What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Cards game winning fumble return? (1 Viewer)

Pnishthm

Footballguy
So I see they are calling Arizona's game winner a fumble return. When I watch the reply over and over it sure looks like the "tuck rule" to me. Rodgers' arm is going forward and then when he pumps he never brings the ball back to his body. Probably not much difference for playoff FF purposes unless your defensive scoring is differnt for INTs and fumbles lost but I wonder if Elias looks at this and makes a change Thursday or leaves it as is. Did anyone else see it this way?

 
So I see they are calling Arizona's game winner a fumble return. When I watch the reply over and over it sure looks like the "tuck rule" to me. Rodgers' arm is going forward and then when he pumps he never brings the ball back to his body. Probably not much difference for playoff FF purposes unless your defensive scoring is differnt for INTs and fumbles lost but I wonder if Elias looks at this and makes a change Thursday or leaves it as is. Did anyone else see it this way?
It's irrelevant. It's a turnover no matter how you slice it.
 
I agree with the original poster--it's a very similar play to the infamous Raiders/Patriots tuck rule, which was (correctly, as far as the rules go) ruled an incomplete pass. But this wasn't incomplete, because Rodgers kicked it before it hit the ground and it bounced into the arms of the defender.

If it had hit the ground, the correct ruling would have been an incomplete pass, so it should be ruled an interception rather than a fumble.

 
It wasn't a forward pass, therefore it can not be an interception. Fumbles do not have to hit the ground to be fumbles.
It was most definitely a forward pass. It was the EXACT definition of the tuck rule, which means had Dansby not caught the ball out of the air it would have been challenged and ruled an incomplete pass.Elias will likely change it to an interception on Thursday.
 
So I see they are calling Arizona's game winner a fumble return. When I watch the reply over and over it sure looks like the "tuck rule" to me. Rodgers' arm is going forward and then when he pumps he never brings the ball back to his body. Probably not much difference for playoff FF purposes unless your defensive scoring is differnt for INTs and fumbles lost but I wonder if Elias looks at this and makes a change Thursday or leaves it as is. Did anyone else see it this way?
It's irrelevant. It's a turnover no matter how you slice it.
Nothing is irrelevant in fantasy football. Some leagues give a different amount of negative points for interceptions and fumbles.
 
So I see they are calling Arizona's game winner a fumble return. When I watch the reply over and over it sure looks like the "tuck rule" to me. Rodgers' arm is going forward and then when he pumps he never brings the ball back to his body. Probably not much difference for playoff FF purposes unless your defensive scoring is differnt for INTs and fumbles lost but I wonder if Elias looks at this and makes a change Thursday or leaves it as is. Did anyone else see it this way?
It's irrelevant. It's a turnover no matter how you slice it.
Nothing is irrelevant in fantasy football. Some leagues give a different amount of negative points for interceptions and fumbles.
:rolleyes:
 
it was the classic tuck rule..if Rodgers didn't try to kick the ball and the ball hit the ground it would have been ruled an incomplete pass after review.

 
It wasn't a forward pass, therefore it can not be an interception. Fumbles do not have to hit the ground to be fumbles.
It was most definitely a forward pass. It was the EXACT definition of the tuck rule, which means had Dansby not caught the ball out of the air it would have been challenged and ruled an incomplete pass.Elias will likely change it to an interception on Thursday.
Wouldn't Perreira and the league have to make that change? Since the refs definitely called it a fumble. In the replay they keep showing to argue about why the ref didn't throw the flag for the possible facemask, you can see he does throw a beanbag.
 
i instantly said tuck rule when I saw the replay, but then I saw that the ball never hit the ground so I knew it wasn't coming back. Looked like a textbook tuck rule case to me, though.

 
Didn't read the thread, but since they didn't rule "his arm was coming forward" it was a fumble. If they had ruled "his arm was coming forward" it would have been an INT.

 
what about the fact that there is clearly a personal foul face mask on the play by Cardinals #27 Adams? When he forces the fumble/int whatever you decide it is, he takes Rodgers to the ground pulling on the facemask all the way.

I'm not sure how that would affect the play, esp. since it was a game-ending play. Would it be a automatic first down for the packers? Or would the 15 yard penalty be enforced on the PAT that never happened since the game was ended with the TD? Or does this facemask penalty not matter since it occurred during the process of causing a fumble?

 
Didn't read the thread, but since they didn't rule "his arm was coming forward" it was a fumble. If they had ruled "his arm was coming forward" it would have been an INT.
Did they rule anything either way? Since it didn't hit the ground, there was no need for a ruling...other than for statistical purposes.As JaxBill pointed out, the referee threw the beanbag. But, I'm not sure if they do that to signify it's definitely a fumble or if they do that in any scenario that just might be a fumble.IMO, it was an INT.
 
what about the fact that there is clearly a personal foul face mask on the play by Cardinals #27 Adams? When he forces the fumble/int whatever you decide it is, he takes Rodgers to the ground pulling on the facemask all the way.

I'm not sure how that would affect the play, esp. since it was a game-ending play. Would it be a automatic first down for the packers? Or would the 15 yard penalty be enforced on the PAT that never happened since the game was ended with the TD? Or does this facemask penalty not matter since it occurred during the process of causing a fumble?
A bunch of discussion on this in the game thread with the applicable NFL rules quoted. The foul occurred after the fumble but before possession changed so I believe that if the facemask was called, it would have been a 15 yard penalty and a 1st down for the Packers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
what about the fact that there is clearly a personal foul face mask on the play by Cardinals #27 Adams? When he forces the fumble/int whatever you decide it is, he takes Rodgers to the ground pulling on the facemask all the way. I'm not sure how that would affect the play, esp. since it was a game-ending play. Would it be a automatic first down for the packers? Or would the 15 yard penalty be enforced on the PAT that never happened since the game was ended with the TD? Or does this facemask penalty not matter since it occurred during the process of causing a fumble?
It would have been 1st down for GB.
 
and dont forget the helmet to helmet 2 plays earlier.. f@@@ ref right there.. holding was called but he didnt see the helmet to helmet????? and the same ref missed a FLAGRANT PERFSONAL FOUL that ended up costing the game???? that again is an issue where a coach should be able to challenge that.. and have the upstairs look at a game nding/changing missed or made call.. thats a horrible way to end your season on a ref blown 2 calls.... go saints..!!!!! zona doesnt deserve to be there

 
It wasn't a forward pass, therefore it can not be an interception. Fumbles do not have to hit the ground to be fumbles.
It was most definitely a forward pass. It was the EXACT definition of the tuck rule, which means had Dansby not caught the ball out of the air it would have been challenged and ruled an incomplete pass.Elias will likely change it to an interception on Thursday.
Thought you were crazy.......... Until I just looked at that replay.You are correct.

 
Inasmuch as he kicked it intentionally, again I ask, "What are the rules? Was it a legal punt? Was it illegally kicking a forward pass? Is there such a rule?" :goodposting:

 
So I see they are calling Arizona's game winner a fumble return. When I watch the reply over and over it sure looks like the "tuck rule" to me. Rodgers' arm is going forward and then when he pumps he never brings the ball back to his body. Probably not much difference for playoff FF purposes unless your defensive scoring is differnt for INTs and fumbles lost but I wonder if Elias looks at this and makes a change Thursday or leaves it as is. Did anyone else see it this way?
It's irrelevant. It's a turnover no matter how you slice it.
Nothing is irrelevant in fantasy football. Some leagues give a different amount of negative points for interceptions and fumbles.
Ah, good point.
 
I still don't understand their reason as to why it wasn't reviewable, but ok...

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/81195812.html

Green Bay — Unbeknownst to him, kicking the ball in the air might have cost quarterback Aaron Rodgers a chance to have his fateful fumble reversed in the Green Bay Packers’ 51-45 overtime loss Sunday to Arizona.

As Cardinals cornerback Michael Adams slammed into Rodgers, the ball came out of the quarterback’s hand at about the same time his arm was coming down. As the ball dropped down near his legs, Rodgers kicked at it with his right foot, causing it to pop up in the air and into the arms of linebacker Karlos Dansby, who returned it 17 yards for the winning touchdown.

According to a league spokesman, even though the ball didn’t hit the ground, it is a fumble and not an interception. And because it didn’t hit the ground, it is not subject to the infamous “tuck rule”, which states that a ball lost while the arm is in the process of coming down is an incomplete pass.

Had it hit the ground, the referee could have called an incompletion. Even if he didn’t call, it’s likely the replay official, which handles all challenges in the final 2 minutes of each half and overtime, could have reviewed it.

Randall Liu, NFC information manager, said in an e-mail that “had the ball hit the ground, it would’ve been subject to (instant) replay. And that would be a judgment call by referee Scott Green.”

Based on television replays, there was at least a reasonable chance that Green would have ruled Rodgers’ arm was moving forward at the time he was hit by Adams. As NFL director of officiating Mike Pereira said in a 2005 interview in the Washington Post, there’s not a lot of gray area.

“Does the ball come out after [the quarterback’s] arm is going forward and before he tucks the ball back into his body?” he said. “If so, then it’s an incomplete pass.”

It’s not absolutely certain that the ball would have hit the ground if Rodgers didn’t kick it, but it appeared that way on television. The kick definitely made it easier for Dansby to catch the ball on the fly and return it for a touchdown.

As for a potential facemask penalty on Adams on the very same play, Liu said it’s strictly a judgment call. The NFL eliminated the 5-yard incidental contact facemask this season and only allows a 15-yard personal foul if the player twists or grabs the facemask.

Rule 12, Section 2, Article 5 of the NFL Rule Book states that “no player shall twist, turn or pull the facemask of an opponent in any direction,” according to Liu.

The Rule Book describes the penalty as follows:

“Penalty: For twisting, turning or pulling the mask: loss of 15 yards. A personal foul. The player may be disqualified if the action is judged by the official(s) to be of a flagrant nature.”

More than likely the call would have been Green’s or umpire Butch Hannah’s to make. Green was facing the play from the offensive side of the ball and saw it from about 10 or 15 yards away. Hannah was 9 yards away on the defensive side of the ball staring directly at Rodgers as Adams hit him.

Neither threw the flag.
 
More than likely the call would have been Green’s or umpire Butch Hannah’s to make. Green was facing the play from the offensive side of the ball and saw it from about 10 or 15 yards away. Hannah was 9 yards away on the defensive side of the ball staring directly at Rodgers as Adams hit him.Neither threw the flag.
I would imagine it had less to do with a decision of whether or not it was enough to be a personal foul (looked like pretty much the definition of it to me, grabbed it, twisted, and never let go all the way to the ground) or the refs being in the right position to see it, but rather the refs being distracted looking at the ball that had just come out, where it seemed their attention should be focused.I really think if you had gone up to them right after the game and asked about the facemask on the last play they would have said "what facemask?" rather than "it wasn't the personal foul variety".Even in the game thread here on FBG, with the instant replays, it wasn't until a while after that anyone even brought it up because we were all watching the ball too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Punt return TD.
Seriously. What's the rule? He kicked it intentionally!
Kicking a loose ball is a penalty. But the Cards would have the option of declining the penalty and taking the TD.
Drop kick?
Blocked punt? Would need to be past the line of scrimmage in order to be a punt return. :lmao:
I don't think it would count as a blocked punt because Rodgers had just made a pass attempt.
 
dgreen said:
Willy said:
I still don't understand their reason as to why it wasn't reviewable, but ok...
What do you want them to review?
When I watched it live I couldn't see if it was an incomplete pass, fumble or interception. I thought it may be reviewed, but the replays were pretty obvious that the ball never hit the ground.In retrospect I think I misunderstood what they meant by review. The play did not warrant an official review. For some reason I thought they didn't even look at it in the booth. nevermind :yes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
and dont forget the helmet to helmet 2 plays earlier.. f@@@ ref right there.. holding was called but he didnt see the helmet to helmet????? and the same ref missed a FLAGRANT PERFSONAL FOUL that ended up costing the game???? that again is an issue where a coach should be able to challenge that.. and have the upstairs look at a game nding/changing missed or made call.. thats a horrible way to end your season on a ref blown 2 calls.... go saints..!!!!! zona doesnt deserve to be there
:D :thumbup:
 
Willy said:
I still don't understand their reason as to why it wasn't reviewable, but ok...

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/81195812.html

Green Bay — Unbeknownst to him, kicking the ball in the air might have cost quarterback Aaron Rodgers a chance to have his fateful fumble reversed in the Green Bay Packers’ 51-45 overtime loss Sunday to Arizona.

As Cardinals cornerback Michael Adams slammed into Rodgers, the ball came out of the quarterback’s hand at about the same time his arm was coming down. As the ball dropped down near his legs, Rodgers kicked at it with his right foot, causing it to pop up in the air and into the arms of linebacker Karlos Dansby, who returned it 17 yards for the winning touchdown.

According to a league spokesman, even though the ball didn’t hit the ground, it is a fumble and not an interception. And because it didn’t hit the ground, it is not subject to the infamous “tuck rule”, which states that a ball lost while the arm is in the process of coming down is an incomplete pass.

Had it hit the ground, the referee could have called an incompletion. Even if he didn’t call, it’s likely the replay official, which handles all challenges in the final 2 minutes of each half and overtime, could have reviewed it.

Neither threw the flag.
WHY is it a fumble & not an interception? Because it was initially ruled as such or because it says in the rule book that "any ball coming out of the qb's hand after he's been hit is a fumble unless it hits the ground"? That doesn't make sense.How about... qb back to pass... throws long but arm is knocked by a defender... 30 yards down field, ball goes off the foot of the reciever... defender catches ball. Easy INT, right? Or is it a 30 yard fumble?

Also, it's clear that the refs did not rule it a fumble. There was no need for them to rule it anything other than a td. Who rules for stat purposes?

 
So I see they are calling Arizona's game winner a fumble return. When I watch the reply over and over it sure looks like the "tuck rule" to me. Rodgers' arm is going forward and then when he pumps he never brings the ball back to his body. Probably not much difference for playoff FF purposes unless your defensive scoring is differnt for INTs and fumbles lost but I wonder if Elias looks at this and makes a change Thursday or leaves it as is. Did anyone else see it this way?
It's irrelevant. It's a turnover no matter how you slice it.
Nothing is irrelevant in fantasy football. Some leagues give a different amount of negative points for interceptions and fumbles.
Also in my scoring I am getting a sack/fumble (which I believe is how the NFL would score a tackle fumble involving a QB behind the LOS). I'd lose the sack if it were a pass attempt.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There was no need for them to rule it anything other than a td. Who rules for stat purposes?
The NFL. They do it all the time.How is this any different than changing Warner's passing TD to Boldin to a rushing TD for Boldin (and no stats for Warner) a few weeks ago? It didn't change anything for the outcome of the game, just stats, but they changed it, and they do it every week.
 
BigJim® said:
So I see they are calling Arizona's game winner a fumble return. When I watch the reply over and over it sure looks like the "tuck rule" to me. Rodgers' arm is going forward and then when he pumps he never brings the ball back to his body. Probably not much difference for playoff FF purposes unless your defensive scoring is differnt for INTs and fumbles lost but I wonder if Elias looks at this and makes a change Thursday or leaves it as is. Did anyone else see it this way?
It's irrelevant. It's a turnover no matter how you slice it.
Nothing is irrelevant in fantasy football. Some leagues give a different amount of negative points for interceptions and fumbles.
Also in my scoring I am getting a sack/fumble (which I believe is how the NFL would score a tackle fumble involving a QB behind the LOS). I'd lose the sack if it were a pass attempt.
Good call man. The way they have it now Arizonas D gets an extra point for the sack where if it was correctly ruled an INT they would not receieve the point for the sack.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top