Chiefs/Vikings Fumble

[TexansFan]

In the Chiefs/Vikings game on Dec. 20th a fumble occured near the sidelines and I was wondering if I was correct in my asessment of the play.

The pass was caught in bounds and the Chiefs receiver was running down the sideline. The Viking defender came from behind and stripped the ball loose, batted it in mid-air and the ball was subsequently recovered in-bounds by the Vikings.

The question here is this: The Viking defender was out of bounds when he stripped the ball and was also out of bounds when he batted the ball back into the field of play. My take on it was that the Viking defender being out of bounds on either instance should not matter because the offensive player and the ball were both in the field of play.

The other take that some of my friends have taken is that since the Viking defender was out of bounds during the strip and/or on the batting of the ball back into the field of play, the ball is considered dead at that spot of the strip/bat and possesion would remain the offense (Chiefs).

In the game, the play was ruled a fumble with possession to the Vikings. The ruling was challenged by the Chiefs and after review the call was that the ruling on the field stands.

What is the official NFL ruling on this?

[PiggSkin]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/column...ohn&id=1691135

Upon further review ...
Referee Ron Blum admitted a mistake was made when he didn't overrule a first-quarter challenge that would have benefited the Chiefs.

Receiver Eddie Kennison made a 32-yard reception in the Chiefs' first possession, but cornerback Brian Williams stripped the ball from his hands. Williams clearly touched the ball while he was out of bounds before it was recovered by safety Brian Russell.

"The first challenge, the way that it was worded to me, that Dick Vermeil was challenging the fact that his runner had stepped out of bounds prior to fumbling the ball, which he had not." Blum said after the game. "I did not see the second touch from out of bounds. In discussing it with the observer after the game, I missed the second touch. It should have been an illegal touch because of the second touch. He batted it again up the field, evidently, and I did not see that.

"I missed the play."

[BktBallRef]

When the ball was initally touched, it was in the possession of a runner who was inbounds. Therefore, even though the defender was OOB, the ball was in play.

What was missed was the second touch by the defender. After the ball was loose, the defender touched the ball again while still OOB. If a LOOSE ball is touched by a player who is OOB, the ball becomes dead at that point.

Dick Vermeil wanted the play reviewed based on his opinion that the runner had stepped OOB prior to the fumble. He did not contest whether the ball should have been OOB because of the touch by the defender. So, even though there was a review, the referee was looking for the runner satepping out, not the defender touching the loose ball while OOB.

[gsf23]

So here is another question. Vermeil is challenging the runner stepping out of bounds before the fumble. The ref looks at the replay, sees that the runner is cleary in bounds, and then notices the second touch. Can he still reverse the call even though that was not what was being challenged?

Another exapmle would be if a ball is caught on the sidelines, ruled a catch on the field and spotted short of the first down marker. The team challenges the spot thinking that they should get a first down. During the review the ref notices that the receiver was passed the line to gain, but that he has one foot out of bounds when he makes the catch. Can they rule No-Catch even though that was not being challenged?

[Snake~eyes]

Yes, once a play is challenged, any aspect of the play can be reviewed. Only for ninty seconds though. After 90 secs he makes a decision then can have more time to review things like where the ball should be, what down and what distance.