Willie Parker's Non-fumble (1 Viewer)

[JimOtto#2]

1st quarter and Parker loses the ball and it is ruled on the field as a fumble. Challenged by Cowher. Simms in the booth looks at the replay as says it looks too inconclusive to overturn. The ref comes back after review and says that FWP had possession and control when his arm hit the turf therefore no fumble. But since when are you considered "down" when your wrist hits the ground. Doesn't a knee need to touch before the play is dead? I tried to check the NFL rules online myself but only find the digested version which does not cover this. Anyone have any insight or a quote from the actual rulebook regarding fumbles and when a runner is "down"???? Thanx.

 

[The Hank]

From my own interpretation of the review, I think it was more of a 'ground caused fumble'. I may be wrong, but thats what I came into conclusion with seeing the replays and the official's call.

 

[jurb26]

I have no links, nor do I care to look for one. It was always my understanding that A knee, elbow or forearm constitutes down. The refs seemed to solidify that position.

 

[Sopranos]

I have no links, nor do I care to look for one. It was always my understanding that A knee, elbow or forearm constitutes down. The refs seemed to solidify that position.

Thats my understanding also

 

[JimOtto#2]

I disagree that an arm or hand touching the ground consitutes being down. I have seen people use their hand to steady themselves many times and get up. It's only if you drop the ball while doing it that you're down?????????

 

[jurb26]

I disagree that an arm or hand touching the ground consitutes being down. I have seen people use their hand to steady themselves many times and get up. It's only if you drop the ball while doing it that you're down?????????

It wasnt a hand. It was his forearm.

 

[JimOtto#2]

Why is it that there is no reference for NFL rules on the internet beside the lame digested version that has 10% of the info that the actual rules have? Where does it differentiate between hand, forearm, wrist etc. in the rules?

 

[ffball-novice]

Why is it that there is no reference for NFL rules on the internet beside the lame digested version that has 10% of the info that the actual rules have? Where does it differentiate between hand, forearm, wrist etc. in the rules?

Anything other than hand or foot is down. Fundamental at all levels of football.Hand is a hand, foot is a foot.

This has been a public service announcement.

 

[Men-in-Cleats]

I found it odd that the announcers kept just focusing on that one camera shot when there had to be more angles. They kept just wanting to look at that forearm, which did signifiy he was down but I think that if they had a camera angle from the other side that one would see that his one knee was down as well. You couldn't tell conclusively from the one side but any shot from the other side would have shown this if they had it. I seriously doubt they only had cameras on one side of the field so I'm not sure why they never showed an angle from the other side. Either way he was down since his forearm hit but it just made me wonder.

 

[Godsbrother]

His forearm was definitely down. To me the play that was challenged that really looked inconclusive was the Chidi Iwuoma downing of the punt near the goalline. His foot definitely touched the goalline, no doubt about that, but it was impossible to tell if he still had contact with the ball at the time. Not a horrible reversal but it didn't look all that conclusive to me.

 

[AussieOyOyOy]

Why is it that there is no reference for NFL rules on the internet beside the lame digested version that has 10% of the info that the actual rules have? Where does it differentiate between hand, forearm, wrist etc. in the rules?

Anything other than hand or foot is down. Fundamental at all levels of football.Hand is a hand, foot is a foot.

This has been a public service announcement.

Easy call. I was shocked that Phil Simms, who was regarded as a sharp, heady player, had no clue about the rule.

 

[Keys Myaths]

His forearm was definitely down.

To me the play that was challenged that really looked inconclusive was the Chidi Iwuoma downing of the punt near the goalline. His foot definitely touched the goalline, no doubt about that, but it was impossible to tell if he still had contact with the ball at the time.

Not a horrible reversal but it didn't look all that conclusive to me.

You should've looked at the first replay they showed.That was conclusive. Foot clearly on the line, ball still touching his hand.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

I thought it was pretty clear on the Iwuoma play that the touchback was the right call. Looked great in realtime but one the replay they got it right,

 

[Godsbrother]

His forearm was definitely down. 

To me the play that was challenged that really looked inconclusive was the Chidi Iwuoma downing of the punt near the goalline.  His foot definitely touched the goalline, no doubt about that, but it was impossible to tell if he still had contact with the ball at the time. 

Not a horrible reversal but it didn't look all that conclusive to me.

You should've looked at the first replay they showed.That was conclusive. Foot clearly on the line, ball still touching his hand.

I saw it but the image kind of blurs when they use stop-action on something in motion. I just couldn't tell for sure if he was actually touching the ball at the same exact time his foot touched the goal line, and I was watching on a 54" HD TV.

 

[Courtjester]

I think they got the call right on both accounts.The play was dead once his forearm/elbow touched.On the touchback, the first view showed his foot on the line and the ball touching his right hand--(I reversed it and froze it and reversed it and froze it).My only complaint (and I have tried to avoid looking like a sore loser), but after Jake's INT right before the half, Willie Parker breaks off two great runs. On the second run, the outside WR for Pitt grabs Denver's CB right before he makes the tackle on Parker, allowing Parker to go for an additional 8-10 yards. It was such an obvious hold as the WR was behind Denver's CB and you could see him holding and actually taking him to the ground. I mean you could call holding probably on every play, but the location of where the hold took place (right on the outside away from the line) makes it that much more a huge oversight.That play actually was a 25 yard difference maker.Don't get me wrong, Pitt deserved to win and played a great game. I just think the refs were so afraid of making a bad call, they chose not to make any calls at some points.

 

[Wildcat]

I have no links, nor do I care to look for one. It was always my understanding that A knee, elbow or forearm constitutes down. The refs seemed to solidify that position.

 

[Godsbrother]

I think they got the call right on both accounts.The play was dead once his forearm/elbow touched.On the touchback, the first view showed his foot on the line and the ball touching his right hand--(I reversed it and froze it and reversed it and froze it).

okay. As I said, I didn't think it was a horrible reversal, I just couldn't say for sure that he was touching the ball at the same time. Everyone else seems to think that it was obvious so I will go with you guys.

 

[AussieOyOyOy]

I have no links, nor do I care to look for one. It was always my understanding that A knee, elbow or forearm constitutes down. The refs seemed to solidify that position.

More than just those body parts. ANYTHING but a hand or a foot. That means knee, forearm, elbow, thigh, buttock, cranium, or anything else.In fact, a fumble-prone player diving over the pile for a first down might want to picture Jessica Alba naked so that a part of him hits the ground a bit sooner.

 

[milkyclr]

I think they got the call right on both accounts.

The play was dead once his forearm/elbow touched.

On the touchback, the first view showed his foot on the line and the ball touching his right hand--(I reversed it and froze it and reversed it and froze it).

My only complaint (and I have tried to avoid looking like a sore loser), but after Jake's INT right before the half, Willie Parker breaks off two great runs. On the second run, the outside WR for Pitt grabs Denver's CB right before he makes the tackle on Parker, allowing Parker to go for an additional 8-10 yards. It was such an obvious hold as the WR was behind Denver's CB and you could see him holding and actually taking him to the ground. I mean you could call holding probably on every play, but the location of where the hold took place (right on the outside away from the line) makes it that much more a huge oversight.

That play actually was a 25 yard difference maker.

Don't get me wrong, Pitt deserved to win and played a great game. I just think the refs were so afraid of making a bad call, they chose not to make any calls at some points.

There was 1 or 2 OBVIOUS holds on Denvers O-Line on nearly every one of those plays in the 4th where the Steelers came very close to sacking Plummer.