Redskins vs Giants GameDay Thread

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Avinash_Tyagi

Colt got sacked plenty in the past few games.

No, most were on the O-line, they kept letting the pocket collapse over and over on Griffin.

He's not blameless, there were moments where he held the ball too long, but the O-line was like swiss cheese yesterday

Even when Colt got sacked a lot last week, several were on him. Granted, that was the worst game I've seen from the OL this year, but he took some he shouldn't have.

A lot of these sacks could be avoided by getting the ball out faster. Does our OL needed upgraded? Absolutely.

[donofriose]

Too many variables to truly find someone to blame for a sack.

Could be QB, OL, WR, RB, or even the coach for calling a dumb play.

I do know that the offensive line gets beat a lot one on one which is a recipe for disaster.

[REDSKINS4ever]

Originally Posted by donofriose

I do know that the offensive line gets beat a lot one on one which is a recipe for disaster.

That offensive line has been diarrhea since 2012.....we didn't see only because of RG3's athleticism masked a lot of the o lines weaknesses with the read option.....in a normal offense the frailty of the offensive line is more visible....they can't run block. They can't pass protect. None of the Redskins offensive linemen would not be starting for another NFL team except Trent Williams.....

[donofriose]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

I honestly dont know the exact rule. All I am doing is explaining what Triplett gave as an explanation on the field. Here is the long version...

According to his explanation, the fact that he lost control prior to going over the goal line means he then had to "regain possession" of the ball for it to be a TD. In order for that to happen, he had to gain control of the ball and then either make a football move or maintain possession through the ground to "regain possession". Since he was in midair, making a football move wasnt going to happen. So he is left with maintaining possession through the ground as if he is now a receiver, which he didnt do. Since this wasnt a pass, the call cant be incomplete, so it reverts back to being a fumble. Now we have a fumble with RG3 laying out of bounds when he "regains possession". So it is ruled a fumble from prior to the goal line until he "regains possession" over the goal line and out of bounds. And a fumble over the goal line and out of bounds is a touchback, which is what was called.

Is that how the rule reads in the rulebook? I have no clue. And would love to see the exact rule pertaining to this. But that is the reasoning that Triplett used in making the call (with, at a minimum, an assist from the ones in New York helping with the replay calls).

This is how the rule reads according to ESPN...

"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."

Seifert: Week 15 officiating review - ESPN

If that is the rule... There is no way that was a touchdown.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by donofriose

This is how the rule reads according to ESPN...

"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."

Seifert: Week 15 officiating review - ESPN

If that is the rule... There is no way that was a touchdown.

did any view ever show the ball actually touch the ground?

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

did any view ever show the ball actually touch the ground?

thats what im wondering.

the ball was moving all over RG3s chest but did it touch the ground?

why does it matter if the ball did or did not hit the ground if the player lands out of bounds anyway (argument cut against us)?

shouldnt time have been put back on the clock to the time that RG3's foot hits the pylon?

didnt NC Skins show a screen grab of :01 on clock when play was clearly over anyhow (so 30 penalty yards would give giants ball at 50 w 1 second left)?

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by donofriose

This is how the rule reads according to ESPN...

"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."

Seifert: Week 15 officiating review - ESPN

If that is the rule... There is no way that was a touchdown.

But Griffin had possession just before the ball crossed the goal line. And he kept possession until he hit the ground. And did the ball hit the ground, or did it just bounce up when his arm/hand hit the ground?

LINK - second video down, click on it to pause right before the ball crosses the goal line, click again to continue

I don't see how you overturn the call on the field, touchdown.

This whole conversation is so sad. Skins fans are so used to losing, getting beat, getting screwed, they can get robbed on video, where the play can be replayed/paused/slowed, and Skins fans are OK with that.

I guess the team is like that too. There's a fine line between sticking up for yourself and whining. We play the eagles where our guy hits the QB at the end of an INT play where he's running where the ball carrier is getting tackled, the Eagles take offense, start fighting and complaining to the refs, we get penalized and player ejected. We play the giants and get screwed on a call, and we whine to the refs... we get penalized and player ejected. The team is a bunch of losers too.

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

did any view ever show the ball actually touch the ground?

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.

[calia]

On the other side of the football, I didn't see the game, but I see that we only had 1 sack (Kerrigan). That's awful. Eli is not mobile, and his line isn't very good. On teh replays of the Beckham TDs, it seems that ELi had all day. I know Hatcher was out (knee I think), and it seems that without him, no one else can provide any pressure. While I applaud the effort limiting the Giants ground game, the reality is that the Giants don't really have much of a ground game. You have to get to Eli, and when you do, he becomes a turnover machine. We didn't do that.

Anyone know anything about Hatcher's returns for the Saturday Eagles game? I hope that we can dial up some pressure somehow. I am very worried that our D was playing much better when we last played Philly, and we still gave up 37 points. Of course, their QB situation has deteriorated a bit since then (as has ours), but still -- Chip Kelly might put up 50 points on us the way we're playing.

I hope that we decide to just pound the ball -- heavy dose of the run game, and maybe mixing it up a bit and letting Redd and Thompson get some carries (what do we have to lose at this point).

[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.

[calia]

Looking at the video, it occurs to me that had the play been upheld, there would be no great controversy about it -- probably even among Giants fans. And who the heck knows what would have happened the rest of the way out.

Story of the season, folks. Lots of what ifs.

[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.

[TheHolyGibbs]

Did anyone else notice this at the end of the game? I thought he looked injured but then it hasn't been mentioned. Right knee. Seems like just a matter of time.

RGIII Appeared To Suffer Yet Another Leg Injury At End Of Loss To Giants - Business Insider

[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.