PDA

View Full Version : FIRST FUMBLE



vikesfan
11-15-2004, 05:06 PM
If this is already posted somewhere on the board, I'm sorry. But one thing I have not seen anybody talk about was the first fumble of the game when Green Bay fumbled on third and goal at the one inch line. The ball was ruled a fumble into the end zone which was recoved by Green Bay for a touchdown. But by rule, a fumble cannot be advanced forward, meaning that since the play was called a fumble, the ball would be "dead" and placed back at the spot of the fumble, which would then bring up a fourth down and goal.

Although the fumble at the end of the game is what is drawing all the attention, and rightly so, I would still be curious to hear people's opinions of this play.

Purpleshrine
11-15-2004, 05:17 PM
I think a fumble can't be advanced only in the final 2 min of a half, unless it's recovered by the person who fumbled it.

little redhead
11-15-2004, 05:18 PM
I also was wondering about that myself. At a minimum it was would have been 4th down at the 1 yard line even though I don't think they recovered their fumble. So I think it should have been our ball but either way the best it should have been was 4th down at the 1 yard line????

RK.
11-15-2004, 05:24 PM
Rules of the Game.

Fumble

1. The distinction between a fumble and a muff should be kept in mind in considering rules about fumbles. A fumble is the loss of player possession of the ball. A muff is the touching of a loose ball by a player in an unsuccessful attempt to obtain possession.

2. A fumble may be advanced by any player on either team regardless of whether recovered before or after ball hits the ground.

3. A fumble that goes forward and out of bounds will return to the fumbling team at the spot of the fumble unless the ball goes out of bounds in the opponent’s end zone. In this case, it is a touchback.

4. On a play from scrimmage, if an offensive player fumbles anywhere on the field during fourth down, only the fumbling player is permitted to recover and/or advance the ball. If any player fumbles after the two-minute warning in a half, only the fumbling player is permitted to recover and/or advance the ball. If recovered by any other offensive player, the ball is dead at the spot of the fumble unless it is recovered behind the spot of the fumble. In that case, the ball is dead at the spot of recovery. Any defensive player may recover and/or advance any fumble at any time.

5. A muffed hand-to-hand snap from center is treated as a fumble.

I take this to mean that since it was 3rd down the ball could be advanced.

vikesfan
11-15-2004, 05:46 PM
Hey, thanks RK for the rules on that. I had always misinterpreted the rules of a fumble, so thanks for clearing that up. But dammit, I still think the Vikings recoved that one too!!

snowinapril
11-15-2004, 06:33 PM
"vikesfan" wrote:

Hey, thanks RK for the rules on that. I had always misinterpreted the rules of a fumble, so thanks for clearing that up. But dammit, I still think the Vikings recoved that one too!!

Now we are getting into the rules of recovering and possession of the football.

They showed the replay and the reason Tice didn't challenge was becuase the replay showed the packer have it. He didn't want to lose a Time Out and a challenge.

Something like that??????

XTAP59
11-15-2004, 07:07 PM
"Purpleshrine" wrote:

I think a fumble can't be advanced only in the final 2 min of a half, unless it's recovered by the person who fumbled it.

That is correct. its the Dave Casper rule. During an Oakland Raider game, Dave Casper caught a pass and was running down field and was about to be tackled so he threw the ball forward where one of his team mates grabbed it and went into the end zone.

Erock
11-15-2004, 08:55 PM
I could be way off base here, but this is my understanding of the call.
It wasn't ruled a fumble, it was ruled a touchdown. The refs got together and confirmed that the ball crossed the goal line before he fumbled there fore it is a dead play and unreviewable to see if minnesota recovered the footbal, just the same as if he was ruled down by contact. However if they would have called it a fumble then whoever comes out of the pile with it has either a touchdown or a touchback. Thats why when Tice threw the red flag the ref told him he could not review the see if it was a fumble just to see if he crossed the goal line. Thats when he decided not to review it.
If it would have went the way some of you had described, that the ref would have said that the play was unreviewable, witch is not what he said, he said that "minnesota has decided not to review the play. Witch be the way we should have done anyway to show that it was not a touchdown. We wouldn't have gotten the ball, but it would have been 4th and 1 for the Packers.
I'm sorry that was so long! Dose this make sense?

purplepat
11-16-2004, 10:09 AM
"Erock" wrote:

I could be way off base here, but this is my understanding of the call.
It wasn't ruled a fumble, it was ruled a touchdown. The refs got together and confirmed that the ball crossed the goal line before he fumbled there fore it is a dead play and unreviewable to see if minnesota recovered the footbal, just the same as if he was ruled down by contact. However if they would have called it a fumble then whoever comes out of the pile with it has either a touchdown or a touchback. Thats why when Tice threw the red flag the ref told him he could not review the see if it was a fumble just to see if he crossed the goal line. Thats when he decided not to review it.
If it would have went the way some of you had described, that the ref would have said that the play was unreviewable, witch is not what he said, he said that "minnesota has decided not to review the play. Witch be the way we should have done anyway to show that it was not a touchdown. We wouldn't have gotten the ball, but it would have been 4th and 1 for the Packers.
I'm sorry that was so long! Dose this make sense?

Your understanding is incorrect.

The refs ruled the play a TD before it was fumbled.

The refs also ruled that the Packers recovered the ball in the end zone after the fumble (that is, had possession of the ball in the end zone before the Vikings got the ball away from the Packers player).

Tice did not challenge the original TD call because the refs told him that they would then rule that the Packers had recovered the ball in the end zone, hence, still Packers TD.

snowinapril
11-16-2004, 11:11 AM
Speaking of Fumbles

Did you see the fumble on MNF that the Refs totally missed?

The ball was knocked out and back. The opposing team landed on it and the refs didn't even see it happen. They must have thought that the ball came out after he hit the ground. The ball never even made it to the point where the returner landed and the Ref comes in and marks the ball with his foot. The ball wasn't even there. It was never there.

The funny thing is that the coaches didn't even see it, no one even knew to challenge it. The guy that covered it didn't even make a big deal about it. But it reallt was a fumble, NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.

XTAP59
11-16-2004, 01:05 PM
"snowinapril" wrote:

Speaking of Fumbles

Did you see the fumble on MNF that the Refs totally missed?

The ball was knocked out and back. The opposing team landed on it and the refs didn't even see it happen. They must have thought that the ball came out after he hit the ground. The ball never even made it to the point where the returner landed and the Ref comes in and marks the ball with his foot. The ball wasn't even there. It was never there.

The funny thing is that the coaches didn't even see it, no one even knew to challenge it. The guy that covered it didn't even make a big deal about it. But it reallt was a fumble, NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.

Again, the NFL wants certain teams to win and the Eagles are one of them. Last night was a perfect example on how a referee came change the outcome of a game. That non call on the fumble was a 14 point swing and could have changed the outcome of the game.

mxpx003
11-16-2004, 05:40 PM
The ball clearly bounced on the goal line. Also, didn't Udeze come out of the pile with the ball? My question is, why the heck would the referees wait until they uncovered the pile, see that Udeze had the ball, and then call it a touchdown? I just don't understand that.

VKG4LFE
11-17-2004, 09:24 PM
I was at the game and I don't remember that fumble! Huh, I wonder if I had too many beers!!

LosAngelis
11-17-2004, 09:55 PM
I was watching that fumble again on the NFL Network's Game of the Week, and it doesn't seem as cut-and-dry as I first thought.

Fisher had a hand on the top of it. Is that a touchdown, or enought to signify possession? After that, it seemed to turn into another scrum and I couldn't see where the ball went. Obviously, Fisher only needed to possess the ball for an instant to have a touchdown, so its a lot harder to argue this one than the Ross/Steele fumble.

I thought, though, that Tice should have challenged that one. He might have gotten it. Too bad he was once bitten, twice shy after wasting his first one.