PDA

View Full Version : Rules Question



Pteryx
12-24-2011, 06:30 PM
Two quick questions on the rules regarding the reversed fumble calls.

1- If the ball is hit out of a QB's hand, even if it is moving forward, shouldn't that still be a fumble? On two of the fumbles by Sanchez, the BALL was knocked from his hand, it wasn't just his arm that got hit as it was moving forward.

2- If it is ruled an incomplete pass, isn't that technically intentional grounding since the QB is under pressure, in the pocket, and throwing the ball into the ground?

giantsfan420
12-24-2011, 06:36 PM
the refs were just awful.

one question i had, on the incomplete to holmes when its clear he had it two steps plus one, then fumbled it, the ref said coughlin is not allowed to challenge...

WHAT?!?!?! THERE IS NO RULE SAYING U CANNOT CHALLENGE THAT IS THERE?!

horrible officiating but it wouldnt have mattered even if they could review it the refs woulda upheld it as an incompletion.

the refs seriously tried to hand this one to the jets...all year the officiating especially vs the giants has been putrid

KidA
12-24-2011, 06:39 PM
1- Tuck Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuck_rule)

2- Good question. I think that because the ruling is in-and-of-itself an exception to the usual rules, intentional grounding also does not apply.

dave56dj
12-24-2011, 06:42 PM
I am giant fan so please know that when reading this.

1) Yes there is a rule that says you cannot challenge an incomplete pass - if it is ruled incomplete it is in fact a dead ball and cannot be reviewed. Sadly Holmes did seem to fumble but we will never know.

2) There was a tuck rule correctyl called - the actual rule is bad - but it was followed to the letter of the law

3) The call where kerlel rolled over on antrel rolle it seemed to me that he actually landed on rolles cleat and not the ground - if his elbow did hit the ground - good call - but it seemed to me there was not irrefutable eveidence and the call should have stood.

4) The pi on grant ont eh 4th and 2 was tough - he was definitely physical there and that can be called just seemed a bit ticky tack.

5) Glad they got the PI on plax - as giant fans we have all seen that one a lot - and you just hope its not called if its your guy. That may have been the only snap Prince saw.

ibbill
12-24-2011, 06:45 PM
the refs were just awful.

one question i had, on the incomplete to holmes when its clear he had it two steps plus one, then fumbled it, the ref said coughlin is not allowed to challenge...

WHAT?!?!?! THERE IS NO RULE SAYING U CANNOT CHALLENGE THAT IS THERE?!

horrible officiating but it wouldnt have mattered even if they could review it the refs woulda upheld it as an incompletion.

the refs seriously tried to hand this one to the jets...all year the officiating especially vs the giants has been putrid

Hell if he had taken any more steps he would have been in the end zone lol.Refs are bad TEXANS COLTS game was really bad ref crap also.

Giantsrule1986
12-24-2011, 06:46 PM
The Tuck rule is the number one worst rule in football. They say that the ball is incomplete on that garbage call, and that the QB has the intent of passing it after the ball has passed any reasonable point of release. Just another way that the NFL has legislated defense out of the league.

One thing that bothered me was that the Jets db's, especially Revis, were early when ever they made a play in the secondary. Every one of those deflections was PI and were not called.

G.I. Ants
12-24-2011, 06:47 PM
we were cheated out of 2 turnovers this game. The Kurly fumble which should have been a touchdown for Ross and the JPP sack which Tuck recovered the fumble. The Refs mad some bad calls.

KidA
12-24-2011, 06:50 PM
I am giant fan so please know that when reading this.

1) Yes there is a rule that says you cannot challenge an incomplete pass - if it is ruled incomplete it is in fact a dead ball and cannot be reviewed. Sadly Holmes did seem to fumble but we will never know.

2) There was a tuck rule correctyl called - the actual rule is bad - but it was followed to the letter of the law

3) The call where kerlel rolled over on antrel rolle it seemed to me that he actually landed on rolles cleat and not the ground - if his elbow did hit the ground - good call - but it seemed to me there was not irrefutable eveidence and the call should have stood.

4) The pi on grant ont eh 4th and 2 was tough - he was definitely physical there and that can be called just seemed a bit ticky tack.

5) Glad they got the PI on plax - as giant fans we have all seen that one a lot - and you just hope its not called if its your guy. That may have been the only snap Prince saw.

You are absolutely correct. Whether or not his elbow hit the ground could not be discerned with any amount of certainty and so the call on the field should have stood.

dave56dj
12-24-2011, 06:51 PM
First one you can argue - the second one you mention is the Tuck rule and they called it right. Whats more frustrating is Holmes fumbled the ball and it was called incomplete and you cant challenge.

G.I. Ants
12-24-2011, 06:55 PM
First one you can argue - the second one you mention is the Tuck rule and they called it right. Whats more frustrating is Holmes fumbled the ball and it was called incomplete and you cant challenge.I forgot about that play, make that 3 turnovers we were cheated out of. What makes that play suck is the fact that it could not be challenged.

mike kennedy
12-24-2011, 07:41 PM
His arm went forward and he didn't release it but held on to it like he didn't want to let it go. Another huge grey area where the refs are unsure of the rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's getting worse and worse!
How many playoff games this year will be decided by a blown call or misinterpretation of a rule?

stormblue
12-24-2011, 07:55 PM
First one you can argue - the second one you mention is the Tuck rule and they called it right. Whats more frustrating is Holmes fumbled the ball and it was called incomplete and you cant challenge.

what i don't understand is why it wasn't reviewable.
they challenge and review whether passes were complete or not all the time.

coughlin should have argued his *** off on that.....

am i wrong or what ?
since when is complete or incomplete not a challengeable reviewable call ?

they do it all the time.....
you need control and a football move....
i've seen this reviewed many times.

NYGRealityCheck
12-24-2011, 08:49 PM
That was a bad/missed call.

However, I don't think a team can challenge an opposing team's incompletion/catch to get a fumble recovery/turnover.
Once the refs blows the whistle, the play is dead and the fumble recover/turnover cannot come after that.

dave56dj
12-24-2011, 08:51 PM
The play is dead once it is ruled incomplete so their cannot be a recovery of a fumble. You can have clear recovery on a ball that has been secured and then fumbled but not on an incomplete pass.

stormblue
12-24-2011, 09:10 PM
that's my point.... the pass WAS complete,
which IS reviewable.

once under review , the entire play becomes
subject to scrutiny. the pass was obviously
complete...the fumble recovery would be allowed.
because of the whistle there could be no advancement, but we would still get possession.

TC wanted a challenge on the fumble....
he should have challenged the completion ;
which was absolutely within his rights.
instead ; he asked to challenge the fumble.

what a maroon.

KidA
12-24-2011, 09:19 PM
Once they call it an incompletion the whistle is blown and the play is dead. Even if it really should have been a fumble there can be no recovery because the play has stopped.

This is why the NFL doesn't allow challenges in these situations. To do so would give players an incentive to continue playing after the whistle. This would create a dangerous situation on the field and would take control of the game away from the referees.

NYGRealityCheck
12-24-2011, 09:21 PM
that's my point.... the pass WAS complete,
which IS reviewable.

once under review , the entire play becomes
subject to scrutiny. the pass was obviously
complete...the fumble recovery would be allowed.
because of the whistle there could be no advancement, but we would still get possession.

TC wanted a challenge on the fumble....
he should have challenged the completion ;
which was absolutely within his rights.
instead ; he asked to challenge the fumble.

what a maroon.

The fumble recovery would not be allowed after the whistle. Even if there was a review, the refs could not call that a completed catch (even though it was) on that one because they cannot award the Giants the fumble recovery after the whistle. They would have to rule it an incomplete pass because of the circumstances. That's probably why opposing teams are not allowed to challenge this type of situation in the first place.

Iamjsk
12-25-2011, 03:15 PM
Tuck rule: I wonder if it matters that the ball was knocked out as opposed to dropped by Sanchez? The knocked out part is not in the spirit of the rule

Arm moving forward call: Sanchez' arm was just moving forward but the ball was hit when it was still in his hand and went backwards. I believe that is actually lateral and therefore a fumble. Again the spirit of the arm going forward rule has nothing to do with the ball being knocked put of the hand. The rule is about losing the ball when the qb is actively hit.

giantman8493
12-25-2011, 03:27 PM
I thought that the refs had a bad game. we should have had a few more fumble calls go our way. they ruled it an inclmpete pass because of the tuck rule put he was clearly not trying to throw the ball. he was crouched! even if it was incomplete it should have been intentional grounding than. the refs blew a few of these calls.