Giants vs Redskins - Postgame Thread

[Irn-Bru]

The NFL rulebook is a bloated, ad hoc mess. Needs a reboot.

[DarthMonk]

This has morphed into a 'that play' discussion and here's my interpretation. The ball was loose in Roberts hands as he was crossing the line, I think he kinda regained control and because he felt he had crossed the plane he could casually toss up the ball, that the play had ended. The refs didn't see him exhibit a ball control manuever and that is what is the decision maker. Robert felt the play was over and let the ball go, the refs wanted to see evidence that he had control and didn't see it.
It wasn't the fact that the ball was loose crossing the plane, it was the lack of control afterwards.
If Robert had regained control of the ball and handed it to the ref then they couldn't have overturned the call.

I heard an explanation of this call just the other day, using the "maintain possession throughout the process of going to the ground" rule. He lost possession before crossing the goal line, regained it in the endzone, but then lost it again when he hit the ground. Therefore, no possession in the endzone, and since the ball went out of bounds, touchback. Not saying I agree with this interperatation, but it at least makes some sense. My problem with this interperatation is that he was not a reciever, and that once he regained posession in the end zone, TD. He should not have to maintain posession through the ground.

It was explained that when a ball carrier loses the ball he becomes just like a receiver and therefor the rule applies

I've been looking and I think this applies:

Note 1: A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without
contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the
field of play or the end zone.

I guess TexasCowboy would say Griff scored since going to the ground does not mean going to the ground.

[DEHog]

Note 1: A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without
contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the
field of play or the end zone.

You know this begs the question if the player looses the ball in the field of play and recovers it while being taken to the ground by a defender (under this rule he would have to maintain possession) and the ball come loose at a result of the player hitting the ground is that ruled a live ball??

[Countertrey]

The NFL rulebook is a bloated, ad hoc mess. Needs a reboot.

A refresh to the 1970 book would be nice. I'd celebrate the return of defense, and receivers actually needing to EARN their catches.

[DarthMonk]

Note 1: A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without
contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the
field of play or the end zone.

You know this begs the question if the player looses the ball in the field of play and recovers it while being taken to the ground by a defender (under this rule he would have to maintain possession) and the ball come loose at a result of the player hitting the ground is that ruled a live ball??

I would think that since as soon as he lost control of it it is live and that it would remain so. I would then think that the last team to possess the ball would maintain possession if it then went out of bounds.

It certainly wouldn't be "incomplete." I think the fumbler only becomes like a "receiver" in the sense that he must maintain possession when he goes to the ground in order to recover the ball.

Does all of that make sense?

[DEHog]

Note 1: A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without
contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the
field of play or the end zone.

You know this begs the question if the player looses the ball in the field of play and recovers it while being taken to the ground by a defender (under this rule he would have to maintain possession) and the ball come loose at a result of the player hitting the ground is that ruled a live ball??

I would think that since as soon as he lost control of it it is live and that it would remain so. I would then think that the last team to possess the ball would maintain possession if it then went out of bounds.

It certainly wouldn't be "incomplete." I think the fumbler only becomes like a "receiver" in the sense that he must maintain possession when he goes to the ground in order to recover the ball.

Does all of that make sense?

Yes and I would agree, how crazy of a play would that be...