Why The Call on Ben's Fumble Stood (from Bleacher Report)

From Bleacher Report... (Not my opinion... I still say Brady and Peyton would have had teh call reversed!) In my other posts I said there would be some unknown provision to the tuck rule that would come out and sure enough there is one...


"During his review, Leavy considered several key rules, such as 8-1-1, which specifies that an attempt is a forward pass if "the ball initially moves forward" or if "contact by an opponent materially affects [the passer], causing the ball to go backward." Given these provisions, it would appear Leavy could have ruled an incomplete pass.

However, the NFL's little-known recock rule—8-1-1-c—complicates matters.

The rule specifies that if a "passer loses possession of the ball while attempting to recock his arm, it is a fumble." OK, so what is a recock and what is possession?

Rule 3-2-7-1 defines possession as a player's "firm grip and control" of the football. After contact with Umenyiora, it is possible that Roethlisberger lost his firm grip/control, therefore losing possession.

As for "recock," Webster's defines the action as, "to lift; to be prepared to be triggered; to turn or twist upward or to one side" (the NFL book does not define the term differently).

Therefore, evidence suggests Roethlisberger might have recocked his arm and might have lost possession of the football at some point from Umenyiora's contact through his release of the football. Accordingly, Rule 8-1-1-c might be relevant and might indicate the call on the field of "fumble" was correct.

Then again, it might not.

NFL replay rule 18-9 specifies that for a call to be overturned, there must exist "indisputable visual evidence" to suggest the call has been made in error. Maybe is not good enough.

This explains why, when Leavy addressed the MetLife Stadium crowd, he specified the call on the field shall stand, indicating a lack of indisputable visual evidence with which to overturn the ruling."

 

Re: Why The Call on Ben's Fumber Stood (from Bleacher Report

I thought the play was somewhat similar to Warner's fumble at the end of the super bowl. Although I thought Ben had slightly (?) more control of the ball than did Warner.

 

Re: Why The Call on Ben's Fumble Stood (from Bleacher Report

Ah I see. So he recocked... What a load of horseshat. The Steelers got recocked right in the ass by these worthless refs.

 

Re: Why The Call on Ben's Fumble Stood (from Bleacher Report

Interesting. That's a rule I didn't know. So if Ben pump fakes and accidentally loses the ball, that's technically a fumble and not an incomplete pass? That's what that rule seems to indicate, but I never never seen it called like that, and I have seen plenty of pump fakes come out

 

Re: Why The Call on Ben's Fumble Stood (from Bleacher Report

I have watched the play over and over again. Ben's grip on the ball was altered upon the hit, but I believe he still had the ball. Why? Because when it finally did leave his hand, it SQUIRTED out: you can see the trajectory change as Ben squeezes his fingers.

 

Re: Why The Call on Ben's Fumble Stood (from Bleacher Report

Yeah I agree. I don't know how the refs can "determine" how much actual control (if any) is lost when the ball shifts slightly in his hands. That is putting a lot of the burden and subjectivity on the official. It obviously doesn't matter, but Ben is the only person that could determine if he really lost control of the ball or not - and we will never hear that.

 

Re: Why The Call on Ben's Fumble Stood (from Bleacher Report

I would like to put my fist to that ref's face and THEN show him what a REAL "RECOCK" IS! Good grief dude!

 

Re: Why The Call on Ben's Fumble Stood (from Bleacher Report

:lolsign:

 

Re: Why The Call on Ben's Fumble Stood (from Bleacher Report

Ben's hand went from the right to the left. The ball came out going to the left. If the ball had not been in his had he couldn't have directed the direction of the ball. He did. Therefore it was.

 

Re: Why The Call on Ben's Fumble Stood (from Bleacher Report

Exactly!

 

Re: Why The Call on Ben's Fumble Stood (from Bleacher Report

I would like to give both of you a 'harumph'!!

99, out of 100, that is called incomplete.

 

Re: Why The Call on Ben's Fumble Stood (from Bleacher Report

Thank you Boomer! (i'm saying that in a really emphatic and nice tone in case you can't hear me)

 

Re: Why The Call on Ben's Fumble Stood (from Bleacher Report

Pretty much yeah.

 

Re: Why The Call on Ben's Fumble Stood (from Bleacher Report

Coming through loud and clear!

 

Re: Why The Call on Ben's Fumble Stood (from Bleacher Report

Cocked and recocked!!

 

Re: Why The Call on Ben's Fumble Stood (from Bleacher Report

Imagine this:

The ball comes out of Roethlisberger's hand and--instead of going to the ground--ends up in a lineman's hands, and he rumbles for a big gain. Now, do you think the refs would let that play stand as a "fumble recovery" OR call it "ineligible receiver?" My bet is on the latter. Another reason, to me, the call was 100% bogus.

 

Re: Why The Call on Ben's Fumble Stood (from Bleacher Report

Ben still had control of the ball as the arm was going forward. Collingsworthless showed a replay and he pinpointed that there was space between the palm and the ball. SO WHAT. i i can palm a basketball and there is space between my palm and the ball and i still have control.

 

Re: Why The Call on Ben's Fumble Stood (from Bleacher Report

There are so many instances where a QB hand is hit, they lose control of the ball and still throw a wobbler 10-20 yards down field. Those are deemed incomplete passes. This was no different, except Ben's throw only went 5 yards, so "hey, let's call this one a fumble"

 

Re: Why The Call on Ben's Fumble Stood (from Bleacher Report

How can you rule on a players "intent."

His arm was going forward, case closed. Change the friggin rule.

 

Re: Why The Call on Ben's Fumble Stood (from Bleacher Report

I think it was clear early on that the refs were not looking to make any favorable calls for the Steelers.

 

Re: Why The Call on Ben's Fumble Stood (from Bleacher Report

I loved when Simms (who I DESPISE) tried to illustrated with his yellow crayon WHY it was a fumble and completely proved why it wasnt lol....He drew a line on the screen showing where Ben loses the ball...except Ben still had it in his hand where the yellow line was What a moron....

 

Re: Why The Call on Ben's Fumble Stood (from Bleacher Report

I KNOW! I thought the SAME THING! I was like "DUDE YOU JUST SHOWED ME NOTHING!!! NOTHINGGGG!!! YOU ARE SUCH A HOMER!!!"

 

Re: Why The Call on Ben's Fumble Stood (from Bleacher Report

Here's another take from SI.com

http://nfl.si.com/2012/11/04/ben-roethl ... &eref=sihp

 

Re: Why The Call on Ben's Fumble Stood (from Bleacher Report

Well, the reason that space was there, IMO, was because the defender dislodged it from his hand, ever so slightly. So, I could see where technically, he was losing posession prior to moving forward.....

I thought there was more contact there, than there was on the crap pass interference call the refs gave us earlier in the game. Or, the "Blow to the head"......... Plus the non-call clip against Heath on the fumble return.......

 

Re: Why The Call on Ben's Fumble Stood (from Bleacher Report

Actually, I thought Simms, for the most part, thought the Steelers got shafted in most of those calls. He was even adamant it was a bad call until suddenly, after a TV break, he had a change of heart. I wouldn't put it past the NFL that they called the booth during the break and told Simms to change his opinion, and lay off the refs.......