David Reed Fumble Recovery

[TXRaven]

We got screwed plain and simple but its over with now nothing we can do.

[Twistidfunk]

[quote name='nk02442' timestamp='1355176163' post='1256519']
You guys Blaming Reed for the the Fumble is downright Comical.

Your right though, he should have defied the laws of physics and nature and somehow stopped his momentum from taking him out a bounds. While he's at it, he sould have fired up his magic 8 ball and known the ball was going to be fumbled at that spot at that time.

Lets not blame Defense for blown coverages, Flacco for making rookie mistakes like always, or recievers from running poor routes and dropping the ball like usual.
[/quote]

Disagree. He didn't need to dive on the ball carrying his momentum out of bounds. He knew he was a few feet from the sideline.

Bonehead play from a bonehead player.

[Militant X 1]

that call didn't lose us the game though.

~Mili

[frozen joe flacco fan]

If you think that was a bad call, how 'bout the two illegal blocks in the back on the 69 yard punt return in OT? I didn't see it until today when I viewed the highlights on a sports show. The illegal blocks were obvious but the refs chose to ignore them. Our players who sound off to the press need to keep their mouths shut and just play football for the rest of the season. The NFL refs obviously do not like the Ravens because they are outspoken critics of the officials. Every time there is a close call that could go either way it ususally goes against us. I wonder why! The call against Haloti earlier in the game was horrendous and a knee-jerk reaction to RG3's helmet coming dislodged. C'mon man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Militant X 1]

[quote name='frozen joe flacco fan' timestamp='1355190675' post='1257039']
If you think that was a bad call, [u][b]how 'bout the two illegal blocks in the back on the 69 yard punt return in OT?[/b][/u] I didn't see it until today when I viewed the highlights on a sports show. The illegal blocks were obvious but the refs chose to ignore them. Our players who sound off to the press need to keep their mouths shut and just play football for the rest of the season. The NFL refs obviously do not like the Ravens because they are outspoken critics of the officials. Every time there is a close call that could go either way it ususally goes against us. I wonder why! The call against Haloti earlier in the game was horrendous and a knee-jerk reaction to RG3's helmet coming dislodged. C'mon man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[/quote]

i saw those to.

~Mili

[UMDan]

No, they didn't lose us the game, but had they made what I thought was the right call we would've come out on top.

[Tank 92]

[quote name='Militant X 1' timestamp='1355190455' post='1257029']
that call didn't lose us the game though.

~Mili
[/quote]

Nope. But it could have won it.

[nk02442]

[quote name='Twistidfunk' timestamp='1355190257' post='1257022']
Disagree. He didn't need to dive on the ball carrying his momentum out of bounds. He knew he was a few feet from the sideline.

Bonehead play from a bonehead player.
[/quote]

Your right. Apparently newton must have had it all wrong.

So is he supposed to defy the laws of nature or stop himself, which would have ended up with the skins having the ball anyway?

Maybe football is new to you, but when a ball hits the ground EVERYONE goes for it. Their job is to fall on it. Thats exactly what he did, and DR did it well in fact.

DR is the LAST guy to blame for losing this game. You dont know what your talking about.

[Twistidfunk]

[quote name='nk02442' timestamp='1355194789' post='1257225']
Your right. Apparently newton must have had it all wrong.

So is he supposed to defy the laws of nature or stop himself, which would have ended up with the skins having the ball anyway?

Maybe football is new to you, but when a ball hits the ground EVERYONE goes for it. Their job is to fall on it. Thats exactly what he did, and DR did it well in fact.

DR is the LAST guy to blame for losing this game. You dont know what your talking about.
[/quote]

haha, look everyone, an EXPERT. We got ourselves a regular Ron Jaworski on the message boards!

Whatever man. You see what you want. I am under the impression he should have been more aware of where he was. He did not need to leap carrying his momentum out of bounds.

You go ahead and see what you want, defend poor play.

[Tank 92]

[quote name='Twistidfunk' timestamp='1355228424' post='1257674']


haha, look everyone, an EXPERT. We got ourselves a regular Ron Jaworski on the message boards!

Whatever man. You see what you want. I am under the impression he should have been more aware of where he was. He did not need to leap carrying his momentum out of bounds.

You go ahead and see what you want, defend poor play.
[/quote]


In all fairness, Reed wasn't stationary and then the ball dropped in front of him. He was running full tilt down the field on kick coverage. Not sure how he could have done anything differently.

[nk02442]

[quote name='awholelottahaloti' timestamp='1355229609' post='1257685']
In all fairness, Reed wasn't stationary and then the ball dropped in front of him. He was running full tilt down the field on kick coverage. Not sure how he could have done anything differently.
[/quote]

Exactly..... Its pretty pathetic guys are blasting the kid who was doing everything he could to get the ball for us.

[jdynamite]

I felt that since it was called a recovery on the field the replays didn't have enough evidence to overturn it decisively. I felt they should have said the ruling on the field is upheld ( meaning we don't see enough to change it ).

I thought it was ironic when it happen that David reed could save the game, seal the victory by recovering a fumbled kickoff. After losing that game vs Seattle with numerous fumbles.

I was surprise that David reed was active and playing he isn't returning kicks or punts. So that means both he and Laquan were active solely for ST gunners.

[H8R]

[quote name='nk02442' timestamp='1355230102' post='1257691']
Exactly..... Its pretty pathetic guys are blasting the kid who was doing everything he could to get the ball for us.
[/quote]

explain what speed "full tilt" is... if he holds onto the ball he achieves what we needed him to. fact is... no bobble, we win the game. It was possible to recover , it wouldn't have been anything special.

[funky141]

[quote name='1/28/01' timestamp='1355180883' post='1256692']
Sorry, doesnt need to touch the ground. Ball moving while sliding out of bounds = no possession every time
[/quote]
yep

[H8R]

[quote name='nk02442' timestamp='1355194789' post='1257225']
YOU'RE right. Apparently newton must have had it all wrong.

So is he supposed to defy the laws of nature or stop himself, which would have ended up with the skins having the ball anyway?

Maybe football is new to you, but when a ball hits the ground EVERYONE goes for it. Their job is to fall on it. Thats exactly what he did, and DR did it well in fact.

DR is the LAST guy to blame for losing this game. You dont know what your talking about.
[/quote]

His job was to posses the ball... falling on it out of bounds was NEVER his job.

[nk02442]

[quote name='H8R' timestamp='1355232070' post='1257706']
I fixed YOUR grammar. I would never call someone for poor usage on a messageboard. However, when you come in with a smug attittude... YOUR ego is disproportionate to your knowledge. Please explain to me what Sir Newton has to do with this? He had a lot of theories, which one in particular are you referring to? Please, enlighten us common-folk.

His job was to posses the ball... falling on it out of bounds was NEVER his job.
[/quote]

You somehow think that a guy running FULL SPEED on a kick return unit who sees a ball pop lose and dives on it is supposed to stop the momentum of his body and stay inbounds? It was a bang bang play and happened in a split second. Your sitting here arm chair quarterbacking what is not even an issue.

His job is not to possess the ball, He is a gunner. His job is to make a tackle and limit the opposing teams field possition.

And since we are clear:
[url="http://lmgtfy.com/?q=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FNewton%2527s_laws_of_motion"]http://lmgtfy.com/?q..._laws_of_motion[/url]

[H8R]

[quote name='nk02442' timestamp='1355235093' post='1257738']
You somehow think that a guy running FULL SPEED on a kick return unit who sees a ball pop lose and dives on it is supposed to stop the momentum of his body and stay inbounds? It was a bang bang play and happened in a split second. Your sitting here arm chair quarterbacking what is not even an issue.

His job is not to possess the ball, He is a gunner. His job is to make a tackle and limit the opposing teams field possition.

And since we are clear:
[url="http://lmgtfy.com/?q=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FNewton%2527s_laws_of_motion"]http://lmgtfy.com/?q..._laws_of_motion[/url]
[/quote]

A players job description changes in an instant. Example. A Wide Receivers job is catch the ball intially, much as it is a gunners job to stop a potential return.. What happens when an RB gets to the second level on a run play, in the case of the WR? He becomes a BLOCKER..Just like that, his role has changed. So, your broad statement of a " gunner has one job" is shortsighted and very foolish. Laws of MOTION have NOTHING to do with his HANDS not controlling the ball.

All you're doing is excusing his gaffe. My point, however is that if he had gained possession, the game would have been won. Reed did have the ball in his hands, had an opportunity to control the ball PRIOR to going out of bounds. He FAILED to do so, not becasue he was "running full speed" but because HE bobbled it... Is that no clear to you? It was never a question of if his momentum carried him out of bounds.. THE question is.. DID he CONTROL it? No, he didnt.

[berad]

[color=#800000][b]MOD NOTE:[/b][/color] Get back on topic, not attacking each other

[H8R]

[quote name='berad' timestamp='1355236408' post='1257757']
[color=#800000][b]MOD NOTE:[/b][/color] Get back on topic, not attacking each other
[/quote]

come on man.. I took a lot of time to disprove this "theory"...

[Dfence4champs2052]

[quote name='nk02442' timestamp='1355176019' post='1256513']
It was a bad call (review)

Rule on the field was a recovery in bounds

Replay showed he clearly had the ball in his chest while in bounds.

Ball moved slightly after he had possestion and momentum pushed him out of bounds.

Very close call either way but no where near enough inrefutable evidence to overturn.


At any rate you guys need to give DR a break. I have been one of his biggest haters since that Seatle game, but since he has been back, hes been a man on fire. Its not like he was expecting the ball to be fumbled and knew he had to stay in bounds. He did the best he could considering the cirumstances and you guys should be happy he had the nose to atleast try and get us the possestion.
[/quote]
[quote name='nk02442' timestamp='1355176019' post='1256513']
It was a bad call (review)

Rule on the field was a recovery in bounds

Replay showed he clearly had the ball in his chest while in bounds.

Ball moved slightly after he had possestion and momentum pushed him out of bounds.

[b]Very close call either way but no where near enough inrefutable evidence to overturn.[/b]


At any rate you guys need to give DR a break. I have been one of his biggest haters since that Seatle game, but since he has been back, hes been a man on fire. Its not like he was expecting the ball to be fumbled and knew he had to stay in bounds. He did the best he could considering the cirumstances and you guys should be happy he had the nose to atleast try and get us the possestion.
[/quote]

And this is my problem with the shady NFL officials. They'll always use that "excuse" against us when it works for them, but when it was obvious it was a super close call they still overturned it. Same with the 4th & 29. They didn't have enough evidence to move that ball and re-measure. It's just disgusting what they do to the Ravens.

I agree with the threadstarter they blew that call as well.

[nk02442]

[quote name='H8R' timestamp='1355236308' post='1257755']
A players job description changes in an instant. Example. A Wide Receivers job is catch the ball intially, much as it is a gunners job to stop a potential return.. What happens when an RB gets to the second level on a run play, in the case of the WR? He becomes a BLOCKER..Just like that, his role has changed. So, your broad statement of a " gunner has one job" is shortsighted and very foolish. Laws of MOTION have NOTHING to do with his HANDS not controlling the ball.

All you're doing is excusing his gaffe. My point, however is that if he had gained possession, the game would have been won. Reed did have the ball in his hands, had an opportunity to control the ball PRIOR to going out of bounds. He FAILED to do so, not becasue he was "running full speed" but because HE bobbled it... Is that no clear to you? It was never a question of if his momentum carried him out of bounds.. THE question is.. DID he CONTROL it? No, he didnt.
[/quote]

I am the LAST person to make excuses for any player, and if you read my posts, you would see that clearly. You guys are harping on a non issue, nothing more .

[Fang]

David Reed had possession. We got robbed on that play. He had possession BEFORE he slid out of bounds. The ball never left his hands while out of bounds. It looked liked he moved his hand to avoid a hit OUT OF BOUNDS by a defender.

In any event, the call on the field was a fumble and recovery. I didn't see it as a slam dunk overturn of an egregious error which is what replay is supposed to be.

Remember, replay is there to correct the obvious, egregious error. It is not to be used when there can be doubt. So with that in mind, how can the call be overturned when even Redskins players admit the call could have gone either way???

[b] [size=4]Redskins players say call on Ravens’ fumble recovery could have gone either way[/size][/b]

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/wp/2012/12/09/redskins-players-say-call-on-ravens-fumble-recovery-could-have-gone-either-way/"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/wp/2012/12/09/redskins-players-say-call-on-ravens-fumble-recovery-could-have-gone-either-way/[/url]

[A Fish Called Yanda]

The ball was moving as Reed slid OOB. No fumble recovery.

I wish it was different. I wish he had just maintained his grasp on the ball, but he attempted to resecure the ball which caused it to move.

[Fang]

[quote name='terpsnation' timestamp='1355247010' post='1258005']
The ball was moving as Reed slid OOB. No fumble recovery.

I wish it was different. I wish he had just maintained his grasp on the ball, but he attempted to resecure the ball which caused it to move.
[/quote]

Unless it was absolutely indisputable, and the Redskins think it wasn't, it can't be overturned.

[A Fish Called Yanda]

[quote name='Fang' timestamp='1355248338' post='1258043']
Unless it was absolutely indisputable, and the Redskins think it wasn't, it can't be overturned.
[/quote]

You could see the ball move. It was pretty clear. Plenty of people (myself included) called it in the game thread.

[Fang]

[quote name='terpsnation' timestamp='1355249090' post='1258070']
You could see the ball move. It was pretty clear. Plenty of people (myself included) called it in the game thread.
[/quote]

I understand you side with the crowd that says it was not a recovery. The issue is there are also people saying it was a recovery. The Redskins themselves admitted it could have gone either way. Therefore it didn't qualify as[b] indisputable evidence[/b]. Likewise it should not have been overturned.

Look at the artickle I posted. Even after reviewing it on video Redskin players weren't sure.

“I didn’t know what the call was going to be,” Paul said. “I was hoping that it was out of bounds.” But Paul said he wasn’t at all certain of that, even after he saw the replay on the stadium’s video boards.

“I felt like it could have went either way,” Paul said. “Luckily it went ours.”

The replay seemed to show Reed in control of the ball temporarily while in bounds, but bobbling the ball slightly after sliding out of bounds.

“That was a critical play,” Redskins linebacker and special teams captain Lorenzo Alexander said. “In real time, I thought he had gotten it because I was right there jumping on him. But I couldn’t see the bobble because I was on his back. I knew he had it before his elbows went out. But I couldn’t tell if he had possession. But once you saw it, he kind of bobbled it in there. That call could have went either way. Thank God it went in our favor.”

[nk02442]

[quote name='terpsnation' timestamp='1355249090' post='1258070']
You could see the ball move. It was pretty clear. Plenty of people (myself included) called it in the game thread.
[/quote]

THE BALL CAN MOVE. There is nothing that says its cant. move, its about possesion. Possesion is very subjective and as we have seen over the years , the threshold changes game to game.

He clearly had possesion, was in bounds, and had the required points of contact down at the time. That was the reason it wall called a recovered fumble on the ground.

FURTHERMORE: replay has to show INREFUTABLE evidence that the call on the field was wrong, which it wasnt. When EVERYONE including both teams and most fans admit the call could go either way, the call on the field should be upheld.

[A Fish Called Yanda]

[quote name='Fang' timestamp='1355249307' post='1258076']
I understand you side with the crowd that says it was not a recovery. The issue is there are also people saying it was a recovery. The Redskins themselves admitted it could have gone either way. Therefore it didn't qualify as[b] indisputable evidence[/b]. Likewise it should not have been overturned.

Look at the artickle I posted. Even after reviewing it on video Redskin players weren't sure.

“I didn’t know what the call was going to be,” Paul said. “I was hoping that it was out of bounds.” But Paul said he wasn’t at all certain of that, even after he saw the replay on the stadium’s video boards.

“I felt like it could have went either way,” Paul said. “Luckily it went ours.”

The replay seemed to show Reed in control of the ball temporarily while in bounds, but bobbling the ball slightly after sliding out of bounds.

“That was a critical play,” Redskins linebacker and special teams captain Lorenzo Alexander said. “In real time, I thought he had gotten it because I was right there jumping on him. But I couldn’t see the bobble because I was on his back. I knew he had it before his elbows went out. But I couldn’t tell if he had possession. But once you saw it, he kind of bobbled it in there. That call could have went either way. Thank God it went in our favor.”
[/quote]

That argument doesn't hold up - just because some people disagree on whether or not it was a fumble doesn't mean there isn't indisputable evidence.

If you look at any of the replays, you can see the ball moving. Ball moving = no control. No control = no recovery. Period.

[Fang]

[quote name='nk02442' timestamp='1355249920' post='1258088']
[b]FURTHERMORE: replay has to show INREFUTABLE evidence that the call on the field was wrong, which it wasnt. When EVERYONE including both teams and most fans admit the call could go either way, the call on the field should be upheld.[/b]
[/quote]

Why some fans can't seem to grasp the "[b]IRREFUTABLE evidence" [/b]concept as part of instant replay is beyond me. The fact that we are discussing the call is evidence enough it wasn't irrefutable.

[nk02442]

To play devils advocate, Even if the ball is not moving realitive to the player, it is moving realitive to the field, earth, galaxy and universe. I guess every call should be ruled incomplete since the ball never trully stops moving.