Darren Waller fumbled that ball

[boysbeyond4ever]

Not true. It was ruled a catch and fumbled, because it was a turnover it was automatically reviewed and reversed. Bad call IMO

What's interesting is because it's done specifically that way (the automatic booth review) it cannot be challenged by the coach by rule. How convenient is that? Whether its gross incompetence unethical bias, or illegal corruption motivating the booth officals it cannot be challenged and corrected on further review, and there is no question of accountability whatever the circumstance.. It's just like it never happened - we never saw it , at least that's how we should act.in reaction to it- not to have any reaction.

This returns to my point about clarity - they just said the pass was incomplete no explanation about which elements weren't met (perhaps because the actually were met) making the pass incomplete (perhaps because it actually was complete). If the League's integrity is beyond reproach why are they so secretive about their rulings and how their made their rules littered with intentionally vague terms which it seems can be interpreted any way officials on the field or in the booth wish play-to-play and game-to-game to affect result-after-result across the League?

 

[Zekeats]

Yep, he took 2 full steps and started to take a 3rd as he was tucking the ball under his arm and lost it.

FYI, we couldn't challenge it because NY called down to say they reviewed it and it wasn't a catch. Complete nonsense that they are randomly chiming in without any challenge and we aren't aware of it.

It was. why not leave it as it was called on the field then let them reveiw it as they would on a turnover anyways? Fixed!

 

[ConstantReboot]

There were many, many, many bad calls but the Waller fumble that was called an incomplete pass was as bad as the Dez catch/no catch. Waller had the ball and was heading up the field when Jayron Kearse knocked that ball out of his hand.

Refs are stupid. They were biased the entire game and basically produced and outcome that won it for the Raiders.

That was a catch. A football move was made. NFL needs to stop with these stupid calls.

 

[INCowboysFan]

Because I thought I did know and found out I was wrong when I came her earlier. Again I didn't know NY had gotten involved and ruled the pass incomplete.

All turnovers are automatically reviewed by NY. This isn't new information.

 

[aikemirv]

I have no idea what a catch is or isn’t anymore anyways. I’ll just take their word for it and pretend the officials aren’t out to screw us over.

I know what a catch is. The NFL however has no clue!

Possession and control and 2 feet down. That is the old rule and all you need. Time or football move is not a factor. When you are in the process of tucking away you have control. Why should the offensive player be rewarded because he can't hang on to the ball when hit?

 

[Runwildboys]

All turnovers are automatically reviewed by NY. This isn't new information.

But according to the official, it was never ruled a turnover. In fact, no announcement was made until after it was allegedly reviewed by the folks in NY and they told the officials what to rule it

 

[INCowboysFan]

Officials correctly let it play out as a turnover. NY then reviewed and overturned it. Pretty simple. These types of bang bang plays get reviewed by NY every week, unless it was blown dead on as an incomplete pass, which it wasn't.

 

[MarcusRock]

The third foot is on the ground and the ball comes out at the same time. Easy to see it's a fumble as he was making a move upfield

Disagree and here's my backup (besides the pic below). No one here who thinks it's a fumble disputes that the 3rd step didn't happen before the ball gets punched out which is why everyone is trying to make the case that he turned upfield. That's telling. What's also telling is that no one here who thinks it's a fumble has addressed the part of the rule I am hanging my hat on and have repeatedly mentioned, which is that the football move part only starts AFTER control and 2 feet occur per the rules, not during control and 2 feet being established. The rule is clear.

As for the pic, here is the point of the video I froze just as the ball is punched out by Kearse. Possession is lost here. If you notice Waller's foot, it has not touched the ground per the space between the shadow on the ground and his foot. If the foot is down, the shadow and foot are connected.

 

[MarcusRock]

Officials correctly let it play out as a turnover. NY then reviewed and overturned it. Pretty simple. These types of bang bang plays get reviewed by NY every week, unless it was blown dead on as an incomplete pass, which it wasn't.

Absolutely. Don't understand the controversy on that point. McCarthy was asked about it in his presser that someone posted here, mentioned that rule and kept going like it was not out of the ordinary. If it were, he or the press asking questions would have asked about it being weird. No one did. This is why I don't get McAuley piping up about it. It's in the rules I posted in this thread around the same time someone posted the presser. Most of these rules controversies are due to the fact that people don't even understand the rules they're questioning (see: Dez in Green Bay in 2014).

 

[MarcusRock]

I just feel it is a waste to interact with him because he avoids answering any question that undermines his argument or in his case advocacy, and that isn't honest or intellectual debate. He is as objective and credible as (depeniding on your politics) Fox News or MSNBC in the eyes of some (again depending on your politics) Point being he is neither credible nor objective

As for "starting to take a step" and "taking a step", I imagine the league probably considers it a step when the foot actually touches the ground, and not before, but I'm not sure enough to say that. But I consider that a moot point in this case, because I agree with you that he turned upfield, which negates the need for a third step.

I always assumed that's what that meant, thanks though for at least explaining. Unlike Mr. Marcus who felt somehow like no explanation was needed nor more critically was there any need to explain where that appears in the NFL Rulebook, nor to acknowledge that in fact it does not. So engaging in intellectual change aimed at some sort of answer is p[ointless because there only one answer to him- the answer crushes his debating opponent. The truth is irrelevent. to him. That makes him irrelevant to me- and it should to everyone else until he grows up a bit.

Just confirming that you've hit the ignore button on me already because you seriously have challenges making 7 posts or so after saying you weren't going to waste time on me anymore, lol.

And with that "starting to" nonsense, you still don't get that it was you that misinterpreted who and what I was addressing. I asked you to go back and read but you're obviously too busy writing about ignoring me. Even those talking to you have stopped responding to your whine to make it stop. Lol.

 

[MarcusRock]

I know what a catch is. The NFL however has no clue!

Possession and control and 2 feet down. That is the old rule and all you need. Time or football move is not a factor. When you are in the process of tucking away you have control. Why should the offensive player be rewarded because he can't hang on to the ball when hit?

What if a player leaps to make a catch and is caught in the air by multiple defenders and not allowed to come down while one tries to rip the ball out? He never gets 2 feet on the ground in that case and the defense might get a strip if they hold him there for 4 seconds. THIS is why you need a time element. It accounts for cases where a receiver is prevented from making a demonstrative show of complete possession. A move (or just time) shows you do.

 

[conner01]

We will never know because our coach didn't challenge it.

Because it was already reviewed and he knew he would lose

 

[conner01]

Just found video of the slo mo replay and the ball is out before the 3rd foot comes down. It's not a catch and correctly called incomplete. At 0:53 below.

I thought it was a catch
But it wasn’t and it was reviewed just not challenged

 

[aikemirv]

What if a player leaps to make a catch and is caught in the air by multiple defenders and not allowed to come down while one tries to rip the ball out? He never gets 2 feet on the ground in that case and the defense might get a strip if they hold him there for 4 seconds. THIS is why you need a time element. It accounts for cases where a receiver is prevented from making a demonstrative show of complete possession. A move (or just time) shows you do.

Why would I need a time element there - he did not get 2 feet down which was my definition of a catch

 

[aikemirv]

I thought it was a catch
But it wasn’t and it was reviewed just not challenged

He caught it and started to tuck and was on his third step. I know he caught it but that gets ruled incomplete most of the time I have seen them so I did not have an issue with it. That was a consistent ruling for the NFL.

 

[Longboysfan]

Yep, he took 2 full steps and started to take a 3rd as he was tucking the ball under his arm and lost it.

FYI, we couldn't challenge it because NY called down to say they reviewed it and it wasn't a catch. Complete nonsense that they are randomly chiming in without any challenge and we aren't aware of it.

This is Mr. Mara calling - that was no catch.

 

[zeke21]

That is a catch.. if we had not knocked the ball out and instead stopped forward momentum.. it would have been ruled a catch without doubt.

 

[MarcusRock]

Why would I need a time element there - he did not get 2 feet down which was my definition of a catch

Right. That's what I'm saying could happen if you ONLY used control and 2 feet down as a marker for a catch. You hold a guy in the air for 10 seconds so his feet never touch the ground, rip the ball out and that's not a catch (wouldn't be a fumble as I said actually). Or, you hold him up and carry him out of bounds and that's not a catch. So with his forward momentum stopped, a guy could have control of the ball suspended in the air by the defense, the whistle blows and it's not a catch. You're okay having that kind of play happen? That's why you need a time element.

 

[MarcusRock]

I thought it was a catch
But it wasn’t and it was reviewed just not challenged

To the naked eye it looks like one. But when you look at the rules he did not fulfill all 3 elements of a catch IMO. That's what they saw on review too.

 

[aikemirv]

Right. That's what I'm saying could happen if you ONLY used control and 2 feet down as a marker for a catch. You hold a guy in the air for 10 seconds so his feet never touch the ground, rip the ball out and that's not a catch (wouldn't be a fumble as I said actually). Or, you hold him up and carry him out of bounds and that's not a catch. So with his forward momentum stopped, a guy could have control of the ball suspended in the air by the defense, the whistle blows and it's not a catch. You're okay having that kind of play happen? That's why you need a time element.

Yeah I am OK because it never happens. People get pushed out of bounds but nobody is ever held up in the air that long as you suggest COULD happen.