Zeke's Fumble

[Runwildboys]

And what we don't know is if that ball's movement is considered "slipping" considering the ball does in fact come all the way out eventually. Again, I'd like to see the rule on this. All I'm seeing and hearing are interpretations from the broadcast and posts.

I haven't been following this thread, so I don't know all the comments, but at least my impression was that the ball wasn't slipping until after the elbow came down. The announcers seemed to think it was, so maybe I missed something, but that's how I saw it.

Pasted from my reply to Marcus in the other thread:
The best way I can explain my personal understanding is to imagine the ball is glued into his hands. When the glue breaks its hold on the ball to both hands, (when being held with 2 hands, of course) it's "slipping". If even one hand is still glued, it's under control.

 

[Denim Chicken]

It was close so I understand why they stayed with the call

This is what angers me, though. If it was so close, why did the official rule the fumble in the first place? Should be ruled down and then let the reply overturn if there is evidence.

 

[dallasdave]

Hold on to the rock, you overpriced, pierce-faced piece of Cabo drama...

Send in #94

 

[OmerV]

Pasted from my reply to Marcus in the other thread:
The best way I can explain my personal understanding is to imagine the ball is glued into his hands. When the glue breaks its hold on the ball to both hands, (when being held with 2 hands, of course) it's "slipping". If even one hand is still glued, it's under control.

So, in this case, if one hand was still "glued" at the time Zeke's elbow hit the ground then it shouldn't be a fumble? That's what I thought was the case, but I guess the refs were less sure.

 

[G2]

Right, but the question is what does the league consider. It "began moving" and did eventually come all the way out. McCauley mentioned the movement as well in talking about not enough evidence to overturn so the movement is "some kind of" factor. What, by league rules, I haven't found.

Good question. We know they have screwed up what a catch is. I think you have to look at it as a running who had possession until after he make contact with the ground.

I do get that it may not be good enough to over turn. That I'm unsure of, but I also think it should have not been called in the 1st place.

 

[Runwildboys]

This is what angers me, though. If it was so close, why did the official rule the fumble in the first place? Should be ruled down and then let the reply overturn if there is evidence.

But it doesn't automatically get reviewed unless it's ruled a turnover. The Saints would've had to risk a challenge.

 

[beware_d-ware]

I didn't see a fumble, but it was close enough to where I don't blame the officials for letting it stand either.

On the whole though, the refs called a really bad game. Like that roughing call on D-Law, PI on Cooper, holding on any decent play by either team... like c'mon man.

 

[aikemirv]

Good question. We know they have screwed up what a catch is. I think you have to look at it as a running who had possession until after he make contact with the ground.

I do get that it may not be good enough to over turn. That I'm unsure of, but I also think it should have not been called in the 1st place.

There was plenty of view there to overturn. His elbow was on the ground before the defender yanks the ball up and out. It was obvious and a blatant error.

 

[Denim Chicken]

But it doesn't automatically get reviewed unless it's ruled a turnover. The Saints would've had to risk a challenge.

That's fine with me. Seems like the official make a 50/50 call. If you're going to do that, they need to err on the side of keeping the ball with the offense instead of changing possession on a whim.

 

[Runwildboys]

That's fine with me. Seems like the official make a 50/50 call. If you're going to do that, they need to err on the side of keeping the ball with the offense instead of changing possession on a whim.

I hear the commentators often saying the league wants them to err on the side of turnover, so they can use the replay without unfairly taxing the other team to challenge.

 

[DuncanIso]

I didn't think it was a fumble either but bottom line, don't fumble that ball. I mean, you can't have that if you are Zeke. JMO

He had it ripped from his arms. While his elbow was down.

 

[G2]

To be fair, the call was made in real time. And Elliott could have protected the ball better, even though yards matter - you have to factor in risk vs. reward.

But I don't think it was a fumble. And pretty flimsy.

 

[cowboyec]

I thought he was down.
but what the hell do I know...I thought the PI calls on Cooooooop twice and once on Awuzie were crap too.

 

[G2]

I thought he was down.
but what the hell do I know...I thought the PI calls on Cooooooop twice and once on Awuzie were crap too.

I agree

 

[leeblair]

I am biased. Let's get that out there up front.

I watched the replay of the fumble by Zeke, as everyone who watched the game did. I disagree with the comments made about clear evidence.

Now let's also get this out of the way. I think it is a huge mistake for the broadcast to have an official second guessing the call. There is a reason baseball does not allow replays of balls and strikes to occur on the stadium big screens. My belief is this exacerbates the fans angst over missed calls. Especially when the "expert" in the booth seems to either get it wrong, or disagrees with the eye in the sky that is the ultimate arbiter.

To me (remember the bias) Zeke's elbow was down. The "expert" suggested the ball was moving, yet - again, to me - it did not move until he hit the ground. The "expert" said he did not have control. Yet the ball was still in the crook of his arm until he touched down.

I could be wrong. Most here that know me can point to those times with ease. But in that scrum, I don't believe the refs had enough information to make that call to begin with.

I also think the completely asinine thought process of reversing the call leaves out a significant aspect. The fact in a scrum, the refs don't have a clear cut view, and therefore cannot make an accurate call. The refs could not possibly see that fumble from any angle they had. So the automatic cannot reverse the call has a flaw that the refs cannot say they just didn't see it correctly.

In Zeke's defense, he usually is really good at covering up. But he, like every other ball carrier will occasionally put it on the ground. I think this was a bang bang play and there was no ref that could clearly see the ball come out and whether is was down or it was a strip.

I surely think the "expert" is just winging it, and find this aspect of the game as a way to stir up the viewing audience. In other words I believe this is a stupid idea.

But again, I believe Zeke was down and there was no clear cut view by the officials on the field to make the initial call, and the "expert" was incorrect in his elbow touching before the ball slipped out.

Just my opinion.

If that game was played in Dallas- not a fumble.
But the Cowboys have had their share of those kinds of calls, too.
It's the NFL; which is an "entertainment" business.

 

[mattjames2010]

Hold onto the ball and this wouldn't happen. Zeke officially has a fumbling problem.

 

[Fletch]

I am biased. Let's get that out there up front.

I watched the replay of the fumble by Zeke, as everyone who watched the game did. I disagree with the comments made about clear evidence.

Now let's also get this out of the way. I think it is a huge mistake for the broadcast to have an official second guessing the call. There is a reason baseball does not allow replays of balls and strikes to occur on the stadium big screens. My belief is this exacerbates the fans angst over missed calls. Especially when the "expert" in the booth seems to either get it wrong, or disagrees with the eye in the sky that is the ultimate arbiter.

To me (remember the bias) Zeke's elbow was down. The "expert" suggested the ball was moving, yet - again, to me - it did not move until he hit the ground. The "expert" said he did not have control. Yet the ball was still in the crook of his arm until he touched down.

I could be wrong. Most here that know me can point to those times with ease. But in that scrum, I don't believe the refs had enough information to make that call to begin with.

I also think the completely asinine thought process of reversing the call leaves out a significant aspect. The fact in a scrum, the refs don't have a clear cut view, and therefore cannot make an accurate call. The refs could not possibly see that fumble from any angle they had. So the automatic cannot reverse the call has a flaw that the refs cannot say they just didn't see it correctly.

In Zeke's defense, he usually is really good at covering up. But he, like every other ball carrier will occasionally put it on the ground. I think this was a bang bang play and there was no ref that could clearly see the ball come out and whether is was down or it was a strip.

I surely think the "expert" is just winging it, and find this aspect of the game as a way to stir up the viewing audience. In other words I believe this is a stupid idea.

But again, I believe Zeke was down and there was no clear cut view by the officials on the field to make the initial call, and the "expert" was incorrect in his elbow touching before the ball slipped out.

Just my opinion.

He was down. We did get screwed on that big play. Had we gotten the benefit of the doubt, I “think” we outplay and score on them. Thus, we’re 4-0.

Oh well. Didn’t happen. Bring on the Pack at home!

 

[Denim Chicken]

I hear the commentators often saying the league wants them to err on the side of turnover, so they can use the replay without unfairly taxing the other team to challenge.

That's ridiculous to me. So if the call is wrong (& too close to call) a time out is more important than a game changing turnover?

 

[Runwildboys]

He was down. We did get screwed on that big play. Had we gotten the benefit of the doubt, I “think” we outplay and score on them. Thus, we’re 4-0.

Oh well. Didn’t happen. Bring on the Pack at home!

I agree. I was thinking that play may have completely changed the momentum and outcome of the game. Not only for the obvious reasons, but because it kept the crowd into it the whole game.

 

[Fletch]

I agree. I was thinking that play may have completely changed the momentum and outcome of the game. Not only for the obvious reasons, but because it kept the crowd into it the whole game.

One could say had Witten not fumbled, we’d have been at least a FG up. That one actually hurt the most!