Can You Review Down By Contact Now...? (1 Viewer)

[Stinkin Ref]

Plummer scrambles up the middle.....he is going down.....but on top of two Indy players.....ball comes out.....recovered by Indy and run back a few yards.....Indy player is tackled.....refs come in and say Plummer was down by contact......Denver lines up to punt....Dungy throws challenge flag just before punt....play is reviewed......call over turned.....Indy given the ball at Denver 12 yard line....

What have I missed, I thought once a player was called down by contact, the play was over even if they screwed the call up?

What if Indy would have been running it back for a TD?

I hate the Broncos so I loved this call, but I really didn't think this play could be reviewed.

Hope Perrera talks about this on NFL Network.

 

[thayman]

yes you can, it was a rule change this year IIRC

 

[Mungo Burrows]

Only up until the time the whistle blows. If they blow the whistle right away, it's dead and a reveiw won't change it. In this case, the IND player had possession (and was already down) before the whistle blew, so they can overturn the call of down by contact.

I think this is why they let plays where the ball comes loose run a while before blowing the whistle, even if they come back and call the player down. It keeps replay available as an option.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

So at what point does the whistle stop or for that matter not stop the play?

 

[AB in DC]

Whistle always stops the play...

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Only up until the time the whistle blows. If they blow the whistle right away, it's dead and a reveiw won't change it. In this case, the IND player had possession (and was already down) before the whistle blew, so they can overturn the call of down by contact. I think this is why they let plays where the ball comes loose run a while before blowing the whistle, even if they come back and call the player down. It keeps replay available as an option.

So if this would have happened at the Indy 30 yard line and an Indy player is running it in for a TD the other way, when would it have been appropriate for the official who had Plummer down by contact to blow his whistle?

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Whistle always stops the play...

Correct and since the initial ruling was that Plummer was downby contact there should be a whistle, which there was. Anything after that doesn't matter, and the play is supposed to be over.I just see too much grey area here for the NFL to have left this open for review.I would like to see some confirmation that this rule has been changed if anyone knows where to find it.I could see them maybe giving the defensive team the ball where they first recover it in order to at least give them the benefit of the doubt, but if the defense is taking it back the other way, I see many potential problems. What if they fumble it back?

 

[videoguy505]

This year, the rule is that even if the whistle blows on a fumble, and the defense recovers after the whistle, it can be reviewed and the turnover will be rewarded to the defense.

This did happen in the IND/DEN game, look at the play again and you do hear a whistle before the ball is recovered. But it's so bang-bang in timing that it's obvious that the whistle did not stop anyone else from recovering before IND.

Note, the Indy player was never tackled by Denver. Since the whistle blew, he could not advance the recovery. But it was ruled a recovery after review.

That's the compromise this year, when an obvious bad whistle negates and obvious turnover.

 

[videoguy505]

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/s...an/15664208.htm

http://nfldraft.scout.com/2/556118.html

 

[PatsWillWin]

Only up until the time the whistle blows. If they blow the whistle right away, it's dead and a reveiw won't change it. In this case, the IND player had possession (and was already down) before the whistle blew, so they can overturn the call of down by contact.

I think this is why they let plays where the ball comes loose run a while before blowing the whistle, even if they come back and call the player down. It keeps replay available as an option.

I'm not sure if this is correct. The whistle blew yesterday practically before Plummer was tackled, and the whistle was CLEARLY blown before Colts clearly had possession of the ball, IIRC.I think the change in the rules this season had something to do with being able to continue after the whistle, and that's what came into play yesterday.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

This year, the rule is that even if the whistle blows on a fumble, and the defense recovers after the whistle, it can be reviewed and the turnover will be rewarded to the defense.This did happen in the IND/DEN game, look at the play again and you do hear a whistle before the ball is recovered. But it's so bang-bang in timing that it's obvious that the whistle did not stop anyone else from recovering before IND.Note, the Indy player was never tackled by Denver. Since the whistle blew, he could not advance the recovery. But it was ruled a recovery after review.That's the compromise this year, when an obvious bad whistle negates and obvious turnover.

he was tackled by a Dener player.....

 

[PatsWillWin]

From the article linked above:

But with the rule change, the whistle won’t have the same significance. If a play blown dead by the whistle can be challenged and overturned, players now should keep playing after the whistle has blown.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Only up until the time the whistle blows. If they blow the whistle right away, it's dead and a reveiw won't change it. In this case, the IND player had possession (and was already down) before the whistle blew, so they can overturn the call of down by contact.

I think this is why they let plays where the ball comes loose run a while before blowing the whistle, even if they come back and call the player down. It keeps replay available as an option.

I'm not sure if this is correct. The whistle blew yesterday practically before Plummer was tackled, and the whistle was CLEARLY blown before Colts clearly had possession of the ball, IIRC.I think the change in the rules this season had something to do with being able to continue after the whistle, and that's what came into play yesterday.

so play is allowed to continue after a whistle?I am not sure that this would be correct....because you could have a lot of things happening after the whistle is blown....including injuries........

 

[PatsWillWin]

Only up until the time the whistle blows. If they blow the whistle right away, it's dead and a reveiw won't change it. In this case, the IND player had possession (and was already down) before the whistle blew, so they can overturn the call of down by contact.

I think this is why they let plays where the ball comes loose run a while before blowing the whistle, even if they come back and call the player down. It keeps replay available as an option.

I'm not sure if this is correct. The whistle blew yesterday practically before Plummer was tackled, and the whistle was CLEARLY blown before Colts clearly had possession of the ball, IIRC.I think the change in the rules this season had something to do with being able to continue after the whistle, and that's what came into play yesterday.

so play is allowed to continue after a whistle?I am not sure that this would be correct....because you could have a lot of things happening after the whistle is blown....including injuries........

Because of the new rule about being able to challenge the down by contact, players would be correct to keep playing if there is a lose ball because of the chances of the down by contact being reversed.So yes - this will encourage players to continue playing after the whistle, and yes it could be viewed as a flaw in this rule. But all players will know this and they will all have to adjust.

 

[videoguy505]

Only up until the time the whistle blows. If they blow the whistle right away, it's dead and a reveiw won't change it. In this case, the IND player had possession (and was already down) before the whistle blew, so they can overturn the call of down by contact.

I think this is why they let plays where the ball comes loose run a while before blowing the whistle, even if they come back and call the player down. It keeps replay available as an option.

I'm not sure if this is correct. The whistle blew yesterday practically before Plummer was tackled, and the whistle was CLEARLY blown before Colts clearly had possession of the ball, IIRC.I think the change in the rules this season had something to do with being able to continue after the whistle, and that's what came into play yesterday.

so play is allowed to continue after a whistle?I am not sure that this would be correct....because you could have a lot of things happening after the whistle is blown....including injuries........

Reasonable play after a whistle is allowed now, yes. Injuries can and will occur sometimes. But it's only supposed to be for a few seconds, and regarding a turnover it's supposed to be only on plays where it's clear and there is no scrum for possession.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

wow, thanks for the links..........I didn't realize this had been changed

this part seems to be the "ultimate fall back"

New NFL rules for 2006:

• Down by contact calls may be reviewed by instant replay. Previously, a fumble was not reviewable if the ball carrier was ruled down by contact. If the ruling of down by contact is changed, the ball belongs to the recovering player at the spot of the recovery of the fumble.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

There was some comment in the replay explanation of how it was "immediately recovered" by indy. I guess that factors into it.

It's news to me that they can go beyond the whistle, but I learn something new all the time.

 

[videoguy505]

From the KC article:

Referee Bill Corollo said after the rule change was made that he didn’t think the whistle would be ignored any more now than in the past.“Those players don’t stop at the whistle, believe me,” he said. “We tell them to play to the whistle, but if the ball is loose, they’re coached to go recover the ball.”Well, if they’re not, they will be now.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

a play like this will happen some time......

ref thinks runner is down......ball comes out prior to going down....whistle......recovery being run back the other way 30+ yards......more whistles blow....blowing the play dead again.....guy goes in for what would have been defensive TD....play reviewed......defensive team given ball at spot of recovery and not given the TD they deserved.......

can of worms.....

 

[j3r3m3y]

Only up until the time the whistle blows. If they blow the whistle right away, it's dead and a reveiw won't change it. In this case, the IND player had possession (and was already down) before the whistle blew, so they can overturn the call of down by contact.

I think this is why they let plays where the ball comes loose run a while before blowing the whistle, even if they come back and call the player down. It keeps replay available as an option.

I'm not sure if this is correct. The whistle blew yesterday practically before Plummer was tackled, and the whistle was CLEARLY blown before Colts clearly had possession of the ball, IIRC.I think the change in the rules this season had something to do with being able to continue after the whistle, and that's what came into play yesterday.

so play is allowed to continue after a whistle?I am not sure that this would be correct....because you could have a lot of things happening after the whistle is blown....including injuries........

Because of the new rule about being able to challenge the down by contact, players would be correct to keep playing if there is a lose ball because of the chances of the down by contact being reversed.So yes - this will encourage players to continue playing after the whistle, and yes it could be viewed as a flaw in this rule. But all players will know this and they will all have to adjust.

The flaw in this rule is much better than a turnover not being awarded because of a quick whistle in my opinion. And if I were a defensive player I would not stop running in a situation like this till I was tackled or in the end zone.edit: Nevermind, I didn't get this far in the thread:

New NFL rules for 2006:

• Down by contact calls may be reviewed by instant replay. Previously, a fumble was not reviewable if the ball carrier was ruled down by contact. If the ruling of down by contact is changed, the ball belongs to the recovering player at the spot of the recovery of the fumble.

Still a good change.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Here is the new language added this year:

Rule 15, Section 9

[c] Other Detectable Infractions

1. Runner ruled not down by defensive contact.

2. Runner ruled down by defensive contact when the recovery of a fumble by an opponent or a teammate occurs during the continuing action of the play.

Note 1: If the ruling of down-by-contact is changed, the ball belongs to the recovering player at the spot of the recovery of the fumble, and any advance is nullified.

Note 2: Continuing action is any action that occurs through the recovery of the fumble.

Note 3: If the Referee does not have indisputable visual evidence as to which player recovered the fumble, the ruling of down-by-contact will stand.

Note 4: This does not apply to quarterback pass/fumbles, complete/incomplete passes, or the ruling of forward progress.

 

[dickey moe]

From the article linked above:

But with the rule change, the whistle won’t have the same significance. If a play blown dead by the whistle can be challenged and overturned, players now should keep playing after the whistle has blown.

So all players are suddenly supposed to unlearn years of learned behavior observing a stop of play when the whistle blows? Ridiculous. If that's how the new rule is supposed to be interpreted, that's effed up.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

From the article linked above:

But with the rule change, the whistle won’t have the same significance. If a play blown dead by the whistle can be challenged and overturned, players now should keep playing after the whistle has blown.

So all players are suddenly supposed to unlearn years of learned behavior observing a stop of play when the whistle blows? Ridiculous. If that's how the new rule is supposed to be interpreted, that's effed up.

I agree with your post in spirit; but in practice, when has a player ever not jumped on a loose ball just because the whistle has blown? I don't think players will change the way they play at all. They've already been recovering fumbles in the continuing action of a play all their lives, so there's no need to unlearn years of learned behavior.

 

[SSOG]

Also, while we're on the subject, how hard is it to quick-snap a punt? Coaches should practice every day with quick-snap plays to use right after a controversial call. There's absolutely no reason Denver should have taken so long to snap that ball after the Ref signaled ready-to-play. As soon as the Ref put the ball in play, Denver should have quicksnapped and punted.

 

[videoguy505]

Also, while we're on the subject, how hard is it to quick-snap a punt? Coaches should practice every day with quick-snap plays to use right after a controversial call. There's absolutely no reason Denver should have taken so long to snap that ball after the Ref signaled ready-to-play. As soon as the Ref put the ball in play, Denver should have quicksnapped and punted.

Hell, the shouldn't even have to change personell, in college QBs like McNabb could get off a good punt every now and again.

 

[Courtjester]

Also, while we're on the subject, how hard is it to quick-snap a punt? Coaches should practice every day with quick-snap plays to use right after a controversial call. There's absolutely no reason Denver should have taken so long to snap that ball after the Ref signaled ready-to-play. As soon as the Ref put the ball in play, Denver should have quicksnapped and punted.

Plummer did all he could to that play off quickly, but I think Dungy would have had that flag out even if they ran to the line.I am glad (even though it didn't matter) that I wasn't the only one that heard the whistle too.My only problem I have with the play was when is the play over vs, when is "in the grasp" or forward progress stopped called. It was obvious that Plummer was on top another player so he wasn't down, but his forward progress was stopped and he was clearly in the grasp of a defender.Manning is just amazing and would have probably found a way to win that game anyway, but I just felt there were alot of questions around the call.

 

[PatsWillWin]

From the article linked above:

But with the rule change, the whistle won’t have the same significance. If a play blown dead by the whistle can be challenged and overturned, players now should keep playing after the whistle has blown.

So all players are suddenly supposed to unlearn years of learned behavior observing a stop of play when the whistle blows? Ridiculous. If that's how the new rule is supposed to be interpreted, that's effed up.

Players are always diving for the ball after the whistle - that mentality is unchanged.But anyway, yes. New rules mean adjustment - it happens. Just like the rules about contact by DB's - they had to do some unlearning to. Tough ####.

 

[crush304]

Also, while we're on the subject, how hard is it to quick-snap a punt? Coaches should practice every day with quick-snap plays to use right after a controversial call. There's absolutely no reason Denver should have taken so long to snap that ball after the Ref signaled ready-to-play. As soon as the Ref put the ball in play, Denver should have quicksnapped and punted.

it looked like the broncos wanted to snap the ball but the referee stood over the ball for several seconds while the colts ran their special teams unit onto the field. it was odd, the broncos were lined up and ready to go

 

[SSOG]

Also, while we're on the subject, how hard is it to quick-snap a punt? Coaches should practice every day with quick-snap plays to use right after a controversial call. There's absolutely no reason Denver should have taken so long to snap that ball after the Ref signaled ready-to-play. As soon as the Ref put the ball in play, Denver should have quicksnapped and punted.

Plummer did all he could to that play off quickly, but I think Dungy would have had that flag out even if they ran to the line.

It was a punt, Plummer wasn't on the field.

Also, while we're on the subject, how hard is it to quick-snap a punt? Coaches should practice every day with quick-snap plays to use right after a controversial call. There's absolutely no reason Denver should have taken so long to snap that ball after the Ref signaled ready-to-play. As soon as the Ref put the ball in play, Denver should have quicksnapped and punted.

it looked like the broncos wanted to snap the ball but the referee stood over the ball for several seconds while the colts ran their special teams unit onto the field. it was odd, the broncos were lined up and ready to go

I understand that the ref held up a bit before signaling the ready-to-play, but I definitely recall him signaling it, and Denver taking at least one, possibly two seconds before snapping, and me yelling "SNAP IT!!!" at the TV. They definitely had time to get the snap off before the challenge. They would have had to snap it nearly instantaneously after the ref signalled ready-to-play, but there shouldn't have been a problem with that, since as you said, they were lined up and ready to snap already.The criticism applies to all teams in all situations. They should drill their special teams and their offenses on quick-snap situations. They should have one offensive play installed every game that they specifically rehearse and use in quick-snap situations. They should practice it with every single possible personnel grouping they might have in that game, so they don't even have to make any substitutions. It's too important a part of the game to be so lackadaisical about- and as an added benefit, they might even be able to catch the defense off guard or with too many men on the field from time to time when really all they're trying to do is snap the ball to prevent a challenge.

 

[johnnybronco]

that was a blown call, Plummer was in the grasp of the player and headed down, NFL rules also call for the referee to blow the play dead when the QB is in a grasp in order to avoid injury.

anyway, it wouldn't have mattered, if Broncos punt there the ball ends up on the 50 anyway and Manning was a man possessed and they would have scored anyway.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

lol at the posts thinking that a play like this should have been called "in the grasp"....he was being tackled and the ball came out on the way down......the intent of "in the grasp" is for when a QB is being held up and they don't want him to get drilled by another player.....not when he is being taken to the ground on a tackle......

anyway it is nice to see that when a mistake is made isn situations like this that at least the defense will be able to keep the ball even though what they do after they gain possession (return yardage) may not be given to them.....