What Is The Actual Rule On A QB Incomplete/Fumble Call? (1 Viewer)

[ghosttothepost]

Does anyone know what the actual NFL rule is regarding a situation like the one that happened at the end of the Chargers/Broncos' game yesterday? I thought I understood that the ball could not be awarded to the Chargers because the ref had inadvertently blown the whistle in the middle of the play after ruling an incomplete pass (and prior to the fumble recovery). Then I read the following in the San Diego Union-Tribune this morning in which Hochuli seems to suggest that "it wasn't really a whistle issue" but instead, that whenever a qb is ruled to have thrown an incomplete pass but replay shows it was actually a fumble the ball is dead at the fumble spot.

The ruling on the field was that it was an incomplete pass, Hochuli told a pool reporter. “We went to replay. It should have been ruled a fumble. By rule, – by the instant-replay rules, on that particular play where there's a pass/fumble, a quarterback pass/fumble the rules do not permit you to give the ball to the other team.

All we can do to fix it is put the ball at the spot that it hit the ground, which is why we moved it back to the 10-yard line and the down counts and it becomes third down.”

Hochuli, a Phoenix attorney who has been ranked among the NFL's top referees in a vote of league coaches, argued that the call was really not even a whistle issue, because the whistle would have been blown before the ball was recovered...

Does anyone know if the ruling on that play would have been different if Hochuli had initially ruled it an incomplete pass but had NOT blown the whistle until the very end of the play?

 

[Limp Ditka]

There is no conflicting information there.

Saying it's not really a whistle issue means that no matter what, the whistle is going to blow when he interprets the play as an incomplete pass, and that's going to happen before the ball could be recovered.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

What's the confusion here? He blew the whistle. Nothing could've changed.

 

[ghosttothepost]

There is no conflicting information there.Saying it's not really a whistle issue means that no matter what, the whistle is going to blow when he interprets the play as an incomplete pass, and that's going to happen before the ball could be recovered.

But isn't it possible in such a situation (where the ref may have some uncertainty about his initial call) that the ref could simply "swallow his whistle" for a couple of seconds to let the play end? That seems to happen all the time in fumble situations where they rule, for example, that the ground caused the fumble but they don't blow the whistle until the play is all over. If Hochuli had done this (i.e. not blown his whistle) even though he ruled it an incomplete pass, would that have changed the outcome after the replay review?

 

[FantasyTrader]

There is no conflicting information there.Saying it's not really a whistle issue means that no matter what, the whistle is going to blow when he interprets the play as an incomplete pass, and that's going to happen before the ball could be recovered.

But isn't it possible in such a situation (where the ref may have some uncertainty about his initial call) that the ref could simply "swallow his whistle" for a couple of seconds to let the play end? That seems to happen all the time in fumble situations where they rule, for example, that the ground caused the fumble but they don't blow the whistle until the play is all over. If Hochuli had done this (i.e. not blown his whistle) even though he ruled it an incomplete pass, would that have changed the outcome after the replay review?

Correct. He could have allowed the play to happen and then the Broncos would be challenging the play wasn't a fumble instead of vice-versa.

 

[jonessed]

There is no conflicting information there.Saying it's not really a whistle issue means that no matter what, the whistle is going to blow when he interprets the play as an incomplete pass, and that's going to happen before the ball could be recovered.

But isn't it possible in such a situation (where the ref may have some uncertainty about his initial call) that the ref could simply "swallow his whistle" for a couple of seconds to let the play end? That seems to happen all the time in fumble situations where they rule, for example, that the ground caused the fumble but they don't blow the whistle until the play is all over. If Hochuli had done this (i.e. not blown his whistle) even though he ruled it an incomplete pass, would that have changed the outcome after the replay review?

That's what they are trained to do, but he screwed up. He admitted he screwed up on national television. Not much anyone can do about it now. The irony in the whole thing is that by putting the ball on the 10 yard line he essentially admitted that even if it was a pass it was a backwards one and would have been a fumble anyway. There was no way it could have ever been ruled an incomplete pass, but it was.

 

[ghosttothepost]

There is no conflicting information there.Saying it's not really a whistle issue means that no matter what, the whistle is going to blow when he interprets the play as an incomplete pass, and that's going to happen before the ball could be recovered.

But isn't it possible in such a situation (where the ref may have some uncertainty about his initial call) that the ref could simply "swallow his whistle" for a couple of seconds to let the play end? That seems to happen all the time in fumble situations where they rule, for example, that the ground caused the fumble but they don't blow the whistle until the play is all over. If Hochuli had done this (i.e. not blown his whistle) even though he ruled it an incomplete pass, would that have changed the outcome after the replay review?

Correct. He could have allowed the play to happen and then the Broncos would be challenging the play wasn't a fumble instead of vice-versa.

That wasn't exactly what I was asking. I'm suggesting that he could have not blown his whistle until the end of the play but still ruled it an incomplete pass. Then the Chargers would still be the team challenging but, upon seeing it was an actual fumble, Hochuli would have been able to reverse the call and give the ball to the Chargers. Or at least, that's what I'm asking. Then again, if the rule is that any play by the QB initially ruled to be incomplete is automatically dead where it hits the ground (if subsequently determined by replay to be a fumble) then it really doesn't matter whether or not he blew his whistle. While I'm not sure if this is the rule, I could see a basis for it --- e.g. that players "stop playing" if they see a ref signaling an incomplete pass regardless of the whistle issue.

 

[Limp Ditka]

There is no conflicting information there.Saying it's not really a whistle issue means that no matter what, the whistle is going to blow when he interprets the play as an incomplete pass, and that's going to happen before the ball could be recovered.

But isn't it possible in such a situation (where the ref may have some uncertainty about his initial call) that the ref could simply "swallow his whistle" for a couple of seconds to let the play end? That seems to happen all the time in fumble situations where they rule, for example, that the ground caused the fumble but they don't blow the whistle until the play is all over. If Hochuli had done this (i.e. not blown his whistle) even though he ruled it an incomplete pass, would that have changed the outcome after the replay review?

Correct. He could have allowed the play to happen and then the Broncos would be challenging the play wasn't a fumble instead of vice-versa.

It is not correct. He called it an incomplete pass. That part is plain and simply not going to change. Every time he does call an incomplete pass he's going to immediately blow the whistle because there's no reason to allow 22 professional athletes to risk their well being on what he considers a ball that can not change hands.

 

[FantasyTrader]

There is no conflicting information there.Saying it's not really a whistle issue means that no matter what, the whistle is going to blow when he interprets the play as an incomplete pass, and that's going to happen before the ball could be recovered.

But isn't it possible in such a situation (where the ref may have some uncertainty about his initial call) that the ref could simply "swallow his whistle" for a couple of seconds to let the play end? That seems to happen all the time in fumble situations where they rule, for example, that the ground caused the fumble but they don't blow the whistle until the play is all over. If Hochuli had done this (i.e. not blown his whistle) even though he ruled it an incomplete pass, would that have changed the outcome after the replay review?

Correct. He could have allowed the play to happen and then the Broncos would be challenging the play wasn't a fumble instead of vice-versa.

It is not correct. He called it an incomplete pass. That part is plain and simply not going to change. Every time he does call an incomplete pass he's going to immediately blow the whistle because there's no reason to allow 22 professional athletes to risk their well being on what he considers a ball that can not change hands.

You're right. I was wrong. I misread it the first time.

 

[ghosttothepost]

It is not correct. He called it an incomplete pass. That part is plain and simply not going to change. Every time he does call an incomplete pass he's going to immediately blow the whistle because there's no reason to allow 22 professional athletes to risk their well being on what he considers a ball that can not change hands.

I understand your point and agree that in most cases, as was the case yesterday, the ref is going to blow his whistle immediately upon seeing (even mistakenly so) that it was an incomplete pass. However, this doesn't answer the question of whether the outcome after replay could/would have been different if he hadn't blown his whistle. And based on a number of instances where we see that refs don't blow their whistles right away (even though they ultimately call a runner down by contact, etc.) I don't think this proposed scenario is really that crazy or unrealistic....

 

[go jints]

Same topic different twist:

Even if we ignore the fact that the ball came out of his hands before his arm was moving forward the fact that the ball went backwards makes it a lateral and not a forward pass right?

I can understand Hoculi missing the call in regards to when the ball came out. In real time it happened in the blink of an eye, but how does he not realize the ball went backwards 3 yards and therefore is a live ball and not a forward pass?

To me that is what makes his mistake inexcusable.

 

[Big Petey]

It is not correct. He called it an incomplete pass. That part is plain and simply not going to change. Every time he does call an incomplete pass he's going to immediately blow the whistle because there's no reason to allow 22 professional athletes to risk their well being on what he considers a ball that can not change hands.

I understand your point and agree that in most cases, as was the case yesterday, the ref is going to blow his whistle immediately upon seeing (even mistakenly so) that it was an incomplete pass. However, this doesn't answer the question of whether the outcome after replay could/would have been different if he hadn't blown his whistle. And based on a number of instances where we see that refs don't blow their whistles right away (even though they ultimately call a runner down by contact, etc.) I don't think this proposed scenario is really that crazy or unrealistic....

It's two different scenarios. If he doesn't blow the whistle (which he's instructed to do if he thinks it's an incomplete pass) then he's calling it a fumble.........therefore, the fumble rules would apply.