Waddle’s ‘fumble’

[brumdog44]

Enough threads already on how horrible we were so don’t really care for comments about the ‘fumble’ being irrelevant. I’m talking a huge NFL problem in general — the downright illogical application of rules that will lead to injuries. So according to the rules, a player who muffs a punt and then gathers it, gets touched on his way down and has his Armand elbow hit the ground with the ball in his hands, is fair game to hit because he ‘didn’t control it to the ground’?

Fact is that if he had been hit after his elbow touched, the NFL calls a late hit on it.

 

[dolphintodd]

He was down and the ground caused the fumble. To be held to a wr catching the ball standard was completely wrong. He was not a receiver.

 

[GhostArmOfMarino]

Its because he was going down as he recovered it. To have possession of any ball you grab on the way down you have to maintain possession, its not just a WR rule.

 

[Heinegrabber]

He was down and the ground caused the fumble. To be held to a wr catching the ball standard was completely wrong. He was not a receiver.

CORRECT!

 

[ChitownPhins28]

The problem is that after he regained possession, he fell to the ground of his own accord (was not tackled) and put the ball on the ground again, so, tbh, he literally fumbled Twice. When he fell down and fumbled the second time...the ground dislodged the ball, but it was a live ball because he wasnt touched until after he got up.

It was a Fumble. Deal with it.

 

[ChitownPhins28]

CORRECT!

I disagree that was 'down' though. He fell to the ground. He wasnt knocked down. You have to be knocked down or touched while on the ground. Neither was true. He stumbled, fell on the ground Prior to being touched, the ball a loose, live ball that the Bills recovered.

Are you saying the Bills player knocked Waddle down? I don't think he did.

 

[dolphintodd]

He was absolutely touched by a bills player he was down.

 

[Austin Tatious]

He had full control of the ball. He was gripping it and then it squirted out after he landed. It is an asisine rule.

 

[Demp444]

The problem is that after he regained possession, he fell to the ground of his own accord (was not tackled) and put the ball on the ground again, so, tbh, he literally fumbled Twice. When he fell down and fumbled the second time...the ground dislodged the ball, but it was a live ball because he wasnt touched until after he got up.

It was a Fumble. Deal with it.

He was 100% touched after he had possession of the ball and then hit the ground where the ground caused him to lose possession again. So he regained possession, was touched by the defender, then his elbow hit the ground causing the ball to come out again. Looked like he was down by contact and the ground caused the fumble. It is what it is tho.

 

[McGaniel]

The problem is that after he regained possession, he fell to the ground of his own accord (was not tackled) and put the ball on the ground again, so, tbh, he literally fumbled Twice. When he fell down and fumbled the second time...the ground dislodged the ball, but it was a live ball because he wasnt touched until after he got up.

It was a Fumble. Deal with it.

This is the correct answer.

 

[BillsFanInPeace]

Enough threads already on how horrible we were so don’t really care for comments about the ‘fumble’ being irrelevant. I’m talking a huge NFL problem in general — the downright illogical application of rules that will lead to injuries. So according to the rules, a player who muffs a punt and then gathers it, gets touched on his way down and has his Armand elbow hit the ground with the ball in his hands, is fair game to hit because he ‘didn’t control it to the ground’?

Fact is that if he had been hit after his elbow touched, the NFL calls a late hit on it.

That IS how the rule it written.

 

[brumdog44]

The problem is that after he regained possession, he fell to the ground of his own accord (was not tackled) and put the ball on the ground again, so, tbh, he literally fumbled Twice. When he fell down and fumbled the second time...the ground dislodged the ball, but it was a live ball because he wasnt touched until after he got up.

It was a Fumble. Deal with it.

I'm not sure you understand what constitutes a tackle if that was your take. He was hit on his way down.

 

[brumdog44]

That IS how the rule it written.

Reread my post -- I stated that was how the rule was written. The problem is that the rule as written makes zero sense and is hypocritical in terms of player safety. Again, let's say that when he hit the ground the ball had not come lose -- then hitting the downed player should be legal the moment he hits until such point as he would have been deemed beyond his to 'control it to the ground'. But flags are thrown all the time for that kind of hit.

 

[BillsFanInPeace]

Reread my post -- I stated that was how the rule was written. The problem is that the rule as written makes zero sense and is hypocritical in terms of player safety. Again, let's say that when he hit the ground the ball had not come lose -- then hitting the downed player should be legal the moment he hits until such point as he would have been deemed beyond his to 'control it to the ground'. But flags are thrown all the time for that kind of hit.

It really comes down the the NFL wants to over officiate everything. And there is a Lot of common sense problems in their rule book. Just another year of NFL Officiating problems.