Green Bay/Jacksonville

[BoomerSooner]

In this Sunday's Packers/Jags game there was a hit on Leftwich and the ball became dislogded and batted forward by Leftwich in a passing motion (first time in real speed it looked like a pass) and ruled a fumble by the referee (good call IMO), however the umpire upon the ball hitting the ground ruled incomplete pass (could only see it in one of the replay angles they showed on T.V. but clearly he gave the incomplete signal, don't know if he blew the whistle). Meanwhile one of the Jags offensive linemen casually picked up the ball and just stood there while other players were attending to the injured Packer and Leftwich. From behind D. Sharper of Green Bay takes the ball from the O-lineman and runs for a defensive TD.

Now to the question, the pass vs. fumble aspect of the play was reviewed and correctly ruled a fumble, however shouldn't the ball have been dead at the spot of hitting the ground since one official signalled incomplete (I seem to remember a similar call a couple of weeks ago w/ a P. Manning pass/fumble being ruled a fumble but being down at the spot it hit the ground). First of all am I correct in my though process, 2nd did I maybe miss something, and 3rd if not shouldn't the umpire have spoken up and told the referee that he had signalled incomplete?

[mcrowder]

First, I believe this was an incomplete pass - his arm was clearly moving forward when he lost possession of the ball, even though it then remained "loose" on his palm after he lost possession.

But to answer your question, no, I don't believe the incomplete signal by an official stops the play.

[ASA/NYSSOBLUE]

Glad I am not the ONLY one who saw the U give the incomplete signal...I was SHOCKED the idiots on TV didnt mention it-cause I am SURE thats why everybody on both sides was standing around-they saw the incomplete signal by the U....I betcha if the Jags had ended up losing that game,and then saw the film on that play, the NFL office would never hear the end of it...

[BoomerSooner]

my only thought was maybe the U didn't blow his whistle and that's why play was allowed to go on. Not to critize a fellow official, but I was taught to go with whatever call you make (this is actually something I learned with baseball and foul balls i.e. signal foul its foul or signal incomplete its incomplete). I thought this was a general principle, and the U should have spoke up when the call was being made.

[BoomerSooner]

Also, on the matter of the pass/fumble issue, there was one angle that I saw that showed the ball come lose as just before he began the foward motion. It was very close but all his foward motion did was bat the ball forward.

[PSU213]

First of all, I did not see the play so I cannot comment on the call's "correctness."

Under NF rules, signalling without a whistle does not kill the play (although it causes many problems and looks really, really bad!), but I remember a play in Referee magazine a couple months ago. Here the wing guy thought the 5 yardline was the goalline and signaled TD without a whistle. Under NF, nothing happens (other than that the wing guy has egg on his face). Under NCAA rules, however, it said that the signal alone kills the play, and it would be a TD. Is that right?? I have no idea on NFL rules, but if that is the case, the signal would have to mean the pass was incomplete.

All that being said (and far be it for me to "criqtique" NFL officals), if you are certain of the ruling, blow it dead, sell it, etc. If you are not sure, let the play run. Afterward, you can discuss it. It doesn't look good to call back a defensive TD after the fact, but it looks a lot better than blowing a play dead due to an incomplete pass when it was actually a fumble.

[Texoma_LJ]

I did see this play and like most ervyone else saw the incomplete signal that was given. As a first year (now second) official, it has been drilled into my head both on the field and off (here) to be SLOW on the whistle... very slow. Although the "U" did signal this as incomplete, to me he did the right thing in not blowing the whistle and held off on making the call for one reason. If he was UNSURE if it was pass or fumble... he was better off to NOT blow the whistle, and let the play continue. If the "R" decides that the play was a pass... then he can blow the play dead.

I believe the "U" may have signaled incomplete because the ball did touch the ground and there was no catch... hence incomplete.

I guess I was more impressed with the ability of the whole crew NOT to blow this play dead, then I was for them to blow it dead.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Not exactly sure about NFL rules, but the NCAA rules say that a live ball becomes dead as provided in the rules or when an offical sounds his whistle (even if inadvertent) or if he otherwise signals the ball dead. Unless I'm mistaken (Juice, TxMike, etc....please keep me straight on this) the ump signalling incomplete would have caused the ball to become dead if the game were played under NCAA rules, sort of an 'inadvertent signal.'

This is covered in NCAA 4-1-2a.

[Edited by Bob M. on Dec 22nd, 2004 at 09:37 AM]

[Base]

4-1-3
A live ball becomes dead and an official shall sound his whistle or declare it dead:
i. When a forward pass strikes the ground

[ABoselli]

I, too, thought it came out before his hand went forward. In Markbreidt's book, he says that this call was the hardest one for him to make as a referee. Easy to bail out and say incomplete when you see the ball flying forward as hardly anyone will disagree. Showed big time nads on Hochuli's part to go with fumble.

Does signal of incomplete pass trump no whistle? I would doubt it - everybody can hear a whistle but not everyone would see the signal.

Agreed, though, that the Jags would have been at the NFL offices on Monday with tape had they lost.

[mcrowder]

Base, that is irrelevant, as that never happened. That rule tells us the ball is dead on an incomplete forward pass, and the official should declare it dead. It does not say what happens when the official makes a signal on a live ball.

Remember - the play kills the play, not the whistle (except on IW).

I don't know if I could justify the incomplete signal as "signaling the ball dead".

Funny thing, and it says a lot about the state of football today.... I was more concerned that they gave the lost fumble to the lineman, and not Leftwich, as it had an effect on my very close Fantasy Football semifinal game. Sad, really.

[Snake~eyes]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Base, that is irrelevant, as that never happened. That rule tells us the ball is dead on an incomplete forward pass, and the official should declare it dead. It does not say what happens when the official makes a signal on a live ball.

Remember - the play kills the play, not the whistle (except on IW).

I don't know if I could justify the incomplete signal as "signaling the ball dead".

Funny thing, and it says a lot about the state of football today.... I was more concerned that they gave the lost fumble to the lineman, and not Leftwich, as it had an effect on my very close Fantasy Football semifinal game. Sad, really.

I thought I heard once that in NCAA you can have an inadvertant signal, am I imaginging this?

[Texoma_LJ]

If there is such a thing as an "inadvertant signal", what happens on the goal line when one official signals touchdown, then they spot the ball on the half yard line???
Have seen this too many times to count !!

[CABA]

Official Rules NFL 01-02 (The only one I got)

7-4-5 The Ball is not dead because of touching an official who is inbounds or because of a signal by an official other than a whistle.

So it was an correct plan and TD

Happy Holiday from Germany.:-)