Game Thread W13 - Buffalo V Washington (1 Viewer)

[Gottabesweet]

Bills got help with Cleveland, Jax and Denver all losing.

 

[thayman]

does anybody put any of the blame on the Redskins owner? not for this particular game, but just in general for the team always disappointing. team spends a ton of money, but I'm not sure how much of it is well spent. also not sure paying everyone boatloads to play and coach there sends the right message or provides the best incentive.

It doesn't matter if your payroll is $40 million or $140 million. What matters is being 5-7. There is absolutely no consolation at all, or any credit to be gained, by saying "We may be 5-7 but we don't spend much money." You're still 5-7. So the money is not an issue that deserves any blame or has any bad effects. If 2 teams end the season 5-9, the one with the smallest payroll is not better than the one with the largest payroll. I don't begrudge players being paid a lot of money. I do, however, dislike paying money to the wrong players, which leads to my main point. Bad personnel decisions are to blame over the years. Snyder is to blame for having too much say in personnel decisions, and for putting others in decision-making positions about personnel who are not good at it --- Cerrato, Schottenheimer, Gibbs. That's what Snyder deserves blame for.

This drives me crazy. I love having Snyder that is willing to spend whatever it takes to get the good players in DC. Yet his advice always seems mediocre at best.

 

[GroveDiesel]

THIS HAS YET TO BE PROVEN but saw this on the Redskins message board that if true is utterly disgusting:

I am posting from my phone on my way home from FedEx and listening to 980. According to people calling in Morman took a flower tossed during the ST memorial and crumbled it in his hands

There was a couple callers that said the story is true. But remember sports talk radio can be complete BS some of the time.

Not sure where this is coming from, but I can tell you that Moorman is one of the classiest and nicest guys in the NFL, and would not do anything like this intentionally. Even if true, my guess is that he did not put one and one together and realize that the flowers were a tribute to ST. Just relax, sometimes people do stupid stuff they didn't mean. I guarantee Moorman did not mean to disrespect ST in any way shape or form.

There is zero chance that Moorman did something like that to slight Taylor. Moorman is a guy that appreciates the game of football and held zero ill will against Taylor for the hit in the Pro Bowl. Frankly, it's pretty garbage of Skins fans to be making something like that up.

 

[GroveDiesel]

does anybody put any of the blame on the Redskins owner?

1. Sure, but you could say that about Snyder every year. Why single out this season?2. I know we have an awesome team, what with Nate Clements and Antoine Winfield locking down opposing WRs and Pat Williams shutting down the run, but I don't think our own ownership is entirely beyond criticism.

Come on now, you can't blame the Bills for Clements and Winfield. The money that they got was ridiculous. And neither one of them has managed to transform the defenses that they went to. The Vikings have still managed to have one of the worst pass defenses in the league with Winfield and the Niners aren't all that impressive with Clements.The only one that you can blame them for was Williams. I still don't understand that one. I'm not sure that one was as much about money though as it was that Donahoe was just a complete moron and didn't think that Big Pat was as good as he is.

 

[thayman]

does anybody put any of the blame on the Redskins owner?

1. Sure, but you could say that about Snyder every year. Why single out this season?2. I know we have an awesome team, what with Nate Clements and Antoine Winfield locking down opposing WRs and Pat Williams shutting down the run, but I don't think our own ownership is entirely beyond criticism.

Come on now, you can't blame the Bills for Clements and Winfield. The money that they got was ridiculous. And neither one of them has managed to transform the defenses that they went to. The Vikings have still managed to have one of the worst pass defenses in the league with Winfield and the Niners aren't all that impressive with Clements.The only one that you can blame them for was Williams. I still don't understand that one. I'm not sure that one was as much about money though as it was that Donahoe was just a complete moron and didn't think that Big Pat was as good as he is.

Letting London Fletcher go was stupid for the Bills.

 

[thayman]

THIS HAS YET TO BE PROVEN but saw this on the Redskins message board that if true is utterly disgusting:

I am posting from my phone on my way home from FedEx and listening to 980. According to people calling in Morman took a flower tossed during the ST memorial and crumbled it in his hands

There was a couple callers that said the story is true. But remember sports talk radio can be complete BS some of the time.

Not sure where this is coming from, but I can tell you that Moorman is one of the classiest and nicest guys in the NFL, and would not do anything like this intentionally. Even if true, my guess is that he did not put one and one together and realize that the flowers were a tribute to ST. Just relax, sometimes people do stupid stuff they didn't mean. I guarantee Moorman did not mean to disrespect ST in any way shape or form.

There is zero chance that Moorman did something like that to slight Taylor. Moorman is a guy that appreciates the game of football and held zero ill will against Taylor for the hit in the Pro Bowl. Frankly, it's pretty garbage of Skins fans to be making something like that up.

Anyone who makes up a story like that is garbage. I don't know much about Moorman, but what brief interviews he has given that I have seen/read he has seemed like a pretty cool guy. I don't think he would have done something like that.

 

[Bills_Fan11]

does anybody put any of the blame on the Redskins owner?

1. Sure, but you could say that about Snyder every year. Why single out this season?2. I know we have an awesome team, what with Nate Clements and Antoine Winfield locking down opposing WRs and Pat Williams shutting down the run, but I don't think our own ownership is entirely beyond criticism.

Come on now, you can't blame the Bills for Clements and Winfield. The money that they got was ridiculous. And neither one of them has managed to transform the defenses that they went to. The Vikings have still managed to have one of the worst pass defenses in the league with Winfield and the Niners aren't all that impressive with Clements.The only one that you can blame them for was Williams. I still don't understand that one. I'm not sure that one was as much about money though as it was that Donahoe was just a complete moron and didn't think that Big Pat was as good as he is.

Letting London Fletcher go was stupid for the Bills.

 

[thayman]

does anybody put any of the blame on the Redskins owner?

1. Sure, but you could say that about Snyder every year. Why single out this season?2. I know we have an awesome team, what with Nate Clements and Antoine Winfield locking down opposing WRs and Pat Williams shutting down the run, but I don't think our own ownership is entirely beyond criticism.

Come on now, you can't blame the Bills for Clements and Winfield. The money that they got was ridiculous. And neither one of them has managed to transform the defenses that they went to. The Vikings have still managed to have one of the worst pass defenses in the league with Winfield and the Niners aren't all that impressive with Clements.The only one that you can blame them for was Williams. I still don't understand that one. I'm not sure that one was as much about money though as it was that Donahoe was just a complete moron and didn't think that Big Pat was as good as he is.

Letting London Fletcher go was stupid for the Bills.

London Fletcher used to play on the Bills. They were discussing various departures from the Bills, personally the only player they have lost that I think were a big loss was Fletcher. He has been huge for the Skins this year.

 

[Bills_Fan11]

does anybody put any of the blame on the Redskins owner?

1. Sure, but you could say that about Snyder every year. Why single out this season?2. I know we have an awesome team, what with Nate Clements and Antoine Winfield locking down opposing WRs and Pat Williams shutting down the run, but I don't think our own ownership is entirely beyond criticism.

Come on now, you can't blame the Bills for Clements and Winfield. The money that they got was ridiculous. And neither one of them has managed to transform the defenses that they went to. The Vikings have still managed to have one of the worst pass defenses in the league with Winfield and the Niners aren't all that impressive with Clements.The only one that you can blame them for was Williams. I still don't understand that one. I'm not sure that one was as much about money though as it was that Donahoe was just a complete moron and didn't think that Big Pat was as good as he is.

Letting London Fletcher go was stupid for the Bills.

London Fletcher used to play on the Bills. They were discussing various departures from the Bills, personally the only player they have lost that I think were a big loss was Fletcher. He has been huge for the Skins this year.

Well Grove is clearly correct. The '04 Run D was the nuts, '05 D returned every starter except Pat Williams (including Fletcher), '05 run D sucks, Vikings run D awesome for the 3rd straight year. Meanwhile our DE's are grossly overpaid.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I'd agree that letting Fletcher go was probably a mistake. But, I think we need to wait and see how Posluszny does before we know for sure.

giving that kind of contract to an older player like Fletcher may not have been the best idea for the Bills either, given their financial constraints. Bills and Redskins are pretty much at the opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to revenue and and what the organizations are willing/able to spend.

Even with Fletcher, there hasn't been much of an upgrade in the Redskins defense or won/loss record this year. I'm a huge Fletcher fan, but I wonder what his true impact really is sometimes. He was burned by Fred Jackson on a big pass play today.

 

[Gottabesweet]

All Fletcher did was make tackles 7-10 yards down the field consistantly.

I agree wait to see what Poz does - who should be playing right now but we were forced to place him on IR because of rashes of injury this season.

 

[fatness]

THIS HAS YET TO BE PROVEN but saw this on the Redskins message board that if true is utterly disgusting:

I am posting from my phone on my way home from FedEx and listening to 980. According to people calling in Morman took a flower tossed during the ST memorial and crumbled it in his hands

There was a couple callers that said the story is true. But remember sports talk radio can be complete BS some of the time.

I don't believe that for a minute. There are millions of fish in the world, and whomever started that rumor was just

 

[scoobygang]

Even with Fletcher, there hasn't been much of an upgrade in the Redskins defense or won/loss record this year. I'm a huge Fletcher fan, but I wonder what his true impact really is sometimes. He was burned by Fred Jackson on a big pass play today.

The Skins defense has been ranked around 10th this year. They were in the high 20s last year. So yeah, he's made a difference. Part of that is because Fletcher is still an above average MLB. Part of that is because Lemar Marshall was an atrocious MLB.

 

[redman]

Even with Fletcher, there hasn't been much of an upgrade in the Redskins defense or won/loss record this year. I'm a huge Fletcher fan, but I wonder what his true impact really is sometimes. He was burned by Fred Jackson on a big pass play today.

The Skins defense has been ranked around 10th this year. They were in the high 20s last year. So yeah, he's made a difference. Part of that is because Fletcher is still an above average MLB. Part of that is because Lemar Marshall was an atrocious MLB.

They also got healthy on all three levels of the defense. But I agree, Fletcher has been a big updrade at MLB for them, not to mention a lockerroom leader apparently.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I'd agree that letting Fletcher go was probably a mistake. But, I think we need to wait and see how Posluszny does before we know for sure.giving that kind of contract to an older player like Fletcher may not have been the best idea for the Bills either, given their financial constraints. Bills and Redskins are pretty much at the opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to revenue and and what the organizations are willing/able to spend.Even with Fletcher, there hasn't been much of an upgrade in the Redskins defense or won/loss record this year. I'm a huge Fletcher fan, but I wonder what his true impact really is sometimes. He was burned by Fred Jackson on a big pass play today.

The question on Fletcher wasn't whether or not he would be worth it this year. The question on Fletcher was whether he'd be worth it 3 years from now. The Redskins have the money to be able to pay out large signing bonuses and large roster bonuses then cut players in year 2 or 3 of a deal if it doesn't work out. The Bills don't have that same type of ability.When you look at the contracts and ages, would you rather have Fletcher or Poz? Even John DiGiorgio has had a pretty nice season as Poz's replacement. He has 87 total tackles, a sack and an INT.And how about Angelo Crowell? He should be making the Pro Bowl frankly.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I'd agree that letting Fletcher go was probably a mistake. But, I think we need to wait and see how Posluszny does before we know for sure.giving that kind of contract to an older player like Fletcher may not have been the best idea for the Bills either, given their financial constraints. Bills and Redskins are pretty much at the opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to revenue and and what the organizations are willing/able to spend.Even with Fletcher, there hasn't been much of an upgrade in the Redskins defense or won/loss record this year. I'm a huge Fletcher fan, but I wonder what his true impact really is sometimes. He was burned by Fred Jackson on a big pass play today.

The question on Fletcher wasn't whether or not he would be worth it this year. The question on Fletcher was whether he'd be worth it 3 years from now. The Redskins have the money to be able to pay out large signing bonuses and large roster bonuses then cut players in year 2 or 3 of a deal if it doesn't work out. The Bills don't have that same type of ability.When you look at the contracts and ages, would you rather have Fletcher or Poz? Even John DiGiorgio has had a pretty nice season as Poz's replacement. He has 87 total tackles, a sack and an INT.And how about Angelo Crowell? He should be making the Pro Bowl frankly.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

can someone translate this for me?

Referee Tony Corrente was also asked about a play in the first quarter when Redskins tight end Chris Cooley appeared to fumble after making a catch. When the officials ruled the pass incomplete, Bills coach **** Jauron wanted to challenge the call but apparently a member of Corrente’s crew told Jauron the ruling couldn’t be challenged.“They can challenge that play, but by rule they will never be able to get the ball,” Corrente said. “That’s one of the anomalies of the play. If they challenge it, it can be ruled a completed pass, but Washington will keep the ball. Unfortunately, [the Bills] will not be able to get the ball. He’s better off not challenging it at that point and saving his timeout.”

the ruling on the field was incomplete pass, but it certainly looked like an obvious catch and fumble to me...which the Bills recovered. why could this not be challenged? why did the ref say the Bills would "never be able to get the ball"?

 

[redman]

can someone translate this for me?

Referee Tony Corrente was also asked about a play in the first quarter when Redskins tight end Chris Cooley appeared to fumble after making a catch. When the officials ruled the pass incomplete, Bills coach **** Jauron wanted to challenge the call but apparently a member of Corrente’s crew told Jauron the ruling couldn’t be challenged.“They can challenge that play, but by rule they will never be able to get the ball,” Corrente said. “That’s one of the anomalies of the play. If they challenge it, it can be ruled a completed pass, but Washington will keep the ball. Unfortunately, [the Bills] will not be able to get the ball. He’s better off not challenging it at that point and saving his timeout.”

the ruling on the field was incomplete pass, but it certainly looked like an obvious catch and fumble to me...which the Bills recovered. why could this not be challenged? why did the ref say the Bills would "never be able to get the ball"?

It must have been blown dead.

 

[GroveDiesel]

can someone translate this for me?

Referee Tony Corrente was also asked about a play in the first quarter when Redskins tight end Chris Cooley appeared to fumble after making a catch. When the officials ruled the pass incomplete, Bills coach **** Jauron wanted to challenge the call but apparently a member of Corrente’s crew told Jauron the ruling couldn’t be challenged.“They can challenge that play, but by rule they will never be able to get the ball,” Corrente said. “That’s one of the anomalies of the play. If they challenge it, it can be ruled a completed pass, but Washington will keep the ball. Unfortunately, [the Bills] will not be able to get the ball. He’s better off not challenging it at that point and saving his timeout.”

the ruling on the field was incomplete pass, but it certainly looked like an obvious catch and fumble to me...which the Bills recovered. why could this not be challenged? why did the ref say the Bills would "never be able to get the ball"?

Wow. Yeah, I have no idea about that one. The only possibility I can think of, is if the whistle was blown right away before the Bills recovered. I think the whistle effectively ends the play and nothing beyond that is reviewable. That's the only thing that would possibly make sense to me.

 

[GroveDiesel]

From the BB website:

WHY NO CHALLENGE ON ELLISON FORCED FUMBLE: Early in Sunday's game Keith Ellison appeared to strip Chris Cooley of the ball after making an intermediate reception, which he recovered. The officials initially ruled it a catch and fumble and signaled that Buffalo had possession. But after conferring on the field together the officials overturned their initial call and ruled it incomplete. Replay clearly showed that Cooley had made the catch and got three steps down before the fumble.So I asked **** Jauron why he did not challenge the ruling. Here's his answer.“If you challenge it you cannot get the ball because they already ruled it an incompletion," said Jauron. "What would happen if we challenge that play, I believe they could rule it a completion and they could get the ball at that point. So there were certainly a lot of reasons for us not to challenge. You don’t want to challenge that one. Clearly the back judge thought he saw him bobble it. It was initially ruled a completion and a fumble, and then they overruled it on the field and called it an incompletion. If they had ruled it a completion, but not a fumble then we could have challenged it and got the ball.” So because the final ruling on the field was an incompletion, challenging for a fumble is not an option because the only change to a play ruled incomplete is a completed pass and that would not have benefited the Bills in any way.

Seems to me that they're saying the Bills could ONLY challenge whether or not it was complete and the refs wouldn't consider the fumble. Basically they're saying that you can only challenge one specific part of a play and not the entire play. So if the Bills challenge and win, it actually benefits the Redskins since it'd just be a complete pass and the Skins would have been given the ball at that point.IMO, that doesn't seem to jive with what I've seen before. I'm pretty sure that the coach has to challenge a specific part of the play, but that the refs can apply that result to the rest of the play. I could be wrong though. Hopefully this is addressed by Mike Peirera on Wednesday on the NFLN.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

that still makes no sense to me whatsoever. if the refs initially ruled it a catch and fumble, it should absolutely be reviewable. if the rules prevent them from challenging that, then the rules need to be fixed.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

that still makes no sense to me whatsoever. if the refs initially ruled it a catch and fumble, it should absolutely be reviewable. if the rules prevent them from challenging that, then the rules need to be fixed.

During the game, I thought one of our "upstairs" guys just screwed up by not telling Jauron to challenge that play. It never occurred to me that it wouldn't be reviewable. That's a new one, at least for me.Edit: Kind of like how you can't use instant replay to see whether a field goal is good or not. Of course, that situation would NEVER come up in an actual game or anything.

 

[mad sweeney]

can someone translate this for me?

Referee Tony Corrente was also asked about a play in the first quarter when Redskins tight end Chris Cooley appeared to fumble after making a catch. When the officials ruled the pass incomplete, Bills coach **** Jauron wanted to challenge the call but apparently a member of Corrente’s crew told Jauron the ruling couldn’t be challenged.“They can challenge that play, but by rule they will never be able to get the ball,” Corrente said. “That’s one of the anomalies of the play. If they challenge it, it can be ruled a completed pass, but Washington will keep the ball. Unfortunately, [the Bills] will not be able to get the ball. He’s better off not challenging it at that point and saving his timeout.”

the ruling on the field was incomplete pass, but it certainly looked like an obvious catch and fumble to me...which the Bills recovered. why could this not be challenged? why did the ref say the Bills would "never be able to get the ball"?

Wow. Yeah, I have no idea about that one. The only possibility I can think of, is if the whistle was blown right away before the Bills recovered. I think the whistle effectively ends the play and nothing beyond that is reviewable. That's the only thing that would possibly make sense to me.

Did the Bills recover it clearly and indisputably? Because this year, even if there's a whistle, if the other team clearly recovers the ball with no possibility that the fumbling team would've had a chance to do so then it can be reviewed and given to the recovering team.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

From the BB website:

WHY NO CHALLENGE ON ELLISON FORCED FUMBLE: Early in Sunday's game Keith Ellison appeared to strip Chris Cooley of the ball after making an intermediate reception, which he recovered. The officials initially ruled it a catch and fumble and signaled that Buffalo had possession. But after conferring on the field together the officials overturned their initial call and ruled it incomplete. Replay clearly showed that Cooley had made the catch and got three steps down before the fumble.So I asked **** Jauron why he did not challenge the ruling. Here's his answer.“If you challenge it you cannot get the ball because they already ruled it an incompletion," said Jauron. "What would happen if we challenge that play, I believe they could rule it a completion and they could get the ball at that point. So there were certainly a lot of reasons for us not to challenge. You don’t want to challenge that one. Clearly the back judge thought he saw him bobble it. It was initially ruled a completion and a fumble, and then they overruled it on the field and called it an incompletion. If they had ruled it a completion, but not a fumble then we could have challenged it and got the ball.” So because the final ruling on the field was an incompletion, challenging for a fumble is not an option because the only change to a play ruled incomplete is a completed pass and that would not have benefited the Bills in any way.

Seems to me that they're saying the Bills could ONLY challenge whether or not it was complete and the refs wouldn't consider the fumble. Basically they're saying that you can only challenge one specific part of a play and not the entire play. So if the Bills challenge and win, it actually benefits the Redskins since it'd just be a complete pass and the Skins would have been given the ball at that point.IMO, that doesn't seem to jive with what I've seen before. I'm pretty sure that the coach has to challenge a specific part of the play, but that the refs can apply that result to the rest of the play. I could be wrong though. Hopefully this is addressed by Mike Peirera on Wednesday on the NFLN.

As far as I know, while it seems you have to make a specific challenge, all reviewable things are up for review once a play is challenged. I've never seen it happen, but I've heard the ref could even call a penalty on something he sees while reviewing a call, etc.

that still makes no sense to me whatsoever. if the refs initially ruled it a catch and fumble, it should absolutely be reviewable. if the rules prevent them from challenging that, then the rules need to be fixed.

It wasn't ruled complete. It was originally signalled as complete, but eventually ruled incomplete.As for the play, I think Jauron is going by last year's rules in his comments. As was hinted at above, if there is a fumble on a play like this, it can be overturned if the recovering team clearly recovers the ball before a pile-up, etc.

 

[GroveDiesel]

It wasn't ruled complete. It was originally signalled as complete, but eventually ruled incomplete.As for the play, I think Jauron is going by last year's rules in his comments. As was hinted at above, if there is a fumble on a play like this, it can be overturned if the recovering team clearly recovers the ball before a pile-up, etc.

I'm pretty convinced that the refs screwed it up now. The initial signal was a completion and fumble. That means that the whistle wasn't blown until after the fumble. The refs then discussed, and another ref said that the pass was incomplete.Jauron then said that he was challenging the ruling of an incomplete pass. The ref told him that it wouldn't help them since the rule prevents them from awarding them the fumble. But as you said, that rule was changed for this season and since the Bills clearly recovered the ball and the whistle had not been blown yet, that part of the play was ABSOLUTELY reviewable. The ref completely screwed that call up. Hopefully it will be addressed and that ref will be punished for that. Luckily the Bills still won the game despite that incorrect rule interpretation.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Has there been any more discussion about that interpretation of the replay rule? I haven't read anything else about it and was surprised that it apparently was not addressed by the NFL.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

that still makes no sense to me whatsoever. if the refs initially ruled it a catch and fumble, it should absolutely be reviewable. if the rules prevent them from challenging that, then the rules need to be fixed.

It wasn't ruled complete. It was originally signalled as complete, but eventually ruled incomplete.

my words were basically an exact quote from **** Jauron. "It was initially ruled a completion and fumble".

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Has there been any more discussion about that interpretation of the replay rule? I haven't read anything else about it and was surprised that it apparently was not addressed by the NFL.

from today's Buffalo News:

Q: In the Redskins game, why didn’t **** Jauron toss the red flag in the first quarter when the Redskins receiver apparently caught a pass and the Bills player forced him to fumble it? — Bob Schneggenburger, Rochester.A: Because one referee ruled it incomplete on the field and blew his whistle. The Bills could have challenged but it only could have been ruled a completed pass with the Redskins maintaining possession. Because the whistle blew, the play would have been considered dead at that point, and the fact the Bills recovered the ball was irrelevant. It was a quick whistle. It should have been a fumble recovered by the Bills.

I still thought they changed this rule this year so that a turnover could still be awarded after an early whistle.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Has there been any more discussion about that interpretation of the replay rule? I haven't read anything else about it and was surprised that it apparently was not addressed by the NFL.

from today's Buffalo News:

Q: In the Redskins game, why didn’t **** Jauron toss the red flag in the first quarter when the Redskins receiver apparently caught a pass and the Bills player forced him to fumble it? — Bob Schneggenburger, Rochester.A: Because one referee ruled it incomplete on the field and blew his whistle. The Bills could have challenged but it only could have been ruled a completed pass with the Redskins maintaining possession. Because the whistle blew, the play would have been considered dead at that point, and the fact the Bills recovered the ball was irrelevant. It was a quick whistle. It should have been a fumble recovered by the Bills.

I still thought they changed this rule this year so that a turnover could still be awarded after an early whistle.

I'm pretty sure that the rule is still that the whistle ends the play and nothing after it can be reviewed. The rule change just allowed for fumbles vs. non-fumbles to be reviewed at all. The key is that the refs have been told to err on the side of caution and not blow their whistles right away if there is any question about whether something is complete or not. So they're right about that. At the very least though, the ref that blew his whistle so early should be reprimanded and reminded not to blow it so soon.Wish I had the game recorded though. I'd love to be able to re-watch that and hear if there really was a whistle that early. I think the refs completely blew the play and are covering it up after the fact.

 

[mad sweeney]

Has there been any more discussion about that interpretation of the replay rule? I haven't read anything else about it and was surprised that it apparently was not addressed by the NFL.

from today's Buffalo News:

Q: In the Redskins game, why didn’t **** Jauron toss the red flag in the first quarter when the Redskins receiver apparently caught a pass and the Bills player forced him to fumble it? — Bob Schneggenburger, Rochester.A: Because one referee ruled it incomplete on the field and blew his whistle. The Bills could have challenged but it only could have been ruled a completed pass with the Redskins maintaining possession. Because the whistle blew, the play would have been considered dead at that point, and the fact the Bills recovered the ball was irrelevant. It was a quick whistle. It should have been a fumble recovered by the Bills.

I still thought they changed this rule this year so that a turnover could still be awarded after an early whistle.

So did I, if the replay showed that the whistle didn't affect a player from recovering the ball clearly and unopposed.