Scoring Question (1 Viewer)

[jq_ballgame]

Anybody know how Terry Glenn's fumble should be scored? NFL.com does not have it as a fumble lost.

 

[CalBear]

Anybody know how Terry Glenn's fumble should be scored? NFL.com does not have it as a fumble lost.

It's a fumble out of bounds in the end zone; it's not lost because it wasn't recovered.

 

[SteelerMurf]

If you ask me, Glenn didn't even catch the ball. The call should have been reviewed for the fact that Glenn trapped the ball on the ground to catch it. He never had control and made a football move when the ball hit the ground.

It was as obvious as the bogus Whitten fumble they called where he didn't really catch it.

If either one of those plays occured in the endzone they would have been incomplete for sure.

 

[Sea Bass]

If you ask me, Glenn didn't even catch the ball. The call should have been reviewed for the fact that Glenn trapped the ball on the ground to catch it. He never had control and made a football move when the ball hit the ground.It was as obvious as the bogus Whitten fumble they called where he didn't really catch it.If either one of those plays occured in the endzone they would have been incomplete for sure.

 

[Sinrman]

If you ask me, Glenn didn't even catch the ball. The call should have been reviewed for the fact that Glenn trapped the ball on the ground to catch it. He never had control and made a football move when the ball hit the ground.It was as obvious as the bogus Whitten fumble they called where he didn't really catch it.If either one of those plays occured in the endzone they would have been incomplete for sure.

He clearly caught that ball, slipped to the ground, but was never touched. He got back up and had the ball punched out. They correctly pointed this out and it was replayed about 102938492 times. The call, for once, was correct.

 

[gman74]

If you ask me, Glenn didn't even catch the ball. The call should have been reviewed for the fact that Glenn trapped the ball on the ground to catch it. He never had control and made a football move when the ball hit the ground.It was as obvious as the bogus Whitten fumble they called where he didn't really catch it.If either one of those plays occured in the endzone they would have been incomplete for sure.

 

[CalBear]

If you ask me, Glenn didn't even catch the ball. The call should have been reviewed for the fact that Glenn trapped the ball on the ground to catch it. He never had control and made a football move when the ball hit the ground.It was as obvious as the bogus Whitten fumble they called where he didn't really catch it.If either one of those plays occured in the endzone they would have been incomplete for sure.

The Glenn catch was a catch, no question.I agree that Witten didn't have possession on the fumble, but it didn't get challenged, so the call stood.

 

[Islander]

If you ask me, Glenn didn't even catch the ball. The call should have been reviewed for the fact that Glenn trapped the ball on the ground to catch it. He never had control and made a football move when the ball hit the ground.It was as obvious as the bogus Whitten fumble they called where he didn't really catch it.If either one of those plays occured in the endzone they would have been incomplete for sure.

Did you lose a bet or something?

 

[SteelerMurf]

If you ask me, Glenn didn't even catch the ball. The call should have been reviewed for the fact that Glenn trapped the ball on the ground to catch it. He never had control and made a football move when the ball hit the ground.It was as obvious as the bogus Whitten fumble they called where he didn't really catch it.If either one of those plays occured in the endzone they would have been incomplete for sure.

Did you lose a bet or something?

I have no dog in the fight, I don't like either team at all. It's a shame one team had to win.I have seen players catch a ball and take 2 steps and get separated from the ball and have it called incomplete.

 

[Liquid Tension]

If you ask me, Glenn didn't even catch the ball. The call should have been reviewed for the fact that Glenn trapped the ball on the ground to catch it. He never had control and made a football move when the ball hit the ground.It was as obvious as the bogus Whitten fumble they called where he didn't really catch it.If either one of those plays occured in the endzone they would have been incomplete for sure.

Did you lose a bet or something?

I have no dog in the fight, I don't like either team at all. It's a shame one team had to win.I have seen players catch a ball and take 2 steps and get separated from the ball and have it called incomplete.

Glenn's was a catch, but I have seen a guy get his 3rd foot on the ground and then get hit coming across the middle and they reviewed it and called it incomplete BTW, I had over 41.5 (as the last part of a teaser, so it was painful to watch Seattle's TD get overturned, then see Seattle not go for the winning xtra point and then have them miss the 2 point conversion and then see Dallas not get any points at the end.

 

[ImTheScientist]

If you ask me, Glenn didn't even catch the ball. The call should have been reviewed for the fact that Glenn trapped the ball on the ground to catch it. He never had control and made a football move when the ball hit the ground.It was as obvious as the bogus Whitten fumble they called where he didn't really catch it.If either one of those plays occured in the endzone they would have been incomplete for sure.

Steeler fan upset with the loss of Cowher and they are not in the playoffs

 

[stbugs]

If you ask me, Glenn didn't even catch the ball. The call should have been reviewed for the fact that Glenn trapped the ball on the ground to catch it. He never had control and made a football move when the ball hit the ground.It was as obvious as the bogus Whitten fumble they called where he didn't really catch it.If either one of those plays occured in the endzone they would have been incomplete for sure.

Not sure why no one is willing to discuss it. I am not sure if it was or wasn't a catch, but to me it seemed as if he didn't have full control of the ball when it touched the ground and he kind of gathered it in completely when the ball was touching the ground.It doesn't matter at all and neither Dallas or Seattle was going anywhere, anyway, but that was the first thing I thought when they showed the replay. I told my wife that I didn't think he even caught it, but they didn't really focus on that part of the play. It was just the fact that the ball was touching the ground when it seemed like he finally got full control over it.

 

[Fallerjw]

I thought that a fumble going out of bounds in the opponents end zone was ruled a touchback. Did they change that rule?

 

[bentley]

I thought that a fumble going out of bounds in the opponents end zone was ruled a touchback. Did they change that rule?

Seattle never possessed the ball. Glenn was the one fumbling.

 

[Fallerjw]

I thought that a fumble going out of bounds in the opponents end zone was ruled a touchback. Did they change that rule?

Seattle never possessed the ball. Glenn was the one fumbling.

Hence the wording "fumble going out of bounds in the opponents end zone". Maybe I was wrong about the rule, but I thought I worded it right.

 

[CalBear]

I thought that a fumble going out of bounds in the opponents end zone was ruled a touchback. Did they change that rule?

Seattle never possessed the ball. Glenn was the one fumbling.

Hence the wording "fumble going out of bounds in the opponents end zone". Maybe I was wrong about the rule, but I thought I worded it right.

It went out of bounds in Dallas' end zone, Dallas possessed it, so it's a safety.

 

[bentley]

I thought that a fumble going out of bounds in the opponents end zone was ruled a touchback. Did they change that rule?

Seattle never possessed the ball. Glenn was the one fumbling.

Hence the wording "fumble going out of bounds in the opponents end zone". Maybe I was wrong about the rule, but I thought I worded it right.

But Glenn fumbled the ball into his own end zone. If he'd broke free, ran to the Seattle five, and then fumbled the ball through Seattle's end zone, that would have been a touchback.

 

[Chaos Commish]

If you ask me, Glenn didn't even catch the ball. The call should have been reviewed for the fact that Glenn trapped the ball on the ground to catch it. He never had control and made a football move when the ball hit the ground.It was as obvious as the bogus Whitten fumble they called where he didn't really catch it.If either one of those plays occured in the endzone they would have been incomplete for sure.

Not sure why no one is willing to discuss it. I am not sure if it was or wasn't a catch, but to me it seemed as if he didn't have full control of the ball when it touched the ground and he kind of gathered it in completely when the ball was touching the ground.It doesn't matter at all and neither Dallas or Seattle was going anywhere, anyway, but that was the first thing I thought when they showed the replay. I told my wife that I didn't think he even caught it, but they didn't really focus on that part of the play. It was just the fact that the ball was touching the ground when it seemed like he finally got full control over it.

Diehard Cowboy fan, so whatever. HD, Tivo, Slo Mo, it does look like the catch should have been challenged, not the recovery. Which is a question I have. Did Dallas challenge the wrong aspect of the haywire play? Or is the entire play reviewed for accuracy regardless? Seems to me I have heard a coach accused of challenging the wrong thing. Nevertheless, in the game thread it was quickly pointed out that the ball can touch the ground post catch and it will be ruled a catch if possession was acheived prior to and during touching the ground. I don't know the specifics. I know Glenn bobbles the ball slightly, grasps it and uses the ground to control it, very briefly the ball is on the ground and Glenn has only one hand on it. It does look like it should be challenged and scrutinized. But, like I said in the game thread. I don't really care. I have no idea what would have ensued in a game called otherwise and Dallas had every opportunity to win the game as it was.

 

[Crazy8s]

If you ask me, Glenn didn't even catch the ball. The call should have been reviewed for the fact that Glenn trapped the ball on the ground to catch it. He never had control and made a football move when the ball hit the ground.It was as obvious as the bogus Whitten fumble they called where he didn't really catch it.If either one of those plays occured in the endzone they would have been incomplete for sure.

If you ask me, Glenn didn't even catch the ball. The call should have been reviewed for the fact that Glenn trapped the ball on the ground to catch it. He never had control and made a football move when the ball hit the ground.It was as obvious as the bogus Whitten fumble they called where he didn't really catch it.If either one of those plays occured in the endzone they would have been incomplete for sure.

Not sure why no one is willing to discuss it. I am not sure if it was or wasn't a catch, but to me it seemed as if he didn't have full control of the ball when it touched the ground and he kind of gathered it in completely when the ball was touching the ground.It doesn't matter at all and neither Dallas or Seattle was going anywhere, anyway, but that was the first thing I thought when they showed the replay. I told my wife that I didn't think he even caught it, but they didn't really focus on that part of the play. It was just the fact that the ball was touching the ground when it seemed like he finally got full control over it.

I'm a HUGE Eagles fan and I don't think he caught the ball in NFL standards. But I think they challenage the TD, not the catch.

 

[Memphis Foundry]

If you ask me, Glenn didn't even catch the ball. The call should have been reviewed for the fact that Glenn trapped the ball on the ground to catch it. He never had control and made a football move when the ball hit the ground.

It was as obvious as the bogus Whitten fumble they called where he didn't really catch it.

If either one of those plays occured in the endzone they would have been incomplete for sure.

Not sure why no one is willing to discuss it. I am not sure if it was or wasn't a catch, but to me it seemed as if he didn't have full control of the ball when it touched the ground and he kind of gathered it in completely when the ball was touching the ground.

It doesn't matter at all and neither Dallas or Seattle was going anywhere, anyway, but that was the first thing I thought when they showed the replay. I told my wife that I didn't think he even caught it, but they didn't really focus on that part of the play. It was just the fact that the ball was touching the ground when it seemed like he finally got full control over it.

Diehard Cowboy fan, so whatever. HD, Tivo, Slo Mo, it does look like the catch should have been challenged, not the recovery. Which is a question I have. Did Dallas challenge the wrong aspect of the haywire play? Or is the entire play reviewed for accuracy regardless? Seems to me I have heard a coach accused of challenging the wrong thing. Nevertheless, in the game thread it was quickly pointed out that the ball can touch the ground post catch and it will be ruled a catch if possession was acheived prior to and during touching the ground. I don't know the specifics. I know Glenn bobbles the ball slightly, grasps it and uses the ground to control it, very briefly the ball is on the ground and Glenn has only one hand on it. It does look like it should be challenged and scrutinized. But, like I said in the game thread. I don't really care. I have no idea what would have ensued in a game called otherwise and Dallas had every opportunity to win the game as it was.

In real time it looked to me like Glenn trapped the ball against the ground. But it was called a catch and on replay it did not appear to be a clearcut call either way. Since the call on the field was a catch, there was not indisputable visual evidence to overturn it on replay, so it wasn't overturned. I don't think the catch was as crystal clear as many in this thread do, but it was definitely not clear enough on replay to overturn.I believe that once a coaches' challenge is begun, the officials can correct other aspects of the call besides the specific challenge that's made by the coach. The coach has to give a reason for the challenge so that the officials can determine whether that aspect of the play can be challenged. But once the replay is underway, I believe they can correct any miscall that they see on replay that is reviewable. And if some other aspect of the play besides what the coach challenged is corrected, the review does not cost the challenging coach a timeout even if his reason for the challenge was determined to be correct. I saw this happen in a game about a month ago but I can't remember which one. Check out this commentary from former NFL Referee Jerry Markbreit:

On Nathan Vasher's interception in Sunday's Bears-Falcons game, there was a lot of confusion. The ruling on the field was that Vasher intercepted the ball and then advanced. Because the two-minute warning came at the end of the play, ESPN went to commercial while the play was being reviewed. What ruling were the Falcons challenging--whether it was an interception, an incomplete pass, or whether Vasher was down by contact? Can teams challenge all the rulings on the field in one fell swoop? This play ended with 1:59 left in the first half. Is a play that begins before the two-minute warning but ends at the two-minute warning able to be challenged, or can it only be reviewed by the video replay official? -- Greg Weisman, Jackson, Miss.

I believe the challenge by the Falcons was that the receiver was down by contact before the ball bounced up in the air. A team is only allowed to challenge one thing that they feel is incorrect on the play. The replay official cannot institute the replay system until the two-minute warning has been announced by the referee. This play, which ended at 1:59 left in the first half, was still under the jurisdiction of the coach's challenge. As a side note, whenever a challenge is made by a coach and something other than what he challenged is changed, he is not charged with the timeout under replay rules, even though his original challenge was correctly ruled on the field.