San Diego/Denver

[JRutledge]

I do not know who your friend is and honestly it is irrelevant. According to what Pereira said on several media outlets, it must have meant something. And if it did not mean anything, why put the ball back where the play was killed? Either you are misunderstanding your friend or Pereira is purposely deceiving the public. I will just ask one of the people that were on the game when I get a chance.

Peace

[pedr]

Surely 'Inadvertant Whistle' would be inaccurate as well. I'm no expert, but wouldn't ruling it an IW give the offence the opportunity to replay the down? Which would have been even worse for the Chargers.

How I see it, as a complete amateur, is that it was ruled a forward pass. That means the ball was dead once it hit the ground, and nothing past that point could matter. In fact, the ball was fumbled, so from the time when the ball left the QB's hand to the point where it hit the ground, it was a fumble. When it hit the ground, it was a fumbled ball that was then dead (technically due to the inital ruling, not due to the whistle, but the problem with revising the replay rules is, in fact, the whistle and players' reaction to it: see the Philadelphia-Dallas game). The team in possession of the ball immediately before it became dead was Denver, so they gain/retain possession of the ball at the point where it became dead, namely the 10 yard line, and the down counts. This is different from any kind of IW ruling, I would have thought.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by pedr

Surely 'Inadvertant Whistle' would be inaccurate as well. I'm no expert, but wouldn't ruling it an IW give the offence the opportunity to replay the down? Which would have been even worse for the Chargers.

How I see it, as a complete amateur, is that it was ruled a forward pass. That means the ball was dead once it hit the ground, and nothing past that point could matter. In fact, the ball was fumbled, so from the time when the ball left the QB's hand to the point where it hit the ground, it was a fumble. When it hit the ground, it was a fumbled ball that was then dead (technically due to the inital ruling, not due to the whistle, but the problem with revising the replay rules is, in fact, the whistle and players' reaction to it: see the Philadelphia-Dallas game). The team in possession of the ball immediately before it became dead was Denver, so they gain/retain possession of the ball at the point where it became dead, namely the 10 yard line, and the down counts. This is different from any kind of IW ruling, I would have thought.

The NFL is a different code. You cannot compare NFL rules to other levels.

Peace

[pedr]

As I said, complete amateur. I'm not even American - just interested.

What is the NFL rule on IW, then?

In any event, it strikes me as a factually incorrect term to use for what happened (and Mike Pereira didn't use it on Official Review, as far as I remember). The whistle was not inadvertant - the whistle followed and reflected the Referee's decision. The implications of that decision were a dead ball, last possessed by Denver, which logically leads to Denver retaining possession.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by pedr

As I said, complete amateur. I'm not even American - just interested.

What is the NFL rule on IW, then?

I do not know, but I know that with well over 200 differences from the NCAA level to the NFL Level (and about the same number when you compare NF and NCAA). I am going to assume that the application with replay has a different twist to that rule or where the ball it put after the IW.

Originally Posted by pedr

In any event, it strikes me as a factually incorrect term to use for what happened (and Mike Pereira didn't use it on Official Review, as far as I remember). The whistle was not inadvertant - the whistle followed and reflected the Referee's decision. The implications of that decision were a dead ball, last possessed by Denver, which logically leads to Denver retaining possession.

If you kill a play when it was not supposed to be killed, that is an inadvertant whistle. That would be no different when you call a player down when they clearly do not have the ball. This was the same thing. The only difference was the NFL has replay and that is how they noticed the situation.

Peace

[3SPORT]

JR - Pedr is correct accoriding to Pereira. Go to Dan Patrick's web page and listen to the 3rd hour.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/dan...treamingaudio/

According to him "No" IW. Even though I agree "It looked like a duck and quacked like a duck, it must have been a duck."

[pedr]

That's a great radio show!

It's fascinating to hear them try to figure out how it all works. It's clearly complicated - perhaps it'll help people to see just how convoluted the football rules are! - yet they seem to be getting close to understanding that once the play is ruled dead, the ball belongs to the team which previously had it, where the ball was when the play ended.

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by 3SPORT

JR - Pedr is correct accoriding to Pereira. Go to Dan Patrick's web page and listen to the 3rd hour.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/dan...treamingaudio/

According to him "No" IW. Even though I agree "It looked like a duck and quacked like a duck, it must have been a duck."

Thanks for the link. Great interview to clear up some things.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not know who your friend is and honestly it is irrelevant. According to what Pereira said on several media outlets, it must have meant something. And if it did not mean anything, why put the ball back where the play was killed? Either you are misunderstanding your friend or Pereira is purposely deceiving the public.

Did you listen to the interview? My NFL official friend was correct and is not irrelevant.

Pereria said the "ruling of an incomplete pass killed the play, not the whistle." The whistle has not bearing on the ruling of the play and does not mean anything. The ball is put back where the was killed because that is the procedure when the called dead due to an incorrect ruling.