ground cant cause the fumble rule?

[grego]

and sheehan is just fielding a question about this. but he's wrong about rogers not being touched. he was.

[Burgold]

I thought about it, but I'm not sure because contact causes to the tackle. After falling, Rogers would have had the right to get up and keep running. Not being able to fumble in that context, but being able to rise and run is kinda weird.

[AsburySkinsFan]

My only question about the Rogers int is this: Why the heck can Rogers not hang on to a dang ball!!!!

[grego]

I thought about it, but I'm not sure because contact causes to the tackle. After falling, Rogers would have had the right to get up and keep running. Not being able to fumble in that context, but being able to rise and run is kinda weird.

i think he would have been able to get up and run if he werent touched. clearly, the NFL isnt letting every near catch be called a catch, but it seems to me that when he contacts the WR on the way down, then hits the ground, that hes down at that point.

[Dan T.]

I thought about it, but I'm not sure because contact causes to the tackle. After falling, Rogers would have had the right to get up and keep running. Not being able to fumble in that context, but being able to rise and run is kinda weird.

He was touched on his way down, so he would have been considered down by contact. Redskins ball at the spot.

[Skinz4Life12]

I'm more pissed about Kareems dropped pick. That would have taken 7 points off the board for the Colts and almost certainly added at 3 or 7 for us

[MustangSteve]

wouldnt it have been our ball there, as the ground cant cause a fumble.

The ball never touched the ground, therefor that rules not in effect.

[terryb101]

because he has no hands|||| just like landry has no arms, thats why he misses and most of his tackles

[Titaw]

Here's the deal Carlos catches the ball, takes roughly four steps, is kicked in the ass by the Colts receiver on the way down, his elbow slams into the ground, the ball pops out. If the refs were to have ruled it a catch and fumble the Skins would have won the challenge because he was clearly kicked in the rear on the way down.

The fact of the matter is simple Carlos dropped two gifts by Manning and Kareem dropped one as well, you can't do that against the best QB in the league and expect to win.

[grego]

The ball never touched the ground, therefor that rules not in effect.

not sure what you mean, but i've always understand that rule means that when you hit the ground- meaning your butt or elbow or knee, even if the ball doesnt, you are down even if the ball pops out.

[grego]

i thought he was actually hit by the WR's hand,- had a few beers at that point, so my recollection could be shady- but at any rate, he was definitely touched. that much i know.

[Skinz248]

I'm more pissed about Kareems dropped pick. That would have taken 7 points off the board for the Colts and almost certainly added at 3 or 7 for us

this is what killed me... Kareem was hit right in the chest... Rogers was back peddling and had to make a hell of a play just to be in position to make that catch. Either way, we couldn't give Peyton second chances.

[kevincollateral]

i was so pissed during that review. you are exactly right. the ground cant cause a fumble.

if that is a completed catch...then its redskins ball...NOT fumble and indy ball.

i still cant understand why no one realized this (announcers, refs, coaches challenging the play)

[Titaw]

The ball never touched the ground, therefor that rules not in effect.

Wrong, the ball does not have to hit the ground. If Addai, while running the ball, were to have gotten touched and he fell the way Carlos did and his elbow slammed the ground causing the ball to pop out, the ground, not the hit, caused the fumble and it would be Colts ball where he came in contact with the ground.

[x96bryan10]

hey didnt want to start another thread on this but on the Orakpo forced fumble does he still credit for a sack/ forced fumble on that play since he didnt actually tackle Manning or is it just a FF?

[Skinz248]

hey didnt want to start another thread on this but on the Orakpo forced fumble does he still credit for a sack/ forced fumble on that play since he didnt actually tackle Manning or is it just a FF?

should be a sack/ff combo

[Chachie]

He was touched on his way down, so he would have been considered down by contact. Redskins ball at the spot.

That's how I saw it. I'll have to look again, I guess. I swore that was catch, tackle, down by contact though.

[Xameil]

That's how I saw it. I'll have to look again, I guess. I swore that was catch, tackle, down by contact though.

yeah me too. I could have sworn that he caught it and was down by contact before the ball popped out. He had the ball took a couple steps (backwards) and then went down.

[JoeJGibbs]

Something to consider:

* When a pass in airborn, nobody is in posession of the ball. So posession rules come into play. The ball must be resecured be either the offense or defense and then fumble rules & down by contact rules will apply

When a player is running the ball, he already has posession of the ball so if he were to go to the ground and get touched in the process, and have the ball pop out like it did on Los, the ground cannot cause a fumble. Alternately, if someone is running the football, and just decides to jump on the ground, is not touched and the ball comes loose, it's a fumble.

I dont much care for the rule of a player having to maintain posession of the ball all the way to the ground though on a pass though.

[redskins55]

Carlos clearly didnt have possession of that ball. C'mon guys lets be real here. He catches it but never secures it and makes a football move. He was falling backwards due to his momentum (not a football move) so he would've had to contain the ball throughout the entire process of the catch. The ball was moving when his elbow hit the ground, that's why it popped out. No catch! No Hands... Rogers no big contract next year.. lol $$

[grego]

i actually thought, 55, that he did have it secure, but i get the part about the 'football move', however vague that rule is (remember the taylor hit on crayton that was ruled a non catch). i'd have to look again, but i thought rogers had it put away til it popped out.

[SonOfWashington]

because he has no hands|||| just like landry has no arms, thats why he misses and most of his tackles

What?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I have to give the NFL credit. I have been obsessed with football since I was 8 years old. And now - at age 36 - I can no longer explain what a "catch" is. Seriously, I'm lost. Help me.

[ZoEd]

This is the way I see it as well but I do remember last season Sellers forearm hit the ground causing the ball to pop out and they called it a fumble. I get more and more confused each season with the rules. Orakpo in a rear naked choke, not a hold. Rogers obviously had control of the ball and it should have been ruled a catch.