Packers-Bears fumble

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by AremRed

That's exactly what I'm doing here, I am asking questions of those more knowledgeable than I. Don't treat me like I'm hbk314.
I have not suggested anything. But since you ask, I do have a question:

Is it possible that the sideline official stepping on the field may have led the Bears to believe the play was over?

There was no intent to impugn, AmremRed, but I didn't understand your question, and rather than speculate what you meant, I thought asking for clarification would be better.

Although I have no personal experience working at the NFL level, I don't believe "a sideline official stepping on the field", in and of itself, sends any signal that a play has ended on that level any more than it does at other levels.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

There was no intent to impugn, AmremRed, but I didn't understand your question, and rather than speculate what you meant, I thought asking for clarification would be better.

Although I have no personal experience working at the NFL level, I don't believe "a sideline official stepping on the field", in and of itself, sends any signal that a play has ended on that level any more than it does at other levels.

Players are not paying that close attention to any official anyway. And considering how every game is played from HS to the pros, players often play until they literally hear a whistle. They even play until the whistle even when the rules says that a play is dead often without a whistle. An officials have to judge if a play over and when that play should be dead with or without a whistle.

Peace

[Matt]

Originally Posted by hbk314

How's being a Bears fan in Minneapolis go over? lol

Probably tortuous, being in the middle of all those people who think the Vikings are the Packers' main rival.

[CT1]

This is a very close call, and the R got it right IMHO.

That said: From a practical standpoint, when all the participants have stopped playing in the belief that the play is over, I'd have no problem with a delayed "incomplete pass" call on this play.

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by Matt

Probably tortuous, being in the middle of all those people who think the Vikings are the Packers' main rival.

The Packers are the Vikings main rival... however, the Bears are the Packers main rival, and the Packers are the Bears main rival. The Vikings are basically the forgotten step-children of the division.

And it's a lot of fun to needle Vikings fans with "Christian Ponder limited in practice due to being Christian Ponder" type jokes.

Originally Posted by CT1

That said: From a practical standpoint, when all the participants have stopped playing in the belief that the play is over, I'd have no problem with a delayed "incomplete pass" call on this play.

Maybe in a 7th grade game or below... no way I'm doing that in any higher level game than that.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by CT1

This is a very close call, and the R got it right IMHO.

That said: From a practical standpoint, when all the participants have stopped playing in the belief that the play is over, I'd have no problem with a delayed "incomplete pass" call on this play.

If you are going to do that you would rule a fumble with nobody attempting to possess it. It would be Green Bay's ball at the location of the ball. You would not make this incomplete because nobody was acting on it.

[HLin NC]

Maybe in a 7th grade game or below... no way I'm doing that in any higher level game than that.

Agree. As an old WH of mine used to say "lean in there and say 'gitit, gitit, gitit' " Maybe why the wing official stepped in a little, although my guess he just had a natural reaction to the thought it was incomplete.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

If you are going to do that you would rule a fumble with nobody attempting to possess it. It would be Green Bay's ball at the location of the ball. You would not make this incomplete because nobody was acting on it.

A similar issue came up on this board in baseball or softball when a ball was batted near the plate, picked up in fair ground, and then the players on both teams acted as if it were a foul ball. The consensus seemed to be to let the players have it that way if that's what they believed, rather than ruling it as a ball in play with strange results.

The difference is that football, unlike baseball, has a rules provision specifically covering the situation.

However, a closely allied question came up here a while ago about whether it was good for an official to tell a player that a ball was still live after that player mistakenly let the ball down in his own end zone thinking to make it dead.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

A similar issue came up on this board in baseball or softball when a ball was batted near the plate, picked up in fair ground, and then the players on both teams acted as if it were a foul ball. The consensus seemed to be to let the players have it that way if that's what they believed, rather than ruling it as a ball in play with strange results.

Sure as hell wasn't the baseball board. That is not the right answer.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

The consensus seemed to be to let the players have it that way if that's what they believed, rather than ruling it as a ball in play with strange results.

I'd be highly surprised if that kind of consensus were reached on either the baseball or softball forum.

Now maybe the LL forum on another site...

The correct answer for those scoring at home is:

Keep pointing fair until somebody gets it.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Is it possible that the sideline official stepping on the field may have led the Bears to believe the play was over?

Only if the Bears are 8th graders. And even if there was, it's not correctable by rule. Only an IW would have that effect.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

If you are going to do that you would rule a fumble with nobody attempting to possess it. It would be Green Bay's ball at the location of the ball. You would not make this incomplete because nobody was acting on it.

Can't do that - GB not only attempted to possess it, but did, in actuality, possess the ball --- he just didn't do anything immediately after possessing it.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I'd be highly surprised if that kind of consensus were reached on either the baseball or softball forum.

Now maybe the LL forum on another site...

The correct answer for those scoring at home is:

Keep pointing fair until somebody gets it.

That possibility was raised, but what to do when the catcher throws the ball back to the pitcher, runners return to their bases, the batter stays put, and the pitcher delivers the "next pitch"?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

That possibility was raised, but what to do when the catcher throws the ball back to the pitcher, runners return to their bases, the batter stays put, and the pitcher delivers the "next pitch"?

You don't let the pitcher deliver the next pitch.

I think you are confusing this with a balk call followed by a batted ball followed by nobody moving. Here, enforce the balk.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You don't let the pitcher deliver the next pitch.

How can you stop him? The ball was fielded in fair ground and thrown to him, so it should be in play. He's allowed to throw a ball in play toward the plate, isn't he? Do you just blurt out, "Fools, the ball is in play!"?

Same question came up regarding a player fielding a kickoff under NCAA rules in his end zone and then attempting to flip it to an official.

I think you are confusing this with a balk call followed by a batted ball followed by nobody moving.

There may have been such a discussion here, but the baseball/softball situation I'm describing was also discussed.