THE SELLERS FUMBLE & A FEW OTHER KEY SCREWUP'S (bad call

[frankcal20]

This may provide some insight or further confuse you:

"Down by contact" rule needs tweaking.

Prior to 2006, the replay rules did not apply to plays resulting in a fumble after the officials determined that the runner was "down by contact."

In 2005, the Competition Committee tried to push through a tweak to the rules that would allow possession to be award to the defense, even if possession is secured by the defense via a scrum that emerged after the whistle had blown. The owners, however, rejected the proposal.

"This is a big play," Falcons president Rich McKay, a co-chair of the Competition Committee, said at the time. "This is a turnover. We haven't heard the last of it. . . . These are game-changing plays. Change of possession is one of the most important things we deal with."

He was right. The next year, the rule change surfaced again -- and this time the owners accepted it.

For the most part, the rule has worked well, even though it encourages players to ignore the mandate to stop playing when the whistle is blown, if there's any doubt as to the judgment made by the official who's blowing his whistle loudly and pointing to the ground repeatedly and emphatically.

Still, there's something about the rule that bothers us.

Based on yesterday's critical call during overtime of the Saints-Redskins game, we finally figured out the source of our discomfort. There's something counterintuitive about action continuing on the field well after an official, who is standing right by the spot where the player was down by contact, is blowing his whistle loudly and pointing to the ground repeatedly and emphatically.

For those of you who missed it (and for any Redskins fans who have already managed to drive the moment out of their minds), Washington fullback Larry Mike Sellers caught a short pass from quarterback Jason Campbell on the first drive of overtime. Chris McAlister hit Sellers low, and Head Linesman Kent Payne began using his whistle like the horn of a New York cab, and Payne assumed the body language of a New York traffic cop.

Despite Payne's sounds and gestures, linebacker Troy Evans dove at the ball and collided with Sellers. They both had a shot at the ball, the ball squirted away, and then McAlister scooped it up with a nonchalance that suggested he really didn't expect his team to be awarded possession of it.

After a lengthy replay review (we thought there was a time limit), the right decision was made (even though we questioned it on Sunday via Twitter).

In our view, the question of whether Sellers actually had completed the process of catching the ball was sufficiently unclear to constitute "indisputable visual evidence" to overturn the decision that the Redskins should retain possession. But the play presented a somewhat unusual situation.

The ruling on the field was that Sellers had made the catch and that he was down before he fumbled. Thus, indisputable visual evidence was necessary to overturn the ruling of the catch and/or the ruling of "down by contact."

In this case, there was insufficient visual evidence to overturn the decision that Sellers had caught the ball, but the video ultimately was clear regarding the fact that the ball was coming out before Sellers' arm hit the ball.

Ultimately, then, the officials got it right. But that doesn't alter our concern regarding the rule as currently written. At a visceral level, something simply strikes us as odd when the official is giving strong indications that the players should cease and desist, but when in reality the ball is still live.

It becomes even more troublesome when a ball squirts away from the initial post-whistle recovery attempt. Based on our crude Mississippi-style chronometric measurements, more than two seconds elapsed between the time the whistle blew and the moment McAlister picked up the ball.

And that's simply too much time.

So the league needs to look at this rule again. Either the officials need to not be so demonstrative when doing the "down by contact" thing, or there needs to be a limit on the amount of time after the whistle is blown for the defense to demonstrate clear possession of the loose ball.

Thus, while the rules as currently applied were applied correctly, the visceral sense that the Redskins got jobbed comes from the fact that the Saints secured possession far too long after the whistle when McAlister lifted the ball with all the urgency that Paul Crewe used when picking up the game ball in both versions of The Longest Yard.

[Countertrey]

Yes, the rule was changed, primarily to permit recourse for a bad call on review. 3 years ago, a fumble such as this was not reviewable. Now it is... it follows that there must be the ability to award the ball if one team clearly recovered. Despite the rants, the recovery was clear. Despite the rants, I believe the refs made the correct call. Sucks, don't it?

You want to keep the refs from effecting the course of the game??? Make the field goal.

[frankcal20]

Exactly - or keep the NO offense from scoring a quick, long drive yet again by biting on double moves. Several things cost us the game yesterday. It wasn't only the missed fg.

[DEHog]

Well after reading that we are lucky the ref stopped the play because McCallister would have scored on the play IMO

[VetSkinsFan]

Yes, the rule was changed, primarily to permit recourse for a bad call on review. 3 years ago, a fumble such as this was not reviewable. Now it is... it follows that there must be the ability to award the ball if one team clearly recovered. Despite the rants, the recovery was clear. Despite the rants, I believe the refs made the correct call. Sucks, don't it?

You want to keep the refs from effecting the course of the game??? Make the field goal.

That isn't possible 100% of the time, but nice kick to the groin...