General Sports Talk

Quote: lilredrooster

.
wildest 2 point conversion ever - Seahawks won the game in OT partly due to this

Charbonnet recovered the ball in the end zone casually - he didn't know he had scored

from ESPN:

"After the Seahawks scored a touchdown with 6:23 left in the fourth quarter, they attempted a 2-point try. Jared Verse tipped a Sam Darnold pass attempt that fell to the ground, apparently incomplete, and it was ruled that the conversion failed.

However, as the Seahawks were lined up to kick off, replay review concluded that Darnold had attempted a backward pass and that Seahawks running back Zach Charbonnet recovered the loose ball in the end zone. The call on the field was reversed, tying the score and eventually sending the game to overtime.

"Very interesting," McVay said after the Rams lost 38-37. "Didn't get a clear explanation of everything that went on just because of some of the timing of it.

"I've never seen anything or never been a part of anything like that. And I've grown up around this game. I'm not making excuses. We don't do that. I don't believe in that. It doesn't move us forward, but we do want clarity and an understanding of the things that we can do to minimize that when we rejected the 2-point conversion."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C4lCi_dC6g


.
link to original post

SOOPOO immediately recognized it as a ‘backward pass’, which I don’t think technically even exists. I believe, once the ball hits the ground it is a ‘fumble’.

However, I thought (maybe erroneously) that 4th down rules were in play, and only the fumbler can recover a ball that went forward after the fumble and have that yardage hold up. To me, the ‘fumbler’, is Sam Darnold, the QB, as until it was recovered in the End Zone no Seahawks had touched the ball.

On those end of game 4th down plays if a different offensive player recovers the ball it is brought back to the spot of the fumble, and since it was 4th down the other team takes over possession.

I haven’t scoured the internet yet to see if anyone else has my take on this.

Quote: SOOPOO

However, I thought (maybe erroneously) that 4th down rules were in play, and only the fumbler can recover a ball that went forward after the fumble and have that yardage hold up. To me, the ‘fumbler’, is Sam Darnold, the QB, as until it was recovered in the End Zone no Seahawks had touched the ball.

My belief is that after it was touched by a defender it is a live ball, I believe the only offensive player that can advance it is the fumbler assuming it is not touched by a defender.

Huge win by Bama last night.
Down 17-0 late in the 2nd quarter, they scored 27 straight points to open a ten-point lead As the clock was winding down, Oklahoma's kicker, winner of the Groza award as college's best FG maker, missed a controversial attempt as the ball sailed far above the sticks, but the judge ruled it was just outside. As time was winding down, with the Sooners down by ten, he came up short on another attempt, and the Tide was able to run out the clock.
They now get to take on Indiana in the Rose Bowl on New Year's Day. I don't recall the Crimson Tide ever playing in the Rose Bowl before.

Quote: DRich

Quote: SOOPOO

However, I thought (maybe erroneously) that 4th down rules were in play, and only the fumbler can recover a ball that went forward after the fumble and have that yardage hold up. To me, the ‘fumbler’, is Sam Darnold, the QB, as until it was recovered in the End Zone no Seahawks had touched the ball.

My belief is that after it was touched by a defender it is a live ball, I believe the only offensive player that can advance it is the fumbler assuming it is not touched by a defender.
link to original post

Nope. Son read the official NFL rule book. Go read the section on ‘fumble during a 2 point try’ and see if you come up with a different conclusion than mine!

The only ambiguity seems to be that they ‘may’ consider a ‘backwards pass’ that is dropped slightly different than a fumble. Which is incongruent. Anyway, I still have a big live parlay as had Rams plus 1.5!

An uncaught backward pass is not a fumble. It's treated almost the same as a fumble, but it isn't a fumble. A fumble is when a player has possession of the ball, makes a football move, and then loses the ball. I don't think this was a muff, as the intended target never touched the ball.
A fumble, in those conditions, can only be advanced by the fumbler. If the QB was sacked and the ball popped loose, no other Seahawk could advance it. On an incomplete backward pass, anyone can advance it.
What I don't get is the NFL claiming the whistle doesn't end the play. From Pop Warner on, we are taught to go all out until we hear the whistle. The whistle blew, and the side judge was indicating the play was over.
If ever a play deserved a do-over, I think this is it.

My understanding of the rules is a backwards pass is the same as a lateral, and if the ball hits the ground it's a fumble, same as a dropped lateral. As for can't advance a forward fumble, an exception is if a teammate recovers a fumble that was caused by a backward pass, it's treated differently and can be advanced by anyone.

I agree with the whistle part. One can clearly hear the whistle before he picks up the ball.

Edit: Turns out we can ignore the whistle in this case: "When the on-field ruling results in a dead ball (e.g., score, down by contact, incomplete pass, etc.), and following replay review it is determined that possession was lost before the ball should have been ruled dead, possession may be awarded to a player who clearly recovers a loose ball in the immediate continuing action."

A fumble is when a player has the ball, makes a football move and loses the ball
A muff is when a player touches the ball but never posses it before it comes loose.
A forward pass that hits the ground is incomplete and the play is dead.
A backwards pass that hits the ground is still a live ball. It's not a fumble nor is it a muff. It is an incomplete backwards pass

Quote:

Jake Paul KO'd by Anthony Joshua in fight streamed on Netflix, Paul suffers 'Double Broken Jaw'

I just watched the fight. Incredibly boring. Niether fighter threw much until the fifth round. Paul seems to have not worn a mouthpiece as he was wagging his tongue at his opponent

Quote: GenoDRPh

My understanding of the rules is a backwards pass is the same as a lateral, and if the ball hits the ground it's a fumble, same as a dropped lateral. As for can't advance a forward fumble, an exception is if a teammate recovers a fumble that was caused by a backward pass, it's treated differently and can be advanced by anyone.

I agree with the whistle part. One can clearly hear the whistle before he picks up the ball.

Edit: Turns out we can ignore the whistle in this case: "When the on-field ruling results in a dead ball (e.g., score, down by contact, incomplete pass, etc.), and following replay review it is determined that possession was lost before the ball should have been ruled dead, possession may be awarded to a player who clearly recovers a loose ball in the immediate continuing action."
link to original post

right - the whistle was ignored - it was ruled an inadvertent whistle

I believe that is unusual - that by the NFL rules - generally a whistle stops play

according to google AI the official NFL rulebook says -

"How it Works (NFL Rulebook)
Ball is Dead: When an official blows their whistle erroneously during live play, the ball is immediately dead.
Options for the Offended Team:
Replay the Down: The most common outcome is replaying the down from the previous spot.
Take the Spot: If a player had possession, the team can choose to take the ball at the spot where the player possessed it when the whistle blew."

but the Seahawks player did not recover the ball in the end zone before the whistle blew - he did so after - so it seems to me the Seahawks should not have been awarded a score - that a mistake was made - the Seahawks should have had a do over option -

so, in the case of this play, what if the defender recovered and was headed to score in his end zone and the whistle blew and the runner stopped running because of the whistle and then later it was reviewed and called a backwards pass-?

I believe the defending team would get the ball where the runner stopped

which doesn't seem fair because he would have scored if not for the inadvertent whistle

.

The refs misinterpreted the play and blew the whistle, thinking it was an incomplete forward pass. It was an intentional whistle, not an inadvertent one. I don't think either team should benefit from the play. It should have been a no-play and done over.

Quote: billryan

The refs misinterpreted the play and blew the whistle, thinking it was an incomplete forward pass. It was an intentional whistle, not an inadvertent one. I don't think either team should benefit from the play. It should have been a no-play and done over.
link to original post

Not what the rules state, though, as far as redo From the nfl rulebook:

Quote:

Section 7 - Backward Pass And Fumble
Article 1. Backward Pass
A runner may throw a backward pass at any time (3-21-4). Players of either team may advance after catching a backward pass, or recovering a backward pass after it touches the ground. Any snap from center is a backward pass.

So here we have a backwards pass that hit the ground, so it is a live ball that any player can recover and advance.

As for the whistle. From the NFL rulebook:

Quote:

Rule 15, Section 2 - Replay Reviews
Article 3. Awarding Possession
When the on-field ruling results in a dead ball (e.g., score, down by contact, incomplete pass, etc.), and following replay review, it is determined that possession was lost before the ball should have been ruled dead, possession may be awarded to a player who clearly recovers a loose ball in the immediate continuing action. A loose ball that touches out of bounds is deemed a clear recovery by the player who last possessed the ball.

The ball should not have been ruled dead. So the ref's whistle, intentional or not, incorrectly rules the ball and play dead. That means, for this play, "possession was lost before the ball should have been ruled dead. Furthermore, the replay official ruled the Seahawks recovered the ball in the immediate continuing action.

The replay official(s) got it right in the end, correctly applying the rules.

Here is a nice article that explains it further: https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/how-seahawks-benefitted-from-nfl-rulebook-loophole-thursday-night-football/

I congratulate SooPoo for still being alive in his parlay!

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: billryan

The refs misinterpreted the play and blew the whistle, thinking it was an incomplete forward pass. It was an intentional whistle, not an inadvertent one. I don't think either team should benefit from the play. It should have been a no-play and done over.
link to original post

Not what the rules state, though, as far as redo From the nfl rulebook:

Quote:

Section 7 - Backward Pass And Fumble
Article 1. Backward Pass
A runner may throw a backward pass at any time (3-21-4). Players of either team may advance after catching a backward pass, or recovering a backward pass after it touches the ground. Any snap from center is a backward pass.

So here we have a backwards pass that hit the ground, so it is a live ball that any player can recover and advance.

As for the whistle. From the NFL rulebook:

Quote:

Rule 15, Section 2 - Replay Reviews
Article 3. Awarding Possession
When the on-field ruling results in a dead ball (e.g., score, down by contact, incomplete pass, etc.), and following replay review, it is determined that possession was lost before the ball should have been ruled dead, possession may be awarded to a player who clearly recovers a loose ball in the immediate continuing action. A loose ball that touches out of bounds is deemed a clear recovery by the player who last possessed the ball.

The ball should not have been ruled dead. So the ref's whistle, intentional or not, incorrectly rules the ball and play dead. That means, for this play, "possession was lost before the ball should have been ruled dead. Furthermore, the replay official ruled the Seahawks recovered the ball in the immediate continuing action.

The replay official(s) got it right in the end, correctly applying the rules.

Here is a nice article that explains it further: https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/how-seahawks-benefitted-from-nfl-rulebook-loophole-thursday-night-football/

I congratulate SooPoo for still being alive in his parlay!
link to original post

Thanks everyone for doing the leg work. It seems odd to me that a backwards pass and ‘regular’ fumble have different rules, but apparently they do.

The ‘immediate recovery rule’ essentially means you now DO NOT stop at the whistle.

The last leg is Jaguars +3. If it is exactly 3 I still win but just half as much.

Quote:

The ‘immediate recovery rule’ essentially means you now DO NOT stop at the whistle.

Well, hitting after the whistle I'd imagine is a still a big non-no. But continuing to go for a loose ball, where the action starts before the whistle blows and continues until immediate recovery may be a game changer...like Thursday. Funny part is I don't think any player or coach on either side knew of the combination of rules that were applied in this case.