Packers-Bears fumble

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by AremRed

If the play is still live, why did the official on the far sideline step several yards onto the field?

Are you suggesting there is something inherently wrong with, or there is some specific conclusion to be made by, "the official on the far sideline stepping onto the field"?

Since you acknowledge, "I don't do football so I honestly didn't know if the official made a mistake or not" wouldn't it seem somewhat more reasonable to consider the responses from people who do work football that doing so does not point to any specific conclusion?

It seems logical, that official was appropriately pre-occupied with his responsibilities in his coverage area, and may simply have been seeking clarification of what was happening in the area of responsibility where the ball was loose. Apparently none of the 7 whistles on the field sounded, which would have signaled a play stoppage, so all of the field officials were focusing on whether such a signal would be coming.

In the absence of any official signalling that play had ended, play is understood to be continuing.

Originally Posted by ajmc

wouldn't it seem somewhat more reasonable to consider the responses from people who do work football that doing so does not point to any specific conclusion?

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.

Originally Posted by ajmc

Are you suggesting there is something inherently wrong with, or there is some specific conclusion to be made by, "the official on the far sideline stepping onto the field"?

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?

[Adam]

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?

Not at that level.

[jTheUmp]

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?

If it did, shame on the Bears players. And I say this as a Bears fan who watched the play and spent those few seconds yelling at my TV.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

If it did, shame on the Bears players. And I say this as a Bears fan who watched the play and spent those few seconds yelling at my TV.

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.