Darren Waller fumbled that ball

[aikemirv]

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.

But in the old days they had to come down with the ball whether they had progress or not-still had to get the feet down

 

[nobody]

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.

That's a catch. Even if it's not, there is NO precedent for New York calling and making a change during the game without a challenge. In fact, I think that's against league rules too.

I'm not saying there's a conspiracy. I'm not saying the Cowboy were screwed. What I am saying is that according to the rules that's a catch and New York calling to change a ruling without a challenge is against their own rules too.

He turned upfield which counts as part of a completion. Here's part of the rule in question:

• A football move, such as: a third step; reaching/extending for the line-to-gain; or the ability to perform such an act

His turn upfield is a football move.

 

[MarcusRock]

Rules say two steps, doesn't it? That's a catch. Even if it's not, there is NO precedent for New York calling and making a change during the game without a challenge. In fact, I think that's against league rules too.

I'm not saying there's a conspiracy. I'm not saying the Cowboy were screwed. What I am saying is that according to the rules (if 2 steps is the rule) that's a catch and New York calling to change a ruling without a challenge is against their own rules too.

The Replay Official can chime in whenever he wants in these situations. It's the same rule that governs automatic reviews of scoring plays. See highlights in red.

ARTICLE 2. REPLAY OFFICIAL REQUEST FOR REVIEW. Only the Replay Official or the Senior Vice President of Officiating
or his or her designee may initiate a review of a play:
(a) that begins after the two-minute warning of each half;
(b) throughout any overtime period;
(c) when points are scored by either team;
(d) that is a Try attempt (successful or unsuccessful); and
(e) when on-field officials rule:

(1) an interception by an opponent;
(2) a fumble or backward pass recovered by an opponent or that goes out of bounds through the opponent’s end zone;
(3) a scrimmage kick touched by the receiving team and recovered by the kicking team; or
(4) a disqualification of a player.​

Such plays may be reviewed regardless of whether a foul is committed on the play that, if accepted, would negate the on-field
ruling.
The Replay Official may only challenge a play until the next legal snap or kick. The Replay Official may consult with a
designated member of the Officiating department at the league office regarding whether to challenge a play.​

 

[OmerV]

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.

This isn't an applicable standard. Any time any receiver is tackled within the field of play without losing the ball it's a completion. In that case it wouldn't matter if he never took even a single step, the possession would be established and the completion would count when he went down without losing the ball. The issue here is that he did lose the ball and whether he had done enough to establish possession before that point.

 

[nobody]

The Replay Official can chime in whenever he wants in these situations. It's the same rule that governs automatic reviews of scoring plays. See highlights in red.

ARTICLE 2. REPLAY OFFICIAL REQUEST FOR REVIEW. Only the Replay Official or the Senior Vice President of Officiating
or his or her designee may initiate a review of a play:
(a) that begins after the two-minute warning of each half;
(b) throughout any overtime period;
(c) when points are scored by either team;
(d) that is a Try attempt (successful or unsuccessful); and
(e) when on-field officials rule:

(1) an interception by an opponent;
(2) a fumble or backward pass recovered by an opponent or that goes out of bounds through the opponent’s end zone;
(3) a scrimmage kick touched by the receiving team and recovered by the kicking team; or
(4) a disqualification of a player.​

Such plays may be reviewed regardless of whether a foul is committed on the play that, if accepted, would negate the on-field
ruling.
The Replay Official may only challenge a play until the next legal snap or kick. The Replay Official may consult with a
designated member of the Officiating department at the league office regarding whether to challenge a play.​

Fair. Interesting that this is the only time I've ever heard of this done during a game like this without a request.

 

[MarcusRock]

Fair. Interesting that this is the only time I've ever heard of this done during a game like this without a request.

They do it all the time. If there was anything the refs could have done, they could have said it was reviewed and reversed. But when they review scoring plays they don't say it was reviewed and upheld even though all of them are reviewed.

 

[boysbeyond4ever]

Should I waste time asking Marcus to show here it says that, because the rule doesn't distinguish anything clearly and that manner. The Rule has been posted here multiple times. We have eyes too Marcus we can see his feet are down he has possession and the ball is knocked loose.. Now the wait for Marcus to remind he has no credibility

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!

I was going to note that that was the inconsistency it appears to be as you rightly note but I'm not sure it is because at if you are hit immediately in mid-air and taken to the gournd and hold on, you likely have two fette down or like on the sideline play one knee = two feet. But there is still an itriguing inconsistency in the rule there that would be worth re-visiting if the League cared about the impact of good or bad officating on its games.

 

[boysbeyond4ever]

Fair. Interesting that this is the only time I've ever heard of this done during a game like this without a request.

Basically it's similar to or the same as is the NCAA replay rules. Just for whatever reason the NFL decides getting more game-changing calls right doesn't matter that much - It also seems designed so that the replay officials decisions right or wrong game-changing or not are final and cannot be challenged. Tell me that can't lead to gross incompetence unethical bias, or some sort of financial corruption. And the NFL clearly doesn't care. It sets its rules up the way it does by choice and then does as little to address the issues they create as possible, and refuses to make changes that could both improve both the quality of officiating and increase confidence in the integrity of the game.

It's not just frustrated Cowboy fans. You know who you are- go tell Mike Florio who knows more about the NFL and its rules than any of you ever will he is just a whiner.

 

[boysbeyond4ever]

That's a catch. Even if it's not, there is NO precedent for New York calling and making a change during the game without a challenge. In fact, I think that's against league rules too.

I'm not saying there's a conspiracy. I'm not saying the Cowboy were screwed. What I am saying is that according to the rules that's a catch and New York calling to change a ruling without a challenge is against their own rules too.

He turned upfield which counts as part of a completion. Here's part of the rule in question:

• A football move, such as: a third step; reaching/extending for the line-to-gain; or the ability to perform such an act

His turn upfield is a football move.

Exactly.

 

[Cowboysheelsreds053]

I totally forgot Carr falling and bumping his head on an arm on the way down....FLAG!!!

He had left the pocket as a runner (he was not in the pocket as a passer) and even the head official guy that was on with Romo and the other guy said as much that it should not be roughing.

 

[MarcusRock]

He turned upfield which counts as part of a completion. Here's part of the rule in question:

• A football move, such as: a third step; reaching/extending for the line-to-gain; or the ability to perform such an act

His turn upfield is a football move.

I didn't see that you'd edited your post earlier after I responded so will address this part. We all agree he had control and 2 feet so it's the football move part where some disagree. First, the catch rule in play (my highlights in red):

RULE 8 FORWARD PASS, BACKWARD PASS, FUMBLE
ARTICLE 3. COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is
complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) in the field of play, at the sideline, or in the end zone if a player, who is
inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take
an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.​

I believe the additional step football move is the one in question here. To me, turning upfield covers a situation where a receiver is stopped or stops to leap while facing a QB, comes down on 2 feet and then turns upfield because he isn't going that direction already, obviously. The second reason I believe the 3rd step is at play is that in the rules above it says that parts (a) and (b) must be completed first, then you look for a football move. By his second step (which had to be completed first by the rules as written), Waller was already headed upfield in the direction he was trying to go. You can't turn upfield when you're already headed upfield. Neither do the rules say the football move can happen AS you gain control and get 2 feet down. They specifically say AFTER. To me, the 3rd step football move is designed for a receiver that's already running when he makes a catch since he's not likely to do any of those other moves except dive for the goal line or 1st down marker. Same for any receiver with a catch running down the sideline. Each of those moves appear to cover different types of catch scenarios and no two appear to cover the same.

So when you examine the video, it's easy to see that Waller didn't get a 3rd foot down before the ball is punched out by Kearse. At the end of the video, you see the ref with McCarthy holding up 3 fingers as he's about to explain what happened but then it cuts out. I assume he explained the same thing I'm saying here abut the 3 steps.

 

[MarcusRock]

Should I waste time asking Marcus to show here it says that, because the rule doesn't distinguish anything clearly and that manner. The Rule has been posted here multiple times. We have eyes too Marcus we can see his feet are down he has possession and the ball is knocked loose.. Now the wait for Marcus to remind he has no credibility

Bro, this is probably your 8th post in a row after you said you weren't going to "waste any more time" with me so obviously you have plenty of time to waste. What's hilarious is people are ignoring you in your obsession even as you instructed them to ignore me. Lol. Anybody looking for a definition of traumatized has quite a case study in you. Make like Elsa and let it go.

 

[Mk2_Cowboys]

You can ask meathead Mike why he didn’t challenge it.

 

[Runwildboys]

The Replay Official can chime in whenever he wants in these situations. It's the same rule that governs automatic reviews of scoring plays. See highlights in red.

ARTICLE 2. REPLAY OFFICIAL REQUEST FOR REVIEW. Only the Replay Official or the Senior Vice President of Officiating
or his or her designee may initiate a review of a play:
(a) that begins after the two-minute warning of each half;
(b) throughout any overtime period;
(c) when points are scored by either team;
(d) that is a Try attempt (successful or unsuccessful); and
(e) when on-field officials rule:

(1) an interception by an opponent;
(2) a fumble or backward pass recovered by an opponent or that goes out of bounds through the opponent’s end zone;
(3) a scrimmage kick touched by the receiving team and recovered by the kicking team; or
(4) a disqualification of a player.​

Such plays may be reviewed regardless of whether a foul is committed on the play that, if accepted, would negate the on-field
ruling.
The Replay Official may only challenge a play until the next legal snap or kick. The Replay Official may consult with a
designated member of the Officiating department at the league office regarding whether to challenge a play.​

If I remember correctly, the on field official eventually claimed that the call on the field was an incomplete pass. Someone screwed up in this whole process.

 

[MarcusRock]

If I remember correctly, the on field official eventually claimed that the call on the field was an incomplete pass. Someone screwed up in this whole process.

Yes, the ref just stated the ruling on the field was an incomplete pass. Not sure if they're supposed to say a play is being reviewed or not but as we know, if all scoring plays are reviewed, hardly anyone ever says they are unless they take a while or they think it's really close. Same rule in question here for turnovers.

 

[Runwildboys]

Yes, the ref just stated the ruling on the field was an incomplete pass. Not sure if they're supposed to say a play is being reviewed or not but as we know, if all scoring plays are reviewed, hardly anyone ever says they are unless they take a while or they think it's really close. Same rule in question here for turnovers.

My point is that nobody called it an incompletion until after the review. Tony and Jim watched the replay 3 times, thinking it was a fumble, before the official announced that the on field call was an incomplete pass. That was after the call came in from NY. I can understand why the usual conspiracy theorists would be fueled by this one.

 

[StarBoyz83]

Thought it was a fumble live like most did. After the replay I knew it'd get overturned. Pretty close to a bang bang play so I dont have an issue with it tbh

The roughing the passer on the lion when the qb fell into him on the other hand!!! lol that was a joke!

 

[Rayman70]

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

well said. Kearse has been better than good all year.

 

[Rayman70]

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.

Waller caught it Then FUMBLED. It was a dumb call.

 

[Rayman70]

Exactly

wrong as rain. I was there. I saw " a football move. He turned up field. THEN FUMBLED. Any other crew would have given the ball to Dallas. That same crew worked the Monday night game last night and were flag happy. Some ref crews call or don't call things the same. Thats a fact.