OBJ/Devin Street Fumble

[phildadon86]

Can someone explain to me why one was called and one wasnt? I really didnt see any difference between the plays. I was a little intoxicated so maybe i missed something, but after the JJ hit i thought was a fumble the play with Street looked very similar and i dont understand why one was called and one wasnt. Enlighten me please

 

[triplets92]

It was a int not a fumble. That's why.

 

[Shatz88]

Can someone explain to me why one was called and one wasnt? I really didnt see any difference between the plays. I was a little intoxicated so maybe i missed something, but after the JJ hit i thought was a fumble the play with Street looked very similar and i dont understand why one was called and one wasnt. Enlighten me please

The ball never touched the ground on the pass to Street. Ball went from his hands directly into Giants players hands.

 

[Garrettop]

The ball never hit the ground when it was popped out of Street's hands. It's not complicated.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Yeah you must 've really be drunk lol. It was picked off and not fumbled. Never hit the ground.

I think the argument you might be sort of confusing was the play......I can't remember exactly myself but the Cowboys had to use their last challenge to get it overturned. How the refs didn't catch that was kind of annoying to me. I thought both teams got hosed by the refs.

 

[xwalker]

The ball never hit the ground when it was popped out of Street's hands. It's not complicated.

That does not matter. A fumble could pop up and not hit the ground either.

The question is why didn't they rule that he had made the catch? He had possession for a split second before the hit.

It didn't matter in terms of the game because of the fact that it didn't hit the ground, but it shows up as an INT by Romo instead of a fumble by Street.

 

[xwalker]

Yeah you must 've really be drunk lol. It was picked off and not fumbled. Never hit the ground.

I think the argument you might be sort of confusing was the play......I can't remember exactly myself but the Cowboys had to use their last challenge to get it overturned. How the refs didn't catch that was kind of annoying to me. I thought both teams got hosed by the refs.

A fumble can be recovered in the air without hitting the ground.

 

[texbumthelife]

Because the refs don't care about stats and interception was the easiest call to make there. They would have had to review it, just like the OBJ play, to determine if he had possession to change the call to a fumble, just for the sake of stats. The refs don't care about Fantasy Football.

 

[speedkilz88]

That does not matter. A fumble could pop up and not hit the ground either.

The question is why didn't they rule that he had made the catch? He had possession for a split second before the hit.

It didn't matter in terms of the game because of the fact that it didn't hit the ground, but it shows up as an INT by Romo instead of a fumble by Street.

He was juggling it so I get why it would be ruled an interception.

 

[AzorAhai]

That does not matter. A fumble could pop up and not hit the ground either.

The question is why didn't they rule that he had made the catch? He had possession for a split second before the hit.

It didn't matter in terms of the game because of the fact that it didn't hit the ground, but it shows up as an INT by Romo instead of a fumble by Street.

I think he was still bobbling the ball. At least he was readjusting it. I guess that could be argued, but they probably don't care enough to adjust it in the stats anyways.

 

[xwalker]

He was juggling it so I get why it would be ruled an interception.

Yes, I thought it was probably an INT but I'm just trying to explain the OP question. People seem to think that it can only be a fumble if it hit the ground.

 

[VACowboy]

The ball never touched the ground on the pass to Street. Ball went from his hands directly into Giants players hands.

Still looked like a fumble to me.

 

[xwalker]

I think he was still bobbling the ball. At least he was readjusting it. I guess that could be argued, but they probably don't care enough to adjust it in the stats anyways.

I agree that he did have possession long enough, especially considering the rules on what is a possession. I was pointing out the the OPs question would be determined based on whether or not it was a catch NOT whether or not it hit the ground.

 

[BrassCowboy]

That does not matter. A fumble could pop up and not hit the ground either.

The question is why didn't they rule that he had made the catch? He had possession for a split second before the hit.

It didn't matter in terms of the game because of the fact that it didn't hit the ground, but it shows up as an INT by Romo instead of a fumble by Street.

that was close, but I am thinking he didnt really get possession of it. Doesn't really matter. That wasn't on Romo as that was dead on. Street just got nailed pretty good to lose it up in air.

 

[Doomsday101]

Can someone explain to me why one was called and one wasnt? I really didnt see any difference between the plays. I was a little intoxicated so maybe i missed something, but after the JJ hit i thought was a fumble the play with Street looked very similar and i dont understand why one was called and one wasnt. Enlighten me please

It was not fumble by street. The ball never hit the ground it was ruled an Int

 

[DeaconMoss]

I think he was still bobbling the ball. At least he was readjusting it. I guess that could be argued, but they probably don't care enough to adjust it in the stats anyways.

This. OBJ never had control of the ball.

 

[xwalker]

that was close, but I am thinking he didnt really get possession of it. Doesn't really matter. That wasn't on Romo as that was dead on. Street just got nailed pretty good to lose it up in air.

It was not fumble by street. The ball never hit the ground it was ruled an Int

I don't think it was a fumble but it does not matter whether or not it hit the ground. If he had possession and then it was knocked up in the air and caught it would have been a fumble.

The question is about possession. Did he catch it or not. The fact that it did not hit the ground is completely irrelevant.

 

[Doomsday101]

I don't think it was a fumble but it does not matter whether or not it hit the ground. If he had possession and then it was knocked up in the air and caught it would have been a fumble.

The question is about possession. Did he catch it or not. The fact that it did not hit the ground is completely irrelevant.

It would not matter if it were a fumble but it wasn't it was an INT and ruled as an INT. It is relevant in that had the ball hit the ground it would have been incomplete but because it rebounded into the hands of the DB it was an int yet Street never had possession

 

[iceberg]

It was not fumble by street. The ball never hit the ground it was ruled an Int

except it was ruled an interception which means if it had hit the ground it *should* have been incomplete in this instance.

 

[Doomsday101]

except it was ruled an interception which means if it had hit the ground it *should* have been incomplete in this instance.

I agree. Street never had full possession but since the ball never hit the ground and was caught by the philly DB it was an int. Same as if was a few years back vs NYG where the ball hit the back of Witten foot and into the arms of a DB for the int.