The Griese "fumble" at the end of the Detroit-Chicago Game (1 Viewer)

[Aabye]

Near the end of the game, Griese attempted a pass and a Detroit D-lineman hit his arm. The ball came out and a Chicago lineman caught it in the air beyond the line of scrimmage. He attempted to advance the ball, was hit by a Detroit defender, and fumbled the ball into the endzone where a Detroit player recovered it for an apparent touchback. The Chicago lineman was clearly not down by contact, nor was forward progress stopped when he fumbled.

The officials reviewed the play and overturned it. They explained that the play was ruled a fumble and could not be advanced. The ball was then awarded back to Chicago.

My questions:

1) When the Chicago lineman recovers the fumble, should the play immediately be blown dead? Should it be blown dead when he tries to advance the fumble? If it shouldn't be blown dead, why does Chicago retain possession?

2) If it is ruled a forward pass, is the play dead when the offensive lineman illegally catches it? Can Detroit decline the penalty and take the ball instead?

I don't have a copy of the rulebook and the online NFL.com rulebook wasn't helpful, so if someone could explain this ruling, I'd be grateful.

 

[The Jerk]

Thanks to the Oakland Raiders in a famous play vs. San Diego dubbed the "Holy Roller", the NFL instituted a rule (around 1980) which states that in the last two minutes of a game, only the player who fumbled can recover and advance the ball from the spot of the fumble.

 

[The Jerk]

From Wikipedia (not official rules): LINK

The Holy Roller: The Oakland Raiders won a September 10, 1978, contest against divisional rivals the San Diego Chargers through another intentional fumble. With ten seconds left, down 20-14, quarterback Ken Stabler fumbled the ball forward to avoid being sacked at the Chargers' 15-yard line. Two other players, Pete Banaszak and Dave Casper, attempted to recover it but batted it forward when they could not. Finally it reached the end zone, where Casper fell on it for the tying touchdown, which cleared the way for the extra point that gave the Raiders the win. Officials decided to allow the touchdown on the grounds that the fumbles did not appear to be intentional and thus could not be considered forward passes, but Stabler freely admitted his was. Chargers fans have referred to the play as the Immaculate Deception ever since, and the NFL quickly instituted the current rule that a forward fumble in the last two minutes of play (or on fourth down) can only be recovered and/or advanced by the player who originally fumbled.

 

[Aabye]

Thanks to the Oakland Raiders in a famous play vs. San Diego dubbed the "Holy Roller", the NFL instituted a rule (around 1980) which states that in the last two minutes of a game, only the player who fumbled can recover and advance the ball from the spot of the fumble.

Thanks.So is the play dead when someone other than the original fumbler or a defensive player possesses the ball?

 

[The Jerk]

1) When the Chicago lineman recovers the fumble, should the play immediately be blown dead? Should it be blown dead when he tries to advance the fumble? If it shouldn't be blown dead, why does Chicago retain possession?2) If it is ruled a forward pass, is the play dead when the offensive lineman illegally catches it? Can Detroit decline the penalty and take the ball instead?

In neither case will the play be blown dead, mostly because the defense may prosper by allowing the play to continue. Let's say that a teammate of the fumbler picks up the ball and tries to advance it, (and it would work the same way if it was a lineman catching an illegal forward pass,) but then fumbles, and the opposition recovers and runs for a TD. Blowing the play dead would have prevented the opposition from the opportunity to score.Your point about giving Detroit the option of declining the penalty if a better outcome occurs in the actual play is really the right line of thinking.

 

[The Jerk]

From Wikipedia (not official rules): LINK

Two other players, Pete Banaszak and Dave Casper, attempted to recover it but batted it forward when they could not. Finally it reached the end zone, where Casper fell on it for the tying touchdown...

This is a pretty generous description of the play.If you watch the replays, it's pretty obvious that Banaszak batted it forward intentionally (and smartly, as he would never have been able to score), and then Casper dribbled it like a soccer player until it was across the goal line.

And you also don't hear some play-by-play announcer ad libbing what he thinks the official is speaking to Madden, "Get your big butt out of here."

 

[Tremendous Upside]

From Wikipedia (not official rules): LINK

Two other players, Pete Banaszak and Dave Casper, attempted to recover it but batted it forward when they could not. Finally it reached the end zone, where Casper fell on it for the tying touchdown...

This is a pretty generous description of the play.If you watch the replays, it's pretty obvious that Banaszak batted it forward intentionally (and smartly, as he would never have been able to score), and then Casper dribbled it like a soccer player until it was across the goal line.

And you also don't hear some play-by-play announcer ad libbing what he thinks the official is speaking to Madden, "Get your big butt out of here."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEpUPCf2oWUHoly Roller

 

[The Jerk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEpUPCf2oWU

Thanks. If I could only remember important things the way I remember old football plays relived countless times on NFL Films.Or if I could only pick the right starting lineups...

 

[Aabye]

1) When the Chicago lineman recovers the fumble, should the play immediately be blown dead? Should it be blown dead when he tries to advance the fumble? If it shouldn't be blown dead, why does Chicago retain possession?2) If it is ruled a forward pass, is the play dead when the offensive lineman illegally catches it? Can Detroit decline the penalty and take the ball instead?

In neither case will the play be blown dead, mostly because the defense may prosper by allowing the play to continue. Let's say that a teammate of the fumbler picks up the ball and tries to advance it, (and it would work the same way if it was a lineman catching an illegal forward pass,) but then fumbles, and the opposition recovers and runs for a TD. Blowing the play dead would have prevented the opposition from the opportunity to score.Your point about giving Detroit the option of declining the penalty if a better outcome occurs in the actual play is really the right line of thinking.

Right, that's what I was thinking. That's what happened here and I don't understand why Detroit wasn't given the option to decline. The only reasonable explanation I could come up with was that the play is blown dead at that point - that's the only time I could think of when you can't refuse a penalty and keep the result. But I have no idea why that play would be blown dead at that point.

 

[The Jerk]

1) When the Chicago lineman recovers the fumble, should the play immediately be blown dead? Should it be blown dead when he tries to advance the fumble? If it shouldn't be blown dead, why does Chicago retain possession?2) If it is ruled a forward pass, is the play dead when the offensive lineman illegally catches it? Can Detroit decline the penalty and take the ball instead?

In neither case will the play be blown dead, mostly because the defense may prosper by allowing the play to continue. Let's say that a teammate of the fumbler picks up the ball and tries to advance it, (and it would work the same way if it was a lineman catching an illegal forward pass,) but then fumbles, and the opposition recovers and runs for a TD. Blowing the play dead would have prevented the opposition from the opportunity to score.Your point about giving Detroit the option of declining the penalty if a better outcome occurs in the actual play is really the right line of thinking.

Right, that's what I was thinking. That's what happened here and I don't understand why Detroit wasn't given the option to decline. The only reasonable explanation I could come up with was that the play is blown dead at that point - that's the only time I could think of when you can't refuse a penalty and keep the result. But I have no idea why that play would be blown dead at that point.

I didn't see the play at all -- not even a highlight. I only know that it was in the last two minutes due to the gamebook. I didn't interpret the gamebook account as indicating that the play was blown dead.

 

[Aabye]

1) When the Chicago lineman recovers the fumble, should the play immediately be blown dead? Should it be blown dead when he tries to advance the fumble? If it shouldn't be blown dead, why does Chicago retain possession?2) If it is ruled a forward pass, is the play dead when the offensive lineman illegally catches it? Can Detroit decline the penalty and take the ball instead?

In neither case will the play be blown dead, mostly because the defense may prosper by allowing the play to continue. Let's say that a teammate of the fumbler picks up the ball and tries to advance it, (and it would work the same way if it was a lineman catching an illegal forward pass,) but then fumbles, and the opposition recovers and runs for a TD. Blowing the play dead would have prevented the opposition from the opportunity to score.Your point about giving Detroit the option of declining the penalty if a better outcome occurs in the actual play is really the right line of thinking.

Right, that's what I was thinking. That's what happened here and I don't understand why Detroit wasn't given the option to decline. The only reasonable explanation I could come up with was that the play is blown dead at that point - that's the only time I could think of when you can't refuse a penalty and keep the result. But I have no idea why that play would be blown dead at that point.

I didn't see the play at all -- not even a highlight. I only know that it was in the last two minutes due to the gamebook. I didn't interpret the gamebook account as indicating that the play was blown dead.

I saw the play and heard the official explanation, but it was completely unclear, at least to me, why they ruled the way they did.As far as I could tell, they explained that the ruling on the field (forward pass, illegally touched down field, fumbled, then recovered in the end zone) was overturned and that the play was being ruled a fumble. They then said that possession went back over to Chicago. No actual explanation was given beyond that.The play being blown dead stuff is all my conjecture and has nothing to do with how the play was called on the field. I was just trying to understand how it was even possible to make the ruling that the refs made - a fumble resulting in possession for Chicago that didn't give Detroit the option to decline the penalty and retain possession.

 

[mad sweeney]

Seems to me, the way they explained it on NFLN, that it was ruled the offense can't fumble it forward in the last 2 minutes. But it seems to me that only applies if another Bear recovers it. And wasn't it a Lion that got it? If a Bear fell on it then it'd be Bears ball at the spot of the fumble, but if the Lions recover it shoudln't it be like any fumble? Maybe I missed something but it seems like the D should get a chance to recover it...

 

[Aabye]

Seems to me, the way they explained it on NFLN, that it was ruled the offense can't fumble it forward in the last 2 minutes. But it seems to me that only applies if another Bear recovers it. And wasn't it a Lion that got it? If a Bear fell on it then it'd be Bears ball at the spot of the fumble, but if the Lions recover it shoudln't it be like any fumble? Maybe I missed something but it seems like the D should get a chance to recover it...

What happened, according to the call on the field, was that Griese fumbled forward to a Chicago lineman who then tried to advance the ball rather than falling on it. The Chicago player then fumbled and a Detroit player fell on it.So there were two fumbles on the play.

 

[DoubleG]

Seems to me, the way they explained it on NFLN, that it was ruled the offense can't fumble it forward in the last 2 minutes. But it seems to me that only applies if another Bear recovers it. And wasn't it a Lion that got it? If a Bear fell on it then it'd be Bears ball at the spot of the fumble, but if the Lions recover it shoudln't it be like any fumble? Maybe I missed something but it seems like the D should get a chance to recover it...

No - Garza (Bear) "caught the fumble in the air" - it was ruled after the replay, that it was not a forward pass by Griese (he had "an empty hand coming forward"). The play should have been blown dead as soon as Garza (another Bear player) recovered the fumble. However, it wasn't decided it was a fumble until after the replay (until then it was presumed to be a forward pass - with the afore metnioned "illegal touching" penalty - which would have been (and was, until the replay) declined by Detroit. At the point it was ruled a fumble, everything that happened after Garza recovered it was irrelivent - as he cannot, by rule advance the ball (even if it is to fumble himself)

 

[The Jerk]

It seems inconsistent to blow this type of play dead when seemingly the majority of other illegal actions occur without resulting in the play being blown dead (save presnap penalties and offside unabated). There are many strange tweaks that the rulebook undergoes inside of two minutes, though.

 

[GregR_2]

Thanks to the Oakland Raiders in a famous play vs. San Diego dubbed the "Holy Roller", the NFL instituted a rule (around 1980) which states that in the last two minutes of a game, only the player who fumbled can recover and advance the ball from the spot of the fumble.

It's also in effect on 4th downs, regardless of the time on the clock:

Rule 8, Section 4, Article 2, Exceptions3) If a fourth-down fumble occurs during a play from scrimmage and the recovery or catch is by another offensive player, the spot of the next snap is: a) the spot of the fumble, unless b) the spot of recovery is behind the spot of the fumble and it is then at the spot of recovery. See 8-4-3.Rule 8, Section 4, Article 2, Supplemental NoteAfter the two-minute warning, when any fumble occurs during a down (including Try), the fumbled ball may only be advanced by the offensive player who fumbled the ball, or any member of the defensive team. See 11-3-1-b.

 

[mad sweeney]

Seems to me, the way they explained it on NFLN, that it was ruled the offense can't fumble it forward in the last 2 minutes. But it seems to me that only applies if another Bear recovers it. And wasn't it a Lion that got it? If a Bear fell on it then it'd be Bears ball at the spot of the fumble, but if the Lions recover it shoudln't it be like any fumble? Maybe I missed something but it seems like the D should get a chance to recover it...

No - Garza (Bear) "caught the fumble in the air" - it was ruled after the replay, that it was not a forward pass by Griese (he had "an empty hand coming forward"). The play should have been blown dead as soon as Garza (another Bear player) recovered the fumble. However, it wasn't decided it was a fumble until after the replay (until then it was presumed to be a forward pass - with the afore metnioned "illegal touching" penalty - which would have been (and was, until the replay) declined by Detroit. At the point it was ruled a fumble, everything that happened after Garza recovered it was irrelivent - as he cannot, by rule advance the ball (even if it is to fumble himself)

So was the ball spotted where Griese fumbled it then?

 

[The Jerk]

Seems to me, the way they explained it on NFLN, that it was ruled the offense can't fumble it forward in the last 2 minutes. But it seems to me that only applies if another Bear recovers it. And wasn't it a Lion that got it? If a Bear fell on it then it'd be Bears ball at the spot of the fumble, but if the Lions recover it shoudln't it be like any fumble? Maybe I missed something but it seems like the D should get a chance to recover it...

No - Garza (Bear) "caught the fumble in the air" - it was ruled after the replay, that it was not a forward pass by Griese (he had "an empty hand coming forward"). The play should have been blown dead as soon as Garza (another Bear player) recovered the fumble. However, it wasn't decided it was a fumble until after the replay (until then it was presumed to be a forward pass - with the afore metnioned "illegal touching" penalty - which would have been (and was, until the replay) declined by Detroit. At the point it was ruled a fumble, everything that happened after Garza recovered it was irrelivent - as he cannot, by rule advance the ball (even if it is to fumble himself)

So was the ball spotted where Griese fumbled it then?

Yes (or so it appears to me). From the gamebook... 1st and goal from the 6:(1:27) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 14-B.Griese pass to 63-R.Garza to DET 2 for 4 yards (42-G.Alexander). FUMBLES (42-G.Alexander), RECOVERED by DET-21-T.Fisher at DET 0. Touchback. Penalty on CHI-63-R.Garza, Illegal Receiver Pass, declined. Det95 rushed QB to force an errant pass The Replay Assistant challenged the runner was down by contact ruling, and the play was REVERSED. (No Huddle, Shotgun) 14-B.Griese sacked at DET 13 for -7 yards (95-J.DeVries). FUMBLES (95-J.DeVries), recovered by CHI-63-R.Garza at DET 13. LINK

 

[Paddy O'Seanessy]

Seems to me, the way they explained it on NFLN, that it was ruled the offense can't fumble it forward in the last 2 minutes. But it seems to me that only applies if another Bear recovers it. And wasn't it a Lion that got it? If a Bear fell on it then it'd be Bears ball at the spot of the fumble, but if the Lions recover it shoudln't it be like any fumble? Maybe I missed something but it seems like the D should get a chance to recover it...

I switched over to the President's Cup as soon as Detroit fell on it so, I didn't hear the explanation. But from what I am reading here the overturn was from Griese passed to Griese fumbled. Hence, it is not a question of who fell on the SECOND fumble and that, being a fumble, there was no illegal touching on which a penalty could be called which could be declined.got it?

 

[Paddy O'Seanessy]

It seems inconsistent to blow this type of play dead when seemingly the majority of other illegal actions occur without resulting in the play being blown dead (save presnap penalties and offside unabated). There are many strange tweaks that the rulebook undergoes inside of two minutes, though.

There's no illegal action -- fumble, dead on recovery. No penalty.

 

[Paddy O'Seanessy]

Seems to me, the way they explained it on NFLN, that it was ruled the offense can't fumble it forward in the last 2 minutes. But it seems to me that only applies if another Bear recovers it. And wasn't it a Lion that got it? If a Bear fell on it then it'd be Bears ball at the spot of the fumble, but if the Lions recover it shoudln't it be like any fumble? Maybe I missed something but it seems like the D should get a chance to recover it...

No - Garza (Bear) "caught the fumble in the air" - it was ruled after the replay, that it was not a forward pass by Griese (he had "an empty hand coming forward"). The play should have been blown dead as soon as Garza (another Bear player) recovered the fumble. However, it wasn't decided it was a fumble until after the replay (until then it was presumed to be a forward pass - with the afore metnioned "illegal touching" penalty - which would have been (and was, until the replay) declined by Detroit. At the point it was ruled a fumble, everything that happened after Garza recovered it was irrelivent - as he cannot, by rule advance the ball (even if it is to fumble himself)

So was the ball spotted where Griese fumbled it then?

Yes (or so it appears to me). From the gamebook... 1st and goal from the 6:(1:27) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 14-B.Griese pass to 63-R.Garza to DET 2 for 4 yards (42-G.Alexander). FUMBLES (42-G.Alexander), RECOVERED by DET-21-T.Fisher at DET 0. Touchback. Penalty on CHI-63-R.Garza, Illegal Receiver Pass, declined. Det95 rushed QB to force an errant pass The Replay Assistant challenged the runner was down by contact ruling, and the play was REVERSED. (No Huddle, Shotgun) 14-B.Griese sacked at DET 13 for -7 yards (95-J.DeVries). FUMBLES (95-J.DeVries), recovered by CHI-63-R.Garza at DET 13. LINK

followed by:2-13-DET 13 (1:17) (Shotgun) 14-B.Griese pass short middle to 88-D.Clark to DET 3 for 10 yards (53-P.Lenon).

So, yes. First down at the 6, second down at the 13 assumedly where Griese fumbled.