NFL Thread 2019-2020

[Dr. Blackheart]

The NFL clearly messaged up the coin toss reversal. The Cowboys clearly say they want to defend, they want to kick, and chose a direction they want to kick. That direction was granted. After all that Dak does say "defer," but that doesn't change their selections that were granted.

Cowboys should not have gotten the ball to start off the 2nd half. The NFL shouldn't have intervened.

Apparently, by rule, it is reviewable.

NFL senior vice president of officiating Al Riveron sent word that Dallas was to receive after halftime and Prescott's request to "defer" would be honored. After the game, Riveron explained why he overturned the original call -- Anderson having believed Prescott wanted to kick, as opposed to defer.
"Well, it's specific to the rule," Riveron said. "Under Rule 15 for replay, Section 3, Article 9, and I'm paraphrasing now, it says we can get involved, replay can, as far as game administration issues -- downs, enforcements, things like that. So by rule, we can get involved. This is a game administration issue, not a judgement call, for example. And we have definitive audio that refers to deferring."

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-releases-statement-on-coin-flip-controversy-in-cowboys-win-over-rams-we-had-definitive-audio/

[Cheeks]

The NFL clearly messaged up the coin toss reversal. The Cowboys clearly say they want to defend, they want to kick, and chose a direction they want to kick. That direction was granted. After all that Dak does say "defer," but that doesn't change their selections that were granted.

Cowboys should not have gotten the ball to start off the 2nd half. The NFL shouldn't have intervened.

Not exactly

https://www.latimes.com/sports/rams/story/2019-12-16/dallas-cowboys-rams-coin-flip-dak-prescott-refs


Just listen to the audio...after he asks Prescott to confirm he says DEFER and the ref instead says kick.  Proper call to change which they did.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-releases-statement-on-coin-flip-controversy-in-cowboys-win-over-rams-we-had-definitive-audio/

[JWags85]

You do know the fumble wasn't in the end zone. The Packers still had to complete a drive to score. Maybe the "awesome" Bears defense should have stopped the drive. You can go through the entire game and find calls that would have changed the game for both sides. The fumble on the punt could have been called leading with the helmet as well.

Of course fans complain about refs, that's what they do, but don't whine about losing a game because of a missed call. I am not talking about the average fan I am addressing you specifically.  Take your loss like a man. As far as the Seattle call a few years ago, that was a little different circumstance.   

Be more of an arrogant tool.  Jeez.  He doesn't blame the refs.  He literally called out 2 frustrating turns of events.  And then follows it up by saying the Bears threw away plenty of chances.  You seem like an absolute joy to talk sports with. 

[cheebs09]

Question on the final play. I thought the play is basically dead once the ball hits the ground. I thought on one of the early laterals, the Bear dropped it and picked it up. Wouldn't that be where they can't advance the ball from that point? The fumble is why they needed a Packer to touch it at that 1 yard line.

[The Sultan]

Question on the final play. I thought the play is basically dead once the ball hits the ground. I thought on one of the early laterals, the Bear dropped it and picked it up. Wouldn't that be where they can't advance the ball from that point? The fumble is why they needed a Packer to touch it at that 1 yard line.

I think the only person who can pick it up and advance it is the one who fumbled it.  And that's what happened when Mitch dropped the ball.  But I don't know if that rule is actually in effect at that point.

[Dish]

Be more of an arrogant tool.  Jeez.  He doesn't blame the refs.  He literally called out 2 frustrating turns of events.  And then follows it up by saying the Bears threw away plenty of chances.  You seem like an absolute joy to talk sports with.

It was an absolute textbook play by Patterson. He did not lead with his helmet, he squared up with his shoulder and timed it perfectly. It was an idiotic decision not to fair catch it.

Bears didn't score enough TD's, can't win on FG's.

[Silkk the Shaka]

I think the only person who can pick it up and advance it is the one who fumbled it.  And that's what happened when Mitch dropped the ball.  But I don't know if that rule is actually in effect at that point.

I thought that was only on a forward fumble but a backward fumble anyone can advance. Could be wrong

[Pakuni]

I thought that was only on a forward fumble but a backward fumble anyone can advance. Could be wrong

FUMBLE AFTER TWO-MINUTE WARNING Article  6    Fumble  After  Two-Minute  Warning.
If  a  fumble  by  either  team  occurs  after  the  two-minute warning: (a)   The ball may be advanced by any opponent. (b)   The  player  who  fumbled  is  the  only  player  of  his  team  who  is  permitted  to  recover  and  advance  the ball. (c)   If the recovery or catch is by a teammate of the player who fumbled, the ball is dead, and the spot of  the next snap is the   spot of the fumble, or the spot of the recovery if the spot of the recovery is behind the spot of the fumble

[The Sultan]

FUMBLE AFTER TWO-MINUTE WARNING Article  6    Fumble  After  Two-Minute  Warning.
If  a  fumble  by  either  team  occurs  after  the  two-minute warning: (a)   The ball may be advanced by any opponent. (b)   The  player  who  fumbled  is  the  only  player  of  his  team  who  is  permitted  to  recover  and  advance  the ball. (c)   If the recovery or catch is by a teammate of the player who fumbled, the ball is dead, and the spot of  the next snap is the   spot of the fumble, or the spot of the recovery if the spot of the recovery is behind the spot of the fumble

So let's say that Tramon Williams wasn't able to recover that fumble at the end, and it squirted into the end zone.  Could the Bears have scored a TD if it had touched a Packer?  It looks as though it wouldn't have mattered as long as the FB who fumbled it wasn't the one who recovered it.

[Dr. Blackheart]

So let's say that Tramon Williams wasn't able to recover that fumble at the end, and it squirted into the end zone.  Could the Bears have scored a TD if it had touched a Packer?  It looks as though it wouldn't have mattered as long as the FB who fumbled it wasn't the one who recovered it.

What's more interesting is Horsted's fumble hit a Packer's foot actually...which propelled it forward before Williams recovered it. The Bears receivers obviously knew the rule about the forward fumble and recovery as they didn't pounce...but I think they thought Horsted fumbled it forward. 

That might have been litigated for decades.

[The Sultan]

What's more interesting is Horsted's fumble hit a Packer's foot actually...which propelled it forward before Williams recovered it. The Bears receivers obviously knew the rule about the forward fumble and recovery as they didn't pounce...but I think they thought Horsted fumbled it forward. 

That might have been litigated for decades.

So if a Packer touches it, and because of that the ball advances, and a Bear recovers it, does it go back to where the fumble occurred or to where they recover it?

[Dr. Blackheart]

So if a Packer touches it, and because of that the ball advances, and a Bear recovers it, does it go back to where the fumble occurred or to where they recover it?

I personally think it's where the Packer touched it as he didn't recover it...it just hit his foot. That said, who knows which is the interesting thing...and I am sure it would have been a 20 minute review even among the experts. Crazy play.

[Pakuni]

So if a Packer touches it, and because of that the ball advances, and a Bear recovers it, does it go back to where the fumble occurred or to where they recover it?

I believe it's a dead ball because a Packer merely touching the ball wouldn't qualify as a change of possession.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Btw, I found this interesting article on the rules named after players...this one is the Stabler Rule. I blurted that out as we watched this and my SIL was stumped. Time for a sweater vest.

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/26939/11-nfl-rules-named-after-people

[wadesworld]

It's ok to just admit you were wrong, really...try it.  Been at home all day.  Mowed the front and back lawn.  Some pretty good winds last night required me to adjust some of the lights and decorations.  My wife and daughter worked today so it was just my son and I watching football from home.  It's ok, you can just admit you were wrong...you can do it.  You hold me to a standard...let's see you hold yourself to the same standard.

So, after this post about how okay it is to admit you are wrong (despite me asking a question...), will we see Cheeks, you know, actually admit he is wrong for once?

Wrong about post count (you're up over 6,500, not down at 4,400 or whatever it was).  Wrong about being here a "limited" amount of time.  Unless 6,500...or hell, even 4,400...posts in just over a year is "limited" for Cheeks.  Then I will be the one to admit I was wrong here.  But, that seems like an ABSURD amount of time spent on Scoop, and this is coming from someone who already spends an absurd amount of time on MUScoop.

Can the man do it?  Will he admit he was wrong?

Stay tuned.  (Actually don't, because Cheeks will conveniently ignore this post.  Maybe he's at the broadcast center today and had his phone, computer, etc. confiscated.)

[mu03eng]

FUMBLE AFTER TWO-MINUTE WARNING Article  6    Fumble  After  Two-Minute  Warning.
If  a  fumble  by  either  team  occurs  after  the  two-minute warning: (a)   The ball may be advanced by any opponent. (b)   The  player  who  fumbled  is  the  only  player  of  his  team  who  is  permitted  to  recover  and  advance  the ball. (c)   If the recovery or catch is by a teammate of the player who fumbled, the ball is dead, and the spot of  the next snap is the   spot of the fumble, or the spot of the recovery if the spot of the recovery is behind the spot of the fumble

So I'm going to complicate this further because I just watched the play again.....is it actually a fumble on Trubisky or is it a fumble on the player who lateraled it? Mitch doesn't catch the lateral, it hits his hands then hits the ground where he then picks it up. So he never established initial possession so is it his fumble or the previous player's who had possession? If the latter then the ball is should be dead where Mitch doesn't catch it, but overall good officiating to let the play roll then figure it out in replay if necessary.

[cheebs09]

So I'm going to complicate this further because I just watched the play again.....is it actually a fumble on Trubisky or is it a fumble on the player who lateraled it? Mitch doesn't catch the lateral, it hits his hands then hits the ground where he then picks it up. So he never established initial possession so is it his fumble or the previous player's who had possession? If the latter then the ball is should be dead where Mitch doesn't catch it, but overall good officiating to let the play roll then figure it out in replay if necessary.

Good catch. Would it be treated the same as a fumbled handoff? Or since it's a lateral, is it up to scorer discretion like an error.

Thanks everyone for the response to my question.

[Silkk the Shaka]

FUMBLE AFTER TWO-MINUTE WARNING Article  6    Fumble  After  Two-Minute  Warning.
If  a  fumble  by  either  team  occurs  after  the  two-minute warning: (a)   The ball may be advanced by any opponent. (b)   The  player  who  fumbled  is  the  only  player  of  his  team  who  is  permitted  to  recover  and  advance  the ball. (c)   If the recovery or catch is by a teammate of the player who fumbled, the ball is dead, and the spot of  the next snap is the   spot of the fumble, or the spot of the recovery if the spot of the recovery is behind the spot of the fumble

turns out I was wrong! thanks

[hairy worthen]

Be more of an arrogant tool.  Jeez.  He doesn't blame the refs.  He literally called out 2 frustrating turns of events.  And then follows it up by saying the Bears threw away plenty of chances.  You seem like an absolute joy to talk sports with.

Well I guess you told me. Strong name calling to someone you never met before. Nice job.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Well I guess you told me. Strong name calling to someone you never met before. Nice job.

He's not wrong.

[hairy worthen]

He's not wrong.

Yeah I read some of your posts maybe worry about yourself

[Dr. Blackheart]

Only thing missing from that last Pack-Bears play was a marching band.

https://youtube.com/v/6nC55Kv2sKM

[jsglow]

That is interesting Eng. Thank goodness ol' man Williams finally put an end to it. I've watched the replay enough to appreciate that a number of guys deserve to get their arse chewed out in film today for their passivity. Brutal. Go knock someone down for cripes sake.

What's crazy is that I actually remember that Oakland play that ended up necessitating the fumble rule being discussed.

[Dish]

I too was shocked how passive the Packers were on that last play, watching it live and replay multiple times, there were far too many guys just standing around. It wasn't like the play started at the other end of the field either, there was only 40 yards to cover to the goal line, and the play slowly developed.

Bears still needed to convert a two point conversion if they would have made it, and that would only have got the game to OT. Just gut feeling, but I didn't see the Bears making the Hail Lateral work, get the conversion, and win in OT, that's just me.

[JWags85]

Well I guess you told me. Strong name calling to someone you never met before. Nice job.

Yet you have no problem calling someone a loser for their opinion about a game and then calling out their apparent lack of manhood after they explained themselves