Micah's fumble recovery

[CalPolyTechnique]

I don't know if it was the right call but I understood it.. If they adjudged Mixon to have control with one hand the play was dead the instant Parsons touched him. I assume that was what they ruling was because it was clear that Parsons snatched the ball away pretty much instantly.

Mixon had control of the ball on the ground when it was in the crux of his arm.

THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT STATES POSSESSION = TWO HANDS.

Parsons never took possession of the ball. He only grabbed at it and they both were wrestling for it.

Parsons walking away with the ball inconsequential because the refs already ruled it was Cincy ball.

 

[DogFace]

I don't know if it was the right call but I understood it.. If they adjudged Mixon to have control with one hand the play was dead the instant Parsons touched him. I assume that was what they ruling was because it was clear that Parsons snatched the ball away pretty much instantly.

I haven’t seen a ref blow a loose ball dead that quickly ever, but to be fair I was on about beer 10 by then.

 

[Creeper]

I thought it was a tie to be honest, being objective. Tie goes to the offensive player I believe in that situation.

It's a little more complicated with fumbles than receptions but it both player possess the football it goes back to the offense. The problem is, the offensive player never really had possession of the ball from what I could see.

Mixon had control of the ball on the ground when it was in the crux of his arm.

THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT STATES POSSESSION = TWO HANDS.

Parsons never took possession of the ball. He only grabbed at it and they both were wrestling for it.

Parsons walking away with the ball inconsequential because the refs already ruled it was Cincy ball.

Ok, I don't think anyone is saying possession requires two hands. I think what people are saying is there must be control of the football. I did not see where Mixon had control of the ball. Just reaching out and getting a hand on it is not control.

Does anyone have the video they showed on TV. Still pictures are not sufficient to debate either way.

I also agree with what some others are saying that it looked like a quick whistle.

In any case, if they reviewed the video in NY and awarded the ball to the Bengals they must have seen something.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Still shots are the worst form of evidence because it doesn’t show the entirety of the play.

There are still Cowboy fans that think Santonio Holmes didn’t get both feet down in the Super Bowl because of a still shot that conveniently only shows Holmes’ feet after he toe-touched with both feet, luulz.

 

[aikemirv]

Still shots are the worst form of evidence because it doesn’t show the entirety of the play.

There are still Cowboy fans that think Santonio Holmes didn’t get both feet down in the Super Bowl because of a still shot that conveniently only shows Holmes’ feet after he toe-touched with both feet, luulz.

Eh, while I may agree Holmes foot touched blades of grass, I don't think they ever hit the turf!

 

[glimmerman]

I agree that's what they did.. I just don't agree that it was ever really a tie. The first person to get two hands on the ball was Parsons.. The first person to bring the ball into his body was Parsons.. Yes Mixon always had at least one hand in there but at no point in time did he have control of it.

Exactly. Parsons had it. Only thing the wr did was have one hand in and reach the other hand in for appearance. He in no way had the ball. He knew the rule and only needed to make It look that way.

 

[RonnieT24]

Mixon had control of the ball on the ground when it was in the crux of his arm.

THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT STATES POSSESSION = TWO HANDS.

Parsons never took possession of the ball. He only grabbed at it and they both were wrestling for it.

Parsons walking away with the ball inconsequential because the refs already ruled it was Cincy ball.

Sorry but this is patently false. Mixon never had control of the ball. It was moving around on his arm when Parsons arrived and started making it move more.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Eh, while I may agree Holmes foot touched blades of grass, I don't think they ever hit the turf!

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Sorry but this is patently false. Mixon never had control of the ball. It was moving around on his arm when Parsons arrived and started making it move more.

Sorry that’s patently false.

Mixon had control of the ball in the crux of his arm. Movement of the ball doesn’t negate possession. Those are the rules and the rules don’t care about your pet theories or disregard.

Note 3: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

It's a little more complicated with fumbles than receptions but it both player possess the football it goes back to the offense. The problem is, the offensive player never really had possession of the ball from what I could see.


Ok, I don't think anyone is saying possession requires two hands. I think what people are saying is there must be control of the football. I did not see where Mixon had control of the ball. Just reaching out and getting a hand on it is not control.

Does anyone have the video they showed on TV. Still pictures are not sufficient to debate either way.

I also agree with what some others are saying that it looked like a quick whistle.

In any case, if they reviewed the video in NY and awarded the ball to the Bengals they must have seen something.

Yeah, RonnieT is coming up with the two hand nonsense which folks are buying into. It’s all in the thread.

Mixon had control of the ball in the crux of his arm. He never lost control. In terms of sequence, Parsons came in after the fact and started wrestling for the ball.

 

[aikemirv]

Sorry that’s patently false.

Mixon had control of the ball in the crux of his arm. Movement of the ball doesn’t negate possession. Those are the rules and the rules don’t care about your pet theories or disregard.

Note 3: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

To have control of the ball while it is on the ground on one side and pinned a bit to your shoulder without fingers around the ball would be very debatable control by NFL standards. I am not really saying one way or the other but that is very debatable control according to what we have seen by the NFL

 

[aikemirv]

Yeah, like I said, he definitely got some blades of grass!