Detroit should have had the ball... (1 Viewer)

[Ghost Rider]

Now to be fair, if Detroit got a TD there would still be almost 2 minutes left on the clock. And Seattle got to the Detroit 23 on the ensuing drive even without being in 2-minute mode.

Right, but you cannot assume that plays out the same way if the score is 17-13 Detroit instead of 13-10 Seattle. At 13-10, Detroit was in "don't let them get a 1st down to ice the game" mode. At 17-13 Detroit, the Lions D would have played back to stop big plays.

 

[jurb26]

Now to be fair, if Detroit got a TD there would still be almost 2 minutes left on the clock. And Seattle got to the Detroit 23 on the ensuing drive even without being in 2-minute mode.

Right, but you cannot assume that plays out the same way if the score is 17-13 Detroit instead of 13-10 Seattle. At 13-10, Detroit was in "don't let them get a 1st down to ice the game" mode. At 17-13 Detroit, the Lions D would have played back to stop big plays.

We also have no idea how much time would have been left or if Det would have even scored a TD. That is a pretty terrible assumption to make. Det would have had a 1st down at the 1 yard line. Maybe it takes them 4 downs to score from there. Maybe it takes 1. Maybe they don't score at all.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Yep. No way to know what happens if the correct call is made there, except that the Lions would have had a much better chance of winning. Once the official blew the call by not throwing the flag, their chances of winning were nearly gone.

 

[DropKick]

All that to make a useless distinction?

This post took a wrong turn on the way to Albuquerque. A safety is not a turn-over but a scoring play. It is unique, among scoring plays, in that the team scoring the points receives the ball on the ensuing kick-off.

Calling the free kick after a safety a turn-over is bizarre. That is analagous to calling the kick-off after a TD a turn-over. Or saying the team that kicks a FG retains possession (to kick it away?)

Can't we simply say a safety results in points and possession of the ball?

If the fumble went through the end-zone on its own, Seattle would correctly take over at the 20. Refs blew the illegal bat call and Detroit should have maintained possession.

It's an important distinction. The logic behind a fumble in your own end zone is exactly the same as the logic behind a fumble out of bounds everywhere else on the field. Ball reverts to the possessing team at the point of the fumble. The *outcome* of that changes when you're in your own end zone, (where ending a play with possession results in a safety), but the *logic* is exactly the same. Offense fumbles the ball out of bounds. Offense retains ball at the spot of the fumble. Simple. Easy. Consistent. (Well, except for that whole special exception in the opposing end zone thing.)

All of that other stuff-- the "wrong turn on the way to Albuquerque" stuff-- is just because, in my experience, for some people it is extremely counterintuitive to realize that a fumble through your own end zone is not a turnover. Because people think a safety is a turnover. So I took a quick detour to Albuquerque to try to illustrate in a clear, easy-to-understand manner just how it differs.

I like your field goal analogy. If we say that a safety is a turnover, then by that logic, a field goal is also a turnover, and for the exact same reason- because on the next play, the team is forced to kick the ball away. As you point out, that's absurd. But, as I said, in my experience, there are some people who are very, very resistant to the idea that a safety is not a turnover.

Maybe I'm overcompensating, but every time I've brought this up in the past, I've been deluged with a bunch of "but if you fumble out of bounds in your own end zone it's a turnover!", and I wanted to head it off at the pass this time.

I like my explanation that it is a unique scoring play that results in points and the other team kicking you the ball. I've had several leagues increase the fantasy points per safety for this reason.

What is a turnover? In fantasy terms, it's typically a fumble or pick (or muff but let's not complicate things). But you can also "turn the ball over on downs", right? I don't know of any league that awards points for the latter - maybe they should?

Conceptually, a safety does get the defense the ball - so I understand the confusion. Bottom line? Award more points for a safety!

 

[Truebluey]

The ball was going to go out ... Sour grapes lion fans

Actually not.

Watch the replay. The ball hopped straight up on its last bounce and was clearly going to settle in the end zone, in play.

What's more, Theo Riddick was right there, running in to pounce on it. He immediately turns around and yells. At the ref? Don't know.

Now if I was a defensive player, I would have knocked it away, too. First instinct. In the field of play you can do that, right?

So it's a fascinating call. Think they might change the rule now?

 

[JuniorNB]

The ball was going to go out ... Sour grapes lion fans

Actually not. Watch the replay. The ball hopped straight up on its last bounce and was clearly going to settle in the end zone, in play.

What's more, Theo Riddick was right there, running in to pounce on it. He immediately turns around and yells. At the ref? Don't know.

Now if I was a defensive player, I would have knocked it away, too. First instinct. In the field of play you can do that, right?

So it's a fascinating call. Think they might change the rule now?

don't waste your breath. ImTheScientist is a giant troll.

 

[SproutDaddy]

Why are some of these Hawk's fans acting like martyrs?

 

[Henry Ford]

Yes, the process you describe is obviously true.

I'm kind of surprised that you took the time to point out the minutiae though, when the end result is that the defense is rewarded with 2 points and they get the ball back.

Imo, the fact that it is not technically considered turnover makes no difference. The defense is rewarded.

Again, I believe the defense should also be rewarded for a fumble out of the other endzone.

Ummm... the fact that it's not "technically" considered a turnover is kind of the whole crux of the issue. For more, see this handy graphic I created. There's a perfectly good rule on the books the gives us a perfectly good solution to what happens when the ball is fumbled out of bounds, and it is applied perfectly consistently across 91.7% of the length of the field, only for the league to carve out a specific, (and, in my opinion, bizarre), exception for this one tiny 10-yard stretch. Personally, I think that's dumb. I think the rule should be "if the offense fumbles the ball forward and it goes out of bounds, the offense retains possession at the spot of the fumble". It's good enough for 91.7% of the field. It should be good enough for the opposing end zone, too, in my opinion.

As a bonus, it makes the rules simpler, easier to understand, and more consistent. Which is a good thing!

As for the rest of it... the defense is not "rewarded" with a safety because the offense fumbled out of bounds. The defense is "rewarded" with a safety because they ended an offensive play with the offense in possession in their own end zone. The fumble out of bounds is wholly extraneous to that.

I see your point.

If the offense fumbles the ball out of their own end zone on 4th down, does the opposing team get 6 points? If not, why?

Because the result of the play where the ball would be placed in the field of play is a safety, just as it would be on 1st, 2nd, or 3rd down. This isn't hard.

The result of the play would be the ball placed in the end zone in possession of the other team.

When the other team has possession of the ball in your end zone, that is a touchdown, no?

This isn't hard.

I understand if you think it's an acceptable exception for this 8.3% of the field.

No, it wouldn't be the ball placed in the end zone in possession of the other team. Just like being sacked in the end zone isn't. The result of the play on 4th down happens before the next down, when possession would change. The result on 4th down is a safety. What is the disconnect there?

 

[spider321]

Let's walk through what happens when the offense fumbles out of bounds in their own end zone. They retain possession of the football at the spot of the fumble, so the play ends with the offense in possession in their own end zone. And what do we call a play that ends with the offense in possession in their own end zone? We call it a safety.

I was using Harstad's logic from his previous post, Ford.

The next time you insert yourself into a conversation between two other posters, please read their previous posts on the subject.

Also, in the future, if you could avoid the ######## comments like, "This isn't hard." and "What is the disconnect there?", that would be great!

 

[Shutout]

1. This call
2. failmary
3. THe Percy Harvin clearly stepped out of bounds but ruled a TD.

Maybe its just coincidental but it sure does seem like the Seahawks get more than their fair share of "stuff happens" calls.

 

[sho nuff]

• This call
• failmary
• THe Percy Harvin clearly stepped out of bounds but ruled a TD.

Maybe its just coincidental but it sure does seem like the Seahawks get more than their fair share of "stuff happens" calls.

Every team gets bad or missed calls that go their way.

Hawks have just had a couple big ones at the end of a game on national TV that magnify it.

 

[Henry Ford]

Let's walk through what happens when the offense fumbles out of bounds in their own end zone. They retain possession of the football at the spot of the fumble, so the play ends with the offense in possession in their own end zone. And what do we call a play that ends with the offense in possession in their own end zone? We call it a safety.

I was using Harstad's logic from his previous post, Ford.

The next time you insert yourself into a conversation between two other posters, please read their previous posts on the subject.

Also, in the future, if you could avoid the ######## comments like, "This isn't hard." and "What is the disconnect there?", that would be great!

I am also using his logic from the previous posts. I have read them.I'm seriously asking where the disconnect is and reminding you not to overthink the issues. 4th down ends before the next 1st down begins. Just like 3rd down safety ends before the next 1st down begins. Attempts to shoehorn this into a touchdown situation because it's 4th down are overthinking the issues: making it harder than it needs to be.

If you choose to take that as a personal attack, I'm sorry I caught you on a bad week.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I am glad they didnt call a penalty there, and would hope they would never call the penalty on that in any part of a game, not just in the end.

The rule is in place for illegal "batting". He didn't exactly bat the ball, he stuck out his hand and ever so gently bumped it.

Exactly how far does a ball need to travel to be considered having been "batted" anyway? Cause this ball went like 2 feet before it was out of the endzone.

Calling that penalty and handing Detroit the ball at the 1 inch line would have been absurd. Batted ball?? He really BATTED that ball?? If anything he just ran into it with his hand while he was running out the back of the endzone.

Wow. This has to be the worst argument ever made. Congrats.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Let's walk through what happens when the offense fumbles out of bounds in their own end zone. They retain possession of the football at the spot of the fumble, so the play ends with the offense in possession in their own end zone. And what do we call a play that ends with the offense in possession in their own end zone? We call it a safety.

I was using Harstad's logic from his previous post, Ford.

The next time you insert yourself into a conversation between two other posters, please read their previous posts on the subject.

Also, in the future, if you could avoid the ######## comments like, "This isn't hard." and "What is the disconnect there?", that would be great!

I don't really see how this uses my logic from my previous post. As other posters have mentioned, a fumble out of bounds in your own end zone on 4th down is functionally no different from a sack in your end zone on 4th down. Play ends with offense in possession in their own end zone, which occurs *before* the change of possession, so it's a safety.

If the ball is intercepted or the fumble is recovered by the defense, then the change of possession occurs before the end of the play, so the play ends with the defense in possession in the end zone, so it's a touchdown.

This once again illustrates that a fumble out of bounds in your own end zone does not, under any circumstances, constitute a turnover. The offense retains possession, and then the rulebook naturally works through the consequences of offensive possession in the end zone. There is only one time when fumbling out of bounds is a turnover, and that's when it occurs in the other team's end zone. Over the other 110 yards of the field, the "fumble out of bounds" rules are perfectly consistent. Offense retains possession at the spot of the fumble.

Like I said, I think the "oh but hey if you're in the other team's end zone we're going to arbitrarily change this rule that works perfectly fine over 91.6% of the field and instead do the complete opposite for some reason" rule is kind of dumb, and I wish the league would change it. The rule that works everywhere else on the football field would work perfectly fine there, too, and I'm all for making the rules simpler and more consistent whenever possible.

 

[Adam Harstad]

• This call
• failmary
• THe Percy Harvin clearly stepped out of bounds but ruled a TD.

Maybe its just coincidental but it sure does seem like the Seahawks get more than their fair share of "stuff happens" calls.

Every team gets bad or missed calls that go their way.

Hawks have just had a couple big ones at the end of a game on national TV that magnify it.

For sure. As a Denver fan, we absolutely got lucky on the fumble-that-wasn't against the Chargers, (where, again, Denver's players were quick to admit after the game it was a lucky break). Also, Champ Bailey probably fumbled through the end zone on his long return against New England in the playoffs, though I don't think the video evidence was really "indisputable" on that one.

On the other hand, there were all those uncalled block-in-the-back penalties on Dante Hall's human joystick return. Sometimes the refs blow calls. Sometimes those blown calls decide the outcome of games. But I don't think any team is more or less likely to get those blown calls than any other.

Other than the home team, of course. Illegal batting? Game was in Seattle. Fail mary? Game was in Seattle. The Fumble-that-wasn't and Champ's long return? Both in Denver. Dante Hall's human joystick? Kansas City. There are exceptions: Harvin's step out of bounds was a road game in San Diego, for instance. But by and large, blown calls are going to favor the home team, regardless of who that home team is.

As I mentioned earlier, officiating bias is pretty much the only factor that is consistently significant when people study just what drives home field advantage. Refs are human, and humans are unconsciously going to be biased by the 80,000 howling fans sitting 10 feet away.

Edit: and if we're going to talk about officials being biased for Seattle, it's also only fair to mention Percy Harvin's three touchdowns called back to penalty against Washington. In a road game, of course.

 

[ragnarok628]

Calling the free kick after a safety a turn-over is bizarre. That is analagous to calling the kick-off after a TD a turn-over. Or saying the team that kicks a FG retains possession (to kick it away?)

Calling kickoffs and free kicks, which to remind you are plays whose entire purpose is to deliver the ball from one team to another, turnovers is... bizarre?

are punts not turnovers either, then?

 

[sho nuff]

• This call
• failmary
• THe Percy Harvin clearly stepped out of bounds but ruled a TD.

Maybe its just coincidental but it sure does seem like the Seahawks get more than their fair share of "stuff happens" calls.

Every team gets bad or missed calls that go their way.Hawks have just had a couple big ones at the end of a game on national TV that magnify it.

For sure. As a Denver fan, we absolutely got lucky on the fumble-that-wasn't against the Chargers, (where, again, Denver's players were quick to admit after the game it was a lucky break). Also, Champ Bailey probably fumbled through the end zone on his long return against New England in the playoffs, though I don't think the video evidence was really "indisputable" on that one.

On the other hand, there were all those uncalled block-in-the-back penalties on Dante Hall's human joystick return. Sometimes the refs blow calls. Sometimes those blown calls decide the outcome of games. But I don't think any team is more or less likely to get those blown calls than any other.

Other than the home team, of course. Illegal batting? Game was in Seattle. Fail mary? Game was in Seattle. The Fumble-that-wasn't and Champ's long return? Both in Denver. Dante Hall's human joystick? Kansas City. There are exceptions: Harvin's step out of bounds was a road game in San Diego, for instance. But by and large, blown calls are going to favor the home team, regardless of who that home team is.

As I mentioned earlier, officiating bias is pretty much the only factor that is consistently significant when people study just what drives home field advantage. Refs are human, and humans are unconsciously going to be biased by the 80,000 howling fans sitting 10 feet away.

Edit: and if we're going to talk about officials being biased for Seattle, it's also only fair to mention Percy Harvin's three touchdowns called back to penalty against Washington. In a road game, of course.

Sucks when they are at the end of a game or scoring plays and it hurts your team.

As a Packers fan, I know we get a lot of calls because of Rodgers. So it will typically even out.

 

[The General]

The idea that the Seahawks get more calls than your team is dumb.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I want to make clear that I'm not a fan of either team. I also want to make clear that I personally believe that in a vacuum the Seahawks deserved to win the game. I think Cam made a great play and that the rule is weird at best. With that being said---the rule is still the rule--and I find it very interesting that the official had a CLEAR view of the play and still called it the way he did--especially with Riddick right there behind him reminding him that the bat out of bounds is not a legal play.

I find it strange that the Seahawks (with their qb Wilson who is becomming a darling of the league) get the benefit on a fairly easy call. It's crazy to think that if the lowly Lions were to have somehow won that game--both teams would be 1-3 on the season--and I'm sure the NFL prefers that to not be the case--hence the way that play was officiated. This is nothing more than an opinion, gut instinct, the inner conspiracy theorist in me--so it's not something that I am looking to debate. I'm just posting a thought more than anything.

 

[matttyl]

The way the rules are currently written (with the offense retaining possession of a fumble that goes out of bounds for the vast majority of the playing field, but not in the other team's endzone) is actually rewarding the defense for allowing the offense to move the ball that 99 yards down the field. That part seems really really odd to me.

 

[matttyl]

I want to make clear that I'm not a fan of either team. I also want to make clear that I personally believe that in a vacuum the Seahawks deserved to win the game. I think Cam made a great play and that the rule is weird at best. With that being said---the rule is still the rule--and I find it very interesting that the official had a CLEAR view of the play and still called it the way he did--especially with Riddick right there behind him reminding him that the bat out of bounds is not a legal play.

Are we sure that's what he said?

 

[ImTheScientist]

I want to make clear that I'm not a fan of either team. I also want to make clear that I personally believe that in a vacuum the Seahawks deserved to win the game. I think Cam made a great play and that the rule is weird at best. With that being said---the rule is still the rule--and I find it very interesting that the official had a CLEAR view of the play and still called it the way he did--especially with Riddick right there behind him reminding him that the bat out of bounds is not a legal play.

Are we sure that's what he said?

I thought Riddick had started Seahawks D in his fantasy league and was wanting to know if hawks D would get credit for a fumble recovery.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I want to make clear that I'm not a fan of either team. I also want to make clear that I personally believe that in a vacuum the Seahawks deserved to win the game. I think Cam made a great play and that the rule is weird at best. With that being said---the rule is still the rule--and I find it very interesting that the official had a CLEAR view of the play and still called it the way he did--especially with Riddick right there behind him reminding him that the bat out of bounds is not a legal play.

Are we sure that's what he said?

http://sportszoa.com/breaking/theo-riddick-the-smartest-man-during-mnf-controversial-play/

Sure looked that way to me. Again--I just posted my opinion/thought. I'm not looking to debate my opinion/thought because it's not based on anything but a weird rule and what my eyes see.

 

[The General]

I want to make clear that I'm not a fan of either team. I also want to make clear that I personally believe that in a vacuum the Seahawks deserved to win the game. I think Cam made a great play and that the rule is weird at best. With that being said---the rule is still the rule--and I find it very interesting that the official had a CLEAR view of the play and still called it the way he did--especially with Riddick right there behind him reminding him that the bat out of bounds is not a legal play.

I find it strange that the Seahawks (with their qb Wilson who is becomming a darling of the league) get the benefit on a fairly easy call. It's crazy to think that if the lowly Lions were to have somehow won that game--both teams would be 1-3 on the season--and I'm sure the NFL prefers that to not be the case--hence the way that play was officiated. This is nothing more than an opinion, gut instinct, the inner conspiracy theorist in me--so it's not something that I am looking to debate. I'm just posting a thought more than anything.

Refs choke, make mistakes, screw up just like players and everyone else. There's no league wide mandate dictated to the refs to make sure the Seahawks win. Was a bad call of a stupid rule. Sucks to be on the end of that, everyone has been there with their team.

This call in particular was more of a technicality of a dumb rule. Sure you like it when it goes your way like a hold on the other side of the field that has nothing to do with the play taking a TD off the board.

The fumble caused by Kam was the play. No Detroit player was getting the ball.

 

[monk]

I was watching the game but not paying close attention.

I don't recall Detroit disputing the call or the refs discussing the call.

I don't recall the commentators saying anything about it being the wrong call.

Did this all come out the next day or immediately following the play?

The ball was clearly going out of bounds whether the defender touched it or not.

The defender was also the only one who had any chance of recovering the ball so who cares if he hit it out, let roll out or recovered it?

 

[Ookie Pringle]

so who cares if he hit it out, let roll out or recovered it?

The NFL cares. It was against the rules and the refs should have called a penalty.

 

[monk]

so who cares if he hit it out, let roll out or recovered it?

The NFL cares. It was against the rules and the refs should have called a penalty.

BS ... It's like pass interface on on uncatchable ball ... no harm no foul.

The result would have been the same whether he knocked it out , recovered it or let roll out of boards

Detroit shouldn't be rewarded on a technicality ... it had 0 impact on the result

 

[davearm]

I was watching the game but not paying close attention.

I don't recall Detroit disputing the call or the refs discussing the call.

I don't recall the commentators saying anything about it being the wrong call.

Did this all come out the next day or immediately following the play?

The ball was clearly going out of bounds whether the defender touched it or not.

The defender was also the only one who had any chance of recovering the ball so who cares if he hit it out, let roll out or recovered it?

It's not at all clear that the ball would have gone out of bounds if untouched. As someone else mentioned earlier, on its last bounce the ball went more vertical than horizontal. Its next bounce, had it been allowed to fall, would have been in the endzone, not on the endline. Where it bounds from there would be purely a guess.

 

[zftcg]

I want to make clear that I'm not a fan of either team. I also want to make clear that I personally believe that in a vacuum the Seahawks deserved to win the game. I think Cam made a great play and that the rule is weird at best. With that being said---the rule is still the rule--and I find it very interesting that the official had a CLEAR view of the play and still called it the way he did--especially with Riddick right there behind him reminding him that the bat out of bounds is not a legal play.

Are we sure that's what he said?

http://sportszoa.com/breaking/theo-riddick-the-smartest-man-during-mnf-controversial-play/

Sure looked that way to me. Again--I just posted my opinion/thought. I'm not looking to debate my opinion/thought because it's not based on anything but a weird rule and what my eyes see.

I'm not disputing that Riddick realized the ref's mistake, but I'm not seeing it from that video. He throws his hands up in the air and then looks down, which seems more consistent with, "I can't believe we just blew this game". What he doesn't do is immediately run up to the back judge and start making any kind of "throw the flag" gesture.

You would assume if Riddick immediately grasped the significance of what just happened, he would have been hopping up and down, screaming at the ref, alerting the coaches, etc. And maybe he was doing that off camera. But I don't see it in that clip.

 

[zftcg]

so who cares if he hit it out, let roll out or recovered it?

The NFL cares. It was against the rules and the refs should have called a penalty.

BS ... It's like pass interface on on uncatchable ball ... no harm no foul.

The result would have been the same whether he knocked it out , recovered it or let roll out of boards

Detroit shouldn't be rewarded on a technicality ... it had 0 impact on the result

Sure, except that PI on an uncatchable ball is very explicitly not a penalty, whereas there is nothing comparable in the illegal batting rule.

If a Seattle DB had been holding Tim Wright on the opposite side of the field, and Detroit had gotten the ball back, would that have been rewarding them on a technicality, since the hold had zero impact on the result of the play?

 

[Jack White]

I was watching the game but not paying close attention.

I don't recall Detroit disputing the call or the refs discussing the call.

I don't recall the commentators saying anything about it being the wrong call.

Did this all come out the next day or immediately following the play?

The ball was clearly going out of bounds whether the defender touched it or not.

The defender was also the only one who had any chance of recovering the ball so who cares if he hit it out, let roll out or recovered it?

It's not at all clear that the ball would have gone out of bounds if untouched. As someone else mentioned earlier, on its last bounce the ball went more vertical than horizontal. Its next bounce, had it been allowed to fall, would have been in the endzone, not on the endline. Where it bounds from there would be purely a guess.

Yeah, that's a crutch argument. The ball was not clearly going out of bounds. Even if it had gone out of bounds if Wright let it fall, it's irrelevant. The rule is in place for a reason. On any fumble, both teams have an equal opportunity to recover. Unless, you know, someone illegally bats it out of the end zone.

 

[monk]

so who cares if he hit it out, let roll out or recovered it?

The NFL cares. It was against the rules and the refs should have called a penalty.

BS ... It's like pass interface on on uncatchable ball ... no harm no foul.

The result would have been the same whether he knocked it out , recovered it or let roll out of boards

Detroit shouldn't be rewarded on a technicality ... it had 0 impact on the result

Sure, except that PI on an uncatchable ball is very explicitly not a penalty, whereas there is nothing comparable in the illegal batting rule.

If a Seattle DB had been holding Tim Wright on the opposite side of the field, and Detroit had gotten the ball back, would that have been rewarding them on a technicality, since the hold had zero impact on the result of the play

If the DB was holding Tim Wright it may have impacted the play. I may have kept Stafford from throwing to him , It may have kept Wright from blocking for CJ or prevented him from recovering the fumble.

It's completely different ... this play was over the ball was on it's way out of bounds or being recovered by the defender there was no other scenario.

 

[Jack White]

so who cares if he hit it out, let roll out or recovered it?

The NFL cares. It was against the rules and the refs should have called a penalty.

BS ... It's like pass interface on on uncatchable ball ... no harm no foul.

The result would have been the same whether he knocked it out , recovered it or let roll out of boards

Detroit shouldn't be rewarded on a technicality ... it had 0 impact on the result

Sure, except that PI on an uncatchable ball is very explicitly not a penalty, whereas there is nothing comparable in the illegal batting rule.

If a Seattle DB had been holding Tim Wright on the opposite side of the field, and Detroit had gotten the ball back, would that have been rewarding them on a technicality, since the hold had zero impact on the result of the play

If the DB was holding Tim Wright it may have impacted the play. I may have kept Stafford from throwing to him , It may have kept Wright from blocking for CJ or prevented him from recovering the fumble.

It's completely different ... this play was over the ball was on it's way out of bounds or being recovered by the defender there was no other scenario.

I'm sure you know that a football is oblong, and can bounce in any direction at any time.

Let me ask you this: why did Wright not know the rule? If he had, he would have recovered the fumble and downed himself for a touchback.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

so who cares if he hit it out, let roll out or recovered it?

The NFL cares. It was against the rules and the refs should have called a penalty.

BS ... It's like pass interface on on uncatchable ball ... no harm no foul.The result would have been the same whether he knocked it out , recovered it or let roll out of boards

Detroit shouldn't be rewarded on a technicality ... it had 0 impact on the result

 

[jomar]

It's completely different ... this play was over the ball was on it's way out of bounds or being recovered by the defender there was no other scenario.

what if Wright tries to recover it but instead it squirts out of his hands and between his legs where Theo Riddick jumps on it? any possibility of that scenario? even the slightest chance? because that was the exact reason Wright batted the ball out of bounds. he didn't want to take the chance he didn't recover it cleanly.

 

[monk]

so who cares if he hit it out, let roll out or recovered it?

The NFL cares. It was against the rules and the refs should have called a penalty.

BS ... It's like pass interface on on uncatchable ball ... no harm no foul.

The result would have been the same whether he knocked it out , recovered it or let roll out of boards

Detroit shouldn't be rewarded on a technicality ... it had 0 impact on the result

Sure, except that PI on an uncatchable ball is very explicitly not a penalty, whereas there is nothing comparable in the illegal batting rule.

If a Seattle DB had been holding Tim Wright on the opposite side of the field, and Detroit had gotten the ball back, would that have been rewarding them on a technicality, since the hold had zero impact on the result of the play

If the DB was holding Tim Wright it may have impacted the play. I may have kept Stafford from throwing to him , It may have kept Wright from blocking for CJ or prevented him from recovering the fumble.

It's completely different ... this play was over the ball was on it's way out of bounds or being recovered by the defender there was no other scenario.

I'm sure you know that a football is oblong, and can bounce in any direction at any time.

Let me ask you this: why did Wright not know the rule? If he had, he would have recovered the fumble and downed himself for a touchback.

Apparently nobody on the field or commentating the game knew the rule either.

 

[The General]

so who cares if he hit it out, let roll out or recovered it?

The NFL cares. It was against the rules and the refs should have called a penalty.

BS ... It's like pass interface on on uncatchable ball ... no harm no foul.The result would have been the same whether he knocked it out , recovered it or let roll out of boards

Detroit shouldn't be rewarded on a technicality ... it had 0 impact on the result

Sure, except that PI on an uncatchable ball is very explicitly not a penalty, whereas there is nothing comparable in the illegal batting rule.

If a Seattle DB had been holding Tim Wright on the opposite side of the field, and Detroit had gotten the ball back, would that have been rewarding them on a technicality, since the hold had zero impact on the result of the play

If the DB was holding Tim Wright it may have impacted the play. I may have kept Stafford from throwing to him , It may have kept Wright from blocking for CJ or prevented him from recovering the fumble. It's completely different ... this play was over the ball was on it's way out of bounds or being recovered by the defender there was no other scenario.

I'm sure you know that a football is oblong, and can bounce in any direction at any time.

Let me ask you this: why did Wright not know the rule? If he had, he would have recovered the fumble and downed himself for a touchback.

He should have known it didn't seem like many players knew it. No one watching knew it, announcers didn't know it. It's a weird rule.If you ask a player to define a catch no one is getting that right.

 

[ragnarok628]

The fumble caused by Kam was the play. No Detroit player was getting the ball.

impossible to know this for 100% certainty because the ball was interfered with. Ball looked like it had some chance of staying in bounds, which means there is some chance for Wright or any other Seattle player to muff a recovery attempt, which means some chance for Detroit to recover. And regardless, a penalty is a penalty it doesn't matter what 'would have happened' even if it really were 100% known what 'would have happened'

 

[Jack White]

so who cares if he hit it out, let roll out or recovered it?

The NFL cares. It was against the rules and the refs should have called a penalty.

BS ... It's like pass interface on on uncatchable ball ... no harm no foul.

The result would have been the same whether he knocked it out , recovered it or let roll out of boards

Detroit shouldn't be rewarded on a technicality ... it had 0 impact on the result

Sure, except that PI on an uncatchable ball is very explicitly not a penalty, whereas there is nothing comparable in the illegal batting rule.

If a Seattle DB had been holding Tim Wright on the opposite side of the field, and Detroit had gotten the ball back, would that have been rewarding them on a technicality, since the hold had zero impact on the result of the play

If the DB was holding Tim Wright it may have impacted the play. I may have kept Stafford from throwing to him , It may have kept Wright from blocking for CJ or prevented him from recovering the fumble.

It's completely different ... this play was over the ball was on it's way out of bounds or being recovered by the defender there was no other scenario.

I'm sure you know that a football is oblong, and can bounce in any direction at any time.

Let me ask you this: why did Wright not know the rule? If he had, he would have recovered the fumble and downed himself for a touchback.

Apparently nobody on the field or commentating the game knew the rule either.

You're doing a great job of pointing out things that are irrelevant.

 

[monk]

It's completely different ... this play was over the ball was on it's way out of bounds or being recovered by the defender there was no other scenario.

what if Wright tries to recover it but instead it squirts out of his hands and between his legs where Theo Riddick jumps on it? any possibility of that scenario? even the slightest chance? because that was the exact reason Wright batted the ball out of bounds. he didn't want to take the chance he didn't recover it cleanly.

It wouldn't have ... the ball and KJ wright's momentum were heading out of bounds.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

so who cares if he hit it out, let roll out or recovered it?

The NFL cares. It was against the rules and the refs should have called a penalty.

BS ... It's like pass interface on on uncatchable ball ... no harm no foul.The result would have been the same whether he knocked it out , recovered it or let roll out of boards

Detroit shouldn't be rewarded on a technicality ... it had 0 impact on the result

Sure, except that PI on an uncatchable ball is very explicitly not a penalty, whereas there is nothing comparable in the illegal batting rule.

If a Seattle DB had been holding Tim Wright on the opposite side of the field, and Detroit had gotten the ball back, would that have been rewarding them on a technicality, since the hold had zero impact on the result of the play

If the DB was holding Tim Wright it may have impacted the play. I may have kept Stafford from throwing to him , It may have kept Wright from blocking for CJ or prevented him from recovering the fumble. It's completely different ... this play was over the ball was on it's way out of bounds or being recovered by the defender there was no other scenario.

I'm sure you know that a football is oblong, and can bounce in any direction at any time.

Let me ask you this: why did Wright not know the rule? If he had, he would have recovered the fumble and downed himself for a touchback.

Apparently nobody on the field or commentating the game knew the rule either.

That isn't true and doesn't matter as well. Keep trying.

 

[monk]

so who cares if he hit it out, let roll out or recovered it?

The NFL cares. It was against the rules and the refs should have called a penalty.

BS ... It's like pass interface on on uncatchable ball ... no harm no foul.

The result would have been the same whether he knocked it out , recovered it or let roll out of boards

Detroit shouldn't be rewarded on a technicality ... it had 0 impact on the result

Sure, except that PI on an uncatchable ball is very explicitly not a penalty, whereas there is nothing comparable in the illegal batting rule.

If a Seattle DB had been holding Tim Wright on the opposite side of the field, and Detroit had gotten the ball back, would that have been rewarding them on a technicality, since the hold had zero impact on the result of the play

If the DB was holding Tim Wright it may have impacted the play. I may have kept Stafford from throwing to him , It may have kept Wright from blocking for CJ or prevented him from recovering the fumble.

It's completely different ... this play was over the ball was on it's way out of bounds or being recovered by the defender there was no other scenario.

I'm sure you know that a football is oblong, and can bounce in any direction at any time.

Let me ask you this: why did Wright not know the rule? If he had, he would have recovered the fumble and downed himself for a touchback.

Apparently nobody on the field or commentating the game knew the rule either.

You're doing a great job of pointing out things that are irrelevant.

There are 7 more pages of irrelevance ... and irrelevant talk and articles about it all over the news.

That's my point the play and KJ's actions are irrelevant ... people are just desperate for controversy.

 

[jomar]

It's completely different ... this play was over the ball was on it's way out of bounds or being recovered by the defender there was no other scenario.

what if Wright tries to recover it but instead it squirts out of his hands and between his legs where Theo Riddick jumps on it? any possibility of that scenario? even the slightest chance? because that was the exact reason Wright batted the ball out of bounds. he didn't want to take the chance he didn't recover it cleanly.

It wouldn't have ... the ball and KJ wright's momentum were heading out of bounds.

KJ Wright himself would disagree with you.

you have no clue what would or wouldn't have happened. we can guess. pretty good chance Seattle either recovers it or it goes out of the end zone while they're trying to recover. very slim chance Detroit recovers that ball. Wright eliminated that chance by illegally batting it out of the end zone. that's a penalty.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

so who cares if he hit it out, let roll out or recovered it?

The NFL cares. It was against the rules and the refs should have called a penalty.

BS ... It's like pass interface on on uncatchable ball ... no harm no foul.The result would have been the same whether he knocked it out , recovered it or let roll out of boards

Detroit shouldn't be rewarded on a technicality ... it had 0 impact on the result

Sure, except that PI on an uncatchable ball is very explicitly not a penalty, whereas there is nothing comparable in the illegal batting rule.

If a Seattle DB had been holding Tim Wright on the opposite side of the field, and Detroit had gotten the ball back, would that have been rewarding them on a technicality, since the hold had zero impact on the result of the play

If the DB was holding Tim Wright it may have impacted the play. I may have kept Stafford from throwing to him , It may have kept Wright from blocking for CJ or prevented him from recovering the fumble. It's completely different ... this play was over the ball was on it's way out of bounds or being recovered by the defender there was no other scenario.

I'm sure you know that a football is oblong, and can bounce in any direction at any time.

Let me ask you this: why did Wright not know the rule? If he had, he would have recovered the fumble and downed himself for a touchback.

Apparently nobody on the field or commentating the game knew the rule either.

You're doing a great job of pointing out things that are irrelevant.

There are 7 more pages of irrelevance ... and irrelevant talk and articles about it all over the news.That's my point the play and KJ's actions are irrelevant ... people are just desperate for controversy.

This has to be fishing.

 

[ragnarok628]

I feel like NFL referees witnessing an action that is expressly disallowed by the rules and purposefully or ignorantly failing to penalize that action is a pretty big deal in general

 

[Ookie Pringle]

I feel like NFL referees witnessing an action that is expressly disallowed by the rules and purposefully or ignorantly fail to penalize that action is a pretty big deal in general

Yes and especially when the NFL admits they made a mistake.

 

[monk]

It's completely different ... this play was over the ball was on it's way out of bounds or being recovered by the defender there was no other scenario.

what if Wright tries to recover it but instead it squirts out of his hands and between his legs where Theo Riddick jumps on it? any possibility of that scenario? even the slightest chance? because that was the exact reason Wright batted the ball out of bounds. he didn't want to take the chance he didn't recover it cleanly.

It wouldn't have ... the ball and KJ wright's momentum were heading out of bounds.

KJ Wright himself would disagree with you.

you have no clue what would or wouldn't have happened. we can guess. pretty good chance Seattle either recovers it or it goes out of the end zone while they're trying to recover. very slim chance Detroit recovers that ball. Wright eliminated that chance by illegally batting it out of the end zone. that's a penalty.

There's also a very slim chance that KJ inadvertently hit the ball out of bounds so why are you assuming it was intentional?

 

[Henry Ford]

It's completely different ... this play was over the ball was on it's way out of bounds or being recovered by the defender there was no other scenario.

what if Wright tries to recover it but instead it squirts out of his hands and between his legs where Theo Riddick jumps on it? any possibility of that scenario? even the slightest chance? because that was the exact reason Wright batted the ball out of bounds. he didn't want to take the chance he didn't recover it cleanly.

It wouldn't have ... the ball and KJ wright's momentum were heading out of bounds.

KJ Wright himself would disagree with you.

you have no clue what would or wouldn't have happened. we can guess. pretty good chance Seattle either recovers it or it goes out of the end zone while they're trying to recover. very slim chance Detroit recovers that ball. Wright eliminated that chance by illegally batting it out of the end zone. that's a penalty.

There's also a very slim chance that KJ inadvertently hit the ball out of bounds so why are you assuming it was intentional?

Because KJ Wright said it was intentional.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

It's completely different ... this play was over the ball was on it's way out of bounds or being recovered by the defender there was no other scenario.

what if Wright tries to recover it but instead it squirts out of his hands and between his legs where Theo Riddick jumps on it? any possibility of that scenario? even the slightest chance? because that was the exact reason Wright batted the ball out of bounds. he didn't want to take the chance he didn't recover it cleanly.

It wouldn't have ... the ball and KJ wright's momentum were heading out of bounds.

KJ Wright himself would disagree with you.

you have no clue what would or wouldn't have happened. we can guess. pretty good chance Seattle either recovers it or it goes out of the end zone while they're trying to recover. very slim chance Detroit recovers that ball. Wright eliminated that chance by illegally batting it out of the end zone. that's a penalty.

There's also a very slim chance that KJ inadvertently hit the ball out of bounds so why are you assuming it was intentional?

A 5 year old child can see it was intentional.

 

[monk]

I feel like NFL referees witnessing an action that is expressly disallowed by the rules and purposefully or ignorantly failing to penalize that action is a pretty big deal in general

Didn't the ref later say that it was inadvertent ?