Zeke's Fumble

[ryanbabs]

I am biased. Let's get that out there up front.

I watched the replay of the fumble by Zeke, as everyone who watched the game did. I disagree with the comments made about clear evidence.

Now let's also get this out of the way. I think it is a huge mistake for the broadcast to have an official second guessing the call. There is a reason baseball does not allow replays of balls and strikes to occur on the stadium big screens. My belief is this exacerbates the fans angst over missed calls. Especially when the "expert" in the booth seems to either get it wrong, or disagrees with the eye in the sky that is the ultimate arbiter.

To me (remember the bias) Zeke's elbow was down. The "expert" suggested the ball was moving, yet - again, to me - it did not move until he hit the ground. The "expert" said he did not have control. Yet the ball was still in the crook of his arm until he touched down.

I could be wrong. Most here that know me can point to those times with ease. But in that scrum, I don't believe the refs had enough information to make that call to begin with.

I also think the completely asinine thought process of reversing the call leaves out a significant aspect. The fact in a scrum, the refs don't have a clear cut view, and therefore cannot make an accurate call. The refs could not possibly see that fumble from any angle they had. So the automatic cannot reverse the call has a flaw that the refs cannot say they just didn't see it correctly.

In Zeke's defense, he usually is really good at covering up. But he, like every other ball carrier will occasionally put it on the ground. I think this was a bang bang play and there was no ref that could clearly see the ball come out and whether is was down or it was a strip.

I surely think the "expert" is just winging it, and find this aspect of the game as a way to stir up the viewing audience. In other words I believe this is a stupid idea.

But again, I believe Zeke was down and there was no clear cut view by the officials on the field to make the initial call, and the "expert" was incorrect in his elbow touching before the ball slipped out.

Just my opinion.

I think the league is heading for a dark place with this “letting them play it out” crap. This creates a situation that all fumbles are to be ruled as fumbles on the field and must be proven otherwise via instant replay, which obviously isn’t always corrected due to the subjective clear evidence BS.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Uh, do you know what a strawman argument is?
There is no opponent with whom I'm arguing. There is no cause-and-effect conclusion drawn by my statement. I didn't say "He made so much money, now he can't hold on to the football." That would be causation.
Rather, I said if he's going to make all that money, our expectations for him is that he should hold on to the football in critical times. It was a statement of EXPECTATION.
Second, I don't care if he was in a pile. HOLD ON TO THE FOOTBALL!!! No excuses. ​

Because that's what he's SUPPOSE to do. You don't reward a man for taking care of his family. That's what he's SUPPOSE to do. You don't reward a man for brushing his teeth. That's what he's SUPPOSE to do. You don't reward a man for showing up for work. That's what he's SUPPOSE to do.
But you DO criticize a man for not taking care of his family, not brushing his teeth when a toothbrush and tooth paste are available, when he doesn't show up for work because he's too lazy to get out of bed. Do I need to explain to you why?


Yep, that's right. You wanna prove me wrong? The balls in your hands. Don't fumble.

First off, it wasn't a fumble. After he was down the ball was stripped. So the rest of your position is pointless.

Yes, I do know what a straw man is. And you were using you his money was a way to have a point to knock down. Which has zero to do with his play yesterday. The rest of your reply is simply filler.

 

[tyke1doe]

ES had seasons where he had 8 fumbles twice some 6 fumbles a few 4 etc.. they happen and sorry a fumble that wasn't a fumble isnt fumble in critical situation..

Word of advice: if you're going to rebuke me, at least have your sentence structure in correct form so I can understand what the heck you are talking about.
Second, Zeke should have held onto the ball.
Third, I didn't say Emmitt Smith didn't fumble. I said he didn't fumble at critical times in a game. Now, maybe I'm wrong and you have a particular incident to refute my statement. If you do, by all means offer it as a rebuttal.

we all saw it and not being biased, he was down and did all he could to hold that ball as we could all see the defender had two hands on it for what seems like the whole play and zeke kept it until he hit the ground and that little extra tug shook it loose..

We need a yawning emoticon. Zeke should have held onto the ball. PERIOD!!!

you know what real fumble looks like ask Jason Witten, no doubt worse..at least Zeke was fighting for the yard on 4th and 1 so if he didnt get it with max effort , he would have tuned over right there anyway..

But this thread is about … Zeke's fumble.

STOP USING MONEY AND STATUS AS REASON TO SAY IRRATIONAL THINGS LIKE YOU Cant make mistakes ever from here on out..omg dudes you are ridiculous!! .

but we all saw it wasn't a fumble.. he relaxed after his elbow hit.. cut him now smh

Just because you can't understand my point doesn't make it irrational.
Second, SEE now THIS is a strawman, @TwoDeep3. I never said he can't ever make a mistake from here on out. But let me help you out on why I raised the money issue.
Money relates to EXPECTATIONS. The more you make, particularly if you're a superstar athlete, the more we expect you're going to be a superstar athlete at critical moments. I DON'T expect Kellen Moore to be a Super Bowl caliber quarterback. I DO expect Brady to be one based on his value, which has a direct correlation to how much money he makes. Value is often associated with money and how much one makes. So, YES, I expect a running back who held out of camp to get more money because he's THAT valuable to the Cowboys to HOLD ON TO THE FOOTBALL IN A PILE AT A CRITICAL MOMENT IN A GAME!

See, that wasn't so hard to understand now was it?

 

[GMO415]

His elbow was down we all saw it

 

[tyke1doe]

First off, it wasn't a fumble. After he was down the ball was stripped. So the rest of your position is pointless.

Who gets to determine what is or isn't a fumble? You? Me? No, the REFS!!!!!.
I don't care whether you think it wasn't a fumble. The ruling on the field is that it was a fumble. Therefore it WAS a fumble.
Furthermore, my POSITION also included the fact that REGARDLESS he should have held onto the football.

Yes, I do know what a straw man is. And you were using you his money was a way to have a point to knock down. Which has zero to do with his play yesterday. The rest of your reply is simply filler.

Sigh. A fuller reading of the definition might benefit you.

Straw man - an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man". The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.

Who exactly is my OPPONENT, particularly when I was responding to a poster with whom I agreed?

 

[Direwolf63]

I am biased. Let's get that out there up front.

I watched the replay of the fumble by Zeke, as everyone who watched the game did. I disagree with the comments made about clear evidence.

Now let's also get this out of the way. I think it is a huge mistake for the broadcast to have an official second guessing the call. There is a reason baseball does not allow replays of balls and strikes to occur on the stadium big screens. My belief is this exacerbates the fans angst over missed calls. Especially when the "expert" in the booth seems to either get it wrong, or disagrees with the eye in the sky that is the ultimate arbiter.

To me (remember the bias) Zeke's elbow was down. The "expert" suggested the ball was moving, yet - again, to me - it did not move until he hit the ground. The "expert" said he did not have control. Yet the ball was still in the crook of his arm until he touched down.

I could be wrong. Most here that know me can point to those times with ease. But in that scrum, I don't believe the refs had enough information to make that call to begin with.

I also think the completely asinine thought process of reversing the call leaves out a significant aspect. The fact in a scrum, the refs don't have a clear cut view, and therefore cannot make an accurate call. The refs could not possibly see that fumble from any angle they had. So the automatic cannot reverse the call has a flaw that the refs cannot say they just didn't see it correctly.

In Zeke's defense, he usually is really good at covering up. But he, like every other ball carrier will occasionally put it on the ground. I think this was a bang bang play and there was no ref that could clearly see the ball come out and whether is was down or it was a strip.

I surely think the "expert" is just winging it, and find this aspect of the game as a way to stir up the viewing audience. In other words I believe this is a stupid idea.

But again, I believe Zeke was down and there was no clear cut view by the officials on the field to make the initial call, and the "expert" was incorrect in his elbow touching before the ball slipped out.

Just my opinion.

The only reason the refs called it a fumble is because the Saints players were jumping up and down saying it was a fumble. As you said, there is no way the refs could have actually seen a fumble. No way.

That is a problem.

 

[Jeffkills]

Hold on to the rock, you overpriced, pierce-faced piece of Cabo drama...

 

[Direwolf63]

I think the league is heading for a dark place with this “letting them play it out” crap. This creates a situation that all fumbles are to be ruled as fumbles on the field and must be proven otherwise via instant replay, which obviously isn’t always corrected due to the subjective clear evidence BS.

This is where we are going.

And it's not good.

 

[gimmesix]

To me he was stripped of the football while down. Its not like the ball popped loose when he made contact....

The saints used the confusion of the pile to run out with the ball making it look like a clean " fumble recovery"

Maybe he was, but it was close and his ball security isn't what it should be (5 fumbles his first year, 6 last year). If the ball had been stripped when he was completely on the ground, then it's likely it would not have been called a fumble. As is, it looked like a fumble to the officials and they ended up ruling it that way.

 

[Creeper]

The funny thing is the review process has been tweaked multiple time to get it right more often but it seems to me they are getting it wrong more often. I have seen a few replays that I thought were obvious go the other way after a booth review. When I saw the replay in slow motion and stop action, I thought the ball came loose when Zeke's elbow hit the ground. The force of hitting the ground with the defender pulling at the ball at the same time is what broke it loose.

 

[MarcusRock]

Again, 50 posts in before there's actual video but have a looksie. I couldn't find an NFL rule on when a fumble is exactly determined, i.e., can a player be down as the ball starts to come loose and it still not be considered a fumble or does the beginning of movement of the ball before touching allow for continuation to loss of possession. If it's the latter, then you could rule this a fumble by that standard because it appears to me that the ball started to move before but didn't completely come out until after Elliott had already hit the ground.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

It was close so I understand why they stayed with the call

to me the call was wrong but I agree once it was called fumble, it was going to stand

 

[Runwildboys]

They were talked into a call none of them saw, then upheld it like cowards because it was too close to reverse. It was bs- they know it, Saints fans know it, and we Cowboy fans know it.

I agree it was the wrong call, but what do you mean they were "talked into" it?

 

[Future]

Bad call, worse decision to go for it.

 

[Runwildboys]

Again, 50 posts in before there's actual video but have a looksie. I couldn't find an NFL rule on when a fumble is exactly determined, i.e., can a player be down as the ball starts to come loose and it still not be considered a fumble or does the beginning of movement of the ball before touching allow for continuation to loss of possession. If it's the latter, then you could rule this a fumble by that standard because it appears to me that the ball started to move before but didn't completely come out until after Elliott had already hit the ground.

As I said in the other thread, it's my understanding that they consider it "loss of control" when the ball is slipping in the player's hand, much like a completion.

 

[MarcusRock]

As I said in the other thread, it's my understanding that they consider it "loss of control" when the ball is slipping in the player's hand, much like a completion.

And what we don't know is if that ball's movement is considered "slipping" considering the ball does in fact come all the way out eventually. Again, I'd like to see the rule on this. All I'm seeing and hearing are interpretations from the broadcast and posts.

 

[OmerV]

As I said in the other thread, it's my understanding that they consider it "loss of control" when the ball is slipping in the player's hand, much like a completion.

I haven't been following this thread, so I don't know all the comments, but at least my impression was that the ball wasn't slipping until after the elbow came down. The announcers seemed to think it was, so maybe I missed something, but that's how I saw it.

 

[G2]

Again, 50 posts in before there's actual video but have a looksie. I couldn't find an NFL rule on when a fumble is exactly determined, i.e., can a player be down as the ball starts to come loose and it still not be considered a fumble or does the beginning of movement of the ball before touching allow for continuation to loss of possession. If it's the latter, then you could rule this a fumble by that standard because it appears to me that the ball started to move before but didn't completely come out until after Elliott had already hit the ground.

The move may have been moving, but so were his hands with the ball still in them. If the ground can't cause a fumble, I don't see how it's a fumble if the ball didn't leave his hands until he hit the ground.

 

[OmerV]

Hang onto the football and then we wouldn't need super slow motion replay to determine if he was down 0.01 seconds prior to the ball coming out.

That's easy to say, but we know fumbles aren't just going to cease to exist because somebody makes the comment that people should quit fumbling. So we are left with the reality that the ball is going to come loose at times, and someone has to determine whether it was actually a fumble or if the player was down first.

 

[MarcusRock]

The move may have been moving, but so were his hands with the ball still in them. If the ground can't cause a fumble, I don't see how it's a fumble if the ball didn't leave his hands until he hit the ground.

Right, but the question is what does the league consider. It "began moving" and did eventually come all the way out. McCauley mentioned the movement as well in talking about not enough evidence to overturn so the movement is "some kind of" factor. What, by league rules, I haven't found.