Quote:
Originally Posted by over the mountain
the good explanation i read is that while RG3 did re-gain control before the ball crossed the plane ... since he lost and then re-gained control of the ball (all while in the air), he needed to maintain control as he hit the ground (like a receiver who makes a toe-tap reception in the endzone).
the spirit of the rule (im guessing) is that you need to establish possession throughout the entire football act .... but it seems strange that re-establishing possession by falling out of bounds matters.
but did the ball touch the ground though? it looked like he bobbled it but kept it off the ground?
i think the rule was applied technically correct.
i dont think that rule ever envisioned being applied to what happened on RG3's dive (having control-losing control-regaining control).
i imagine an exception will be made where this rule will not apply to a player who had previously established control on the play (ala runner)
|
The rule was correctly applied (unfortunately) but it's a bad rule. It's just dumb. He had possession, it was never fully out of his hands (i.e. on the ground or in the air) and possession was never in conflict with the other team. To me a fumble isn't a fumble until the ball hits the ground or is in peril of changing possession. I don't understand why the NFL is so stubborn in having/enforcing stupid rules and yet still missing basic calls like the roughing the passer in the Seattle game.
I really hope the Belicheck proposal passes that makes every call reviewable and that tools like Jeff Fisher get off the Competition Committee that makes the game more convoluded than simple.
*Unrelated pet peeve: I hate penalties enforced that had nothing to do with the outcome of the play like illegal formation because the WR doesn't cover up the tackle or holding on a fair catch or touchback. Just pick up the damn flag and move on.*