Redskins vs Giants GameDay Thread

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

The ball doesnt have to touch the ground. The call is that RG3 gained possession when he was out of bounds. Which means no possession and the ruling that the fumble happened prior to crossing the goal line, then the ball proceeded to cross the goal line and go out of bounds so was ruled a touchback.

That doesn't make sense with the rule that was quoted:

"A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball [with or without contact by an opponent] must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession."

This is the operable phrase, I think. Griffin had possession, lost it and was attempting to re-secure it. He dragged his feet inbounds with the ball in his grasp (screen grab is out there), then fell to the ground. If he loses control of the ball (which he did) AND the ball touches the ground(which no angle I've seen shows) then maybe the ruling was correct. But the ruling on the field was a TD, so you need incontrovertible evidence to overturn it. I don't think that existed.

Who knows what would have happened from that point, but I just think it's another case this year (not just with the Redskins) of the officiating being worse than ever.

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

That doesn't make sense with the rule that was quoted:



This is the operable phrase, I think. Griffin had possession, lost it and was attempting to re-secure it. He dragged his feet inbounds with the ball in his grasp (screen grab is out there), then fell to the ground. If he loses control of the ball (which he did) AND the ball touches the ground(which no angle I've seen shows) then maybe the ruling was correct. But the ruling on the field was a TD, so you need incontrovertible evidence to overturn it. I don't think that existed.

Who knows what would have happened from that point, but I just think it's another case this year (not just with the Redskins) of the officiating being worse than ever.

Thats not the operable phrase, because it doesnt cover out of bounds. That rule does not allow for possession to be made out of bounds (no rule does).

Once the fumble happens, possession needs to be made again. In order for possession to happen, it takes one of two things.

1) Regain control of the ball and make a football move.
2) Regain control of the ball, then land on the ground and maintain possession of the ball through the ground.

Neither of which happened. The ruling is that he never had possession in the end zone. He had it prior to the goal line, then regained possession out of bounds past the goal line. Possession is not determined by ball control, it is determined by ball control AND the football move or maintaining control through the ground.

It doesnt matter if the ball hit the ground because the ruling is that when he re-made possession, he was already out of bounds.

[Lotus]

We've all learned a lesson: if you want to score a TD, hold on to the friggin' ball. Then the zebras can't say anything.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by Lotus

We've all learned a lesson: if you want to score a TD, hold on to the friggin' ball. Then the zebras can't say anything.

Seriously. No excuse for the fumble or bobble or whatever in the first place.

[Bucket]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Seriously. No excuse for the fumble or bobble or whatever in the first place.

Well if we are being critical. The original RG wouldn't of even been run down by JPP with 15yds of space. He would of walked in to the endzone. Sadly i feel that RG3 will never come back

[HailGreen28]

Or, when a guy bobbles the ball in his hands, doesn't even fumble it, and replay shows he got control of it with both hands again before it broke the plane of the goal line, it's called a touchdown like it should have been.

Oh wait, we're the Redskins. Nevermind.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Or, when a guy bobbles the ball in his hands, doesn't even fumble it, and replay shows he got control of it with both hands again before it broke the plane of the goal line, it's called a touchdown like it should have been.

Oh wait, we're the Redskins. Nevermind.

If there were no bobble, which is the proper way to do it, the rest of your post does not matter.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Seriously. No excuse for the fumble or bobble or whatever in the first place.

His arm got jostled if you look at the replay

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by Avinash_Tyagi

His arm got jostled if you look at the replay

Ive seen waitresses get jostled harder than that and hold their trays.