Darren Waller fumbled that ball

[OmerV]

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.

That happened a couple of times. I guess the idea is to speed up the game by making quick calls before they are challenged, but that makes sense to me only if the play is unquestionably clear and indisputable. I don't see how that could have been considered the case with that play. It deserved a very careful look from multiple angles.

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

It never happens because there's no benefit to it happening now because the rules take care of that with the time element. You change the rules to eliminate time the way you say and there becomes a benefit to making that happen to disallow a catch. That's why time is needed.

 

[aikemirv]

It never happens because there's no benefit to it happening now because the rules take care of that with the time element. You change the rules to eliminate time the way you say and there becomes a benefit to making that happen to disallow a catch. That's why time is needed.

I can have the same control in 1/2 second that I have in 10 seconds. Control is control. Time and football move just complicate things and open up for interpretation. 2 feet down and control - the old rule is sufficient

 

[MarcusRock]

I can have the same control in 1/2 second that I have in 10 seconds. Control is control. Time and football move just complicate things and open up for interpretation. 2 feet down and control - the old rule is sufficient

Except where you're prevented from getting 2 feet down, which was the gist of my example.

 

[aikemirv]

Except where you're prevented from getting 2 feet down, which was the gist of my example.

Your example never happens and would not happen because of my 2 feet down rule and nobody ever could get held up in the air like some concert goer in an NFL game! If they could they would be doing it now to get an Int. Your example is ridiculous.

 

[MarcusRock]

Your example never happens and would not happen because of my 2 feet down rule and nobody ever could get held up in the air like some concert goer in an NFL game! If they could they would be doing it now to get an Int. Your example is ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous. It simply exposes why you can't eliminate time from the catch equation. It's not done now because it doesn't need to be done now because time IS part of the equation. You don't see it but then again you don't have incentive to see it because it makes your proposal an ineffective one and too simplistic for how game play is now. Same reason my example isn't done now. No incentive with the rules in place.

 

[Jarntt]

Very close and sucks for us, but I thought they got the call right

 

[DandyDon52]

2 feet down and control - the old rule is sufficient

exactly, so now ask yourself why the rule was changed to current rule to begin with????
I say because they want to manipulate games , now they can make it a catch or no catch whenever it suits them.
And keep in mind the owners make up the rules and change rules in their rules committee.

And I think C. Jones is on that committee.

 

[Rayman70]

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.

I was at the 50 watching live. IT WAS A FUMBLE. Even Raider fans knew it and they KNEW they got away with 1. The refs were trash. YES we played sloppy..but that doesn't change that play. It happened. Cost us the game.

 

[DandyDon52]

I will add that there is a difference between losing control of the ball, and the ball moving around trying to secure it, and having it knocked out.
If it is secure and it is knocked out then it isnt a fumble it is a strip/knock out, and that should always be a turnover.

 

[Rayman70]

Very close and sucks for us, but I thought they got the call right

It wasn't close. I was there. They blew the call and MM never challenged it. Gross mistake.

 

[Rayman70]

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.

2 the letter of the rule, IT WAS A FUMBLE. Raider FANS ALSO KNEW IT.

 

[Rayman70]

I will add that there is a difference between losing control of the ball, and the ball moving around trying to secure it, and having it knocked out.
If it is secure and it is knocked out then it isnt a fumble it is a strip/knock out, and that should always be a turnover.

^^^this^^100%

 

[MarcusRock]

2 the letter of the rule, IT WAS A FUMBLE. Raider FANS ALSO KNEW IT.

Yeah, sorry bro. It just wasn't. The 3rd step football move is what applied here and there was no 3rd step before the ball was punched out. People are lobbying for "turning upfield" of course (because the know the 3rd step kills the argument) but Waller was already headed that way after getting 2 feet down. You can't turn upfield while already headed upfield.

 

[conner01]

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.

Exactly

 

[ultron]

I was at the 50 watching live. IT WAS A FUMBLE. Even Raider fans knew it and they KNEW they got away with 1. The refs were trash. YES we played sloppy..but that doesn't change that play. It happened. Cost us the game.

I agree, that’s a huge momentum shift and I don’t think people realize how important momentum is in football. Especially the way they recovered that fumble - one of the best recoveries I’ve ever seen. Jayron Kearse is a damn beast

 

[johneric8]

I have an honest question for you guys then about this so called play.

If waller would of been tackled without losing the ball at the same place he fumbled would it of been a completion? If the answer is yes, we were screwed.

 

[Runwildboys]

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

Well, we've seen a receiver caught in midair and driven backward, and forward progress denote that it was a catch. So clearly having two feet down isn't necessarily mandatory. I wonder if they have that written in the rule book.

 

[Runwildboys]

I have an honest question for you guys then about this so called play.

If waller would of been tackled without losing the ball at the same place he fumbled would it of been a completion? If the answer is yes, we were screwed.

If he'd held onto the ball? Of course that would've been a completion. Your feet don't even need to touch the ground to be downed by contact. But, if he'd been frozen in time at the point the ball was being punched...now that's a discussion worth having!

 

[MarcusRock]

I have an honest question for you guys then about this so called play.

If waller would of been tackled without losing the ball at the same place he fumbled would it of been a completion? If the answer is yes, we were screwed.

Of course it would have been a catch because firstly he would have completed his 3rd step before being tackled and you're saying wouldn't have fumbled. The point of this issue, IMO is he didn't take a 3rd step before the ball was punched loose by Kearse just before that. So therefore he did not meet the time element of the rule (part c).

But by the complete catch rule (including going to the ground) it would still be a catch if he was tackled even with no feet down so long as he maintained possession because then they'd rule that enough time had passed to fulfill the time (football move) element of the catch rule.