Zach Miller catch followup

[FormerUmp]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfnsZgbwKwM

Another tough to watch overturn. He MAY have gotten this right, but I don't think it's conclusive enough to make that call. And it's not what the vast majority of people expect replay to be used for.

Also, even if he fumbled prior to touching out of bounds, shouldn't his continued contact with the ball while out of bounds kill the ball where it is? Or is that a gap in the "common sense" part of the rules?

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfnsZgbwKwM

Another tough to watch overturn. He MAY have gotten this right, but I don't think it's conclusive enough to make that call. And it's not what the vast majority of people expect replay to be used for.

Also, even if he fumbled prior to touching out of bounds, shouldn't his continued contact with the ball while out of bounds kill the ball where it is? Or is that a gap in the "common sense" part of the rules?

Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself. Though I agree, it tough to watch - but not for the reasons you think. I'm a lifelong Bears fan and was cursing at that play - but because it was such a blind-numbingly stupid challenge. It was plenty conclusive enough, the ball was loose. And this wasn't a booth review, Fox was the idiot who challenged it. Well, he asked - and he was answered. As the second paragraph, what on earth are you talking about? He fumbled, it's obvious, the ball hit the inside of the pylon. That's a touchback. I knew it, all the Chicago media on twitter I follow knew it and didn't complain about it, no one's questioning anything except the idiocy of John Fox in challenging that. You're reaching way too hard to find outrage here.

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by scrounge

Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself. Though I agree, it tough to watch - but not for the reasons you think. I'm a lifelong Bears fan and was cursing at that play - but because it was such a blind-numbingly stupid challenge. It was plenty conclusive enough, the ball was loose. And this wasn't a booth review, Fox was the idiot who challenged it. Well, he asked - and he was answered. As the second paragraph, what on earth are you talking about? He fumbled, it's obvious, the ball hit the inside of the pylon. That's a touchback. I knew it, all the Chicago media on twitter I follow knew it and didn't complain about it, no one's questioning anything except the idiocy of John Fox in challenging that. You're reaching way too hard to find outrage here.

You missed my second point. It appears as though his foot dragged out of bounds after he lost the ball, but he was still touching the ball. Isn't the ball dead at that point, which I believe was prior to the ball contacting the pylon?

You're right about it being a bone-headed challenge. I'm just not sure the right call was made in the end. The write-up on Football Zebras suggests I'm right about the rule, but it's debatable on whether or not his foot dragged out of bounds.

I agree that I went a little overboard in my initial post, but if he's looking at reviews with the same mentality he used to overturn the Zach Miller play, there will be more issues going forward. He overturned it and doubled down with his defense by pointing to "evidence" that only he could see. It would have made sense of he went into it thinking "how can we make this incomplete?" I'm sure that's not how he looked at it, but that's where my confusion stems from, because that overturn was mind-boggling and affects people's confidence in the system as a whole.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

Also, even if he fumbled prior to touching out of bounds, shouldn't his continued contact with the ball while out of bounds kill the ball where it is? Or is that a gap in the "common sense" part of the rules?

No, not a gap. The ball would be dead, all right, but nothing in the NFL rule stops the action of a dead ball, or of a player while the ball is dead, from being used as evidence of prior possession. A kicked ball is dead on contact with part of the goal, but its subsequent motion still has to be watched to determine whether a goal is scored.

But if I were reviewing, I wouldn't consider what's shown here to be convincing enough to overturn a field call.

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

No, not a gap. The ball would be dead, all right, but nothing in the NFL rule stops the action of a dead ball, or of a player while the ball is dead, from being used as evidence of prior possession. A kicked ball is dead on contact with part of the goal, but its subsequent motion still has to be watched to determine whether a goal is scored.

But if I were reviewing, I wouldn't consider what's shown here to be convincing enough to overturn a field call.

Thank you for clarifying the rule for me.

My determination is that touchback was ultimately the incorrect call because even if he fumbled prior to his contacting out of bounds, he retouched the ball while clearly out of bound and prior to the ball contacting the pylon, which kills the play. Unless I misunderstood Robert Goodman's post and the gap I mentioned does exist.