David Reed Fumble Recovery

[nk02442]

[quote name='Fang' timestamp='1355250089' post='1258095']
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.
[/quote]

Big words are confusing and stuff. I am trying to read gooder and get learned. -Ricky from TPB

Agree with you 100%

[A Fish Called Yanda]

[quote name='Fang' timestamp='1355250089' post='1258095']
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.
[/quote]

People discuss a ton of plays. Lots of people see the plays through rose colored glasses. Just because someone thinks it's a wrong call doesn't make it a wrong call. And just because some people disagree about a call doesn't mean there isn't irrefutable evidence. Some people just can't see past their fandom.

The ball was clearly moving. Per the rules in the first post, he didn't have control (and therefore possession) as he went OOB.

[quote name='nk02442' timestamp='1355250165' post='1258100']
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.
[/quote]

That's just stupid.

[nk02442]

[quote name='terpsnation' timestamp='1355249980' post='1258091']
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.
[/quote]

WRONG. Show me in the rule book where it says the ball can't move. Its about possesion, which as been explained 100 times, is subjective. Now I know how Jerry feels looking after all those "kids".

[rlh445]

I'm surprised Reed even got his body turned back around in the first place to even make a play . I don't eem care what anyone else says, that was our ball. If that was Julian Edelman or Welker who jumped on it like that, gained (what I thought) was possession and then bobbled it once out of bounds, that would've been Patsies ball. Eh, I know I have the purple shades on.

[Fang]

[quote name='terpsnation' timestamp='1355250300' post='1258106']
People discuss a ton of plays. Lots of people see the plays through rose colored glasses. Just because someone thinks it's a wrong call doesn't make it a wrong call. And just because some people disagree about a call doesn't mean there isn't irrefutable evidence. Some people just can't see past their fandom.

The ball was clearly moving. Per the rules in the first post, he didn't have control (and therefore possession) as he went OOB.
[/quote]

There is no fandom here. The game is over and the outcome decided. No amount of arguing will make a difference in the outcome of the game. The discussion for me has basically shifted to instant replay. I like the use of it, but I think that was a call that was not irrefutable.

In reading Note 2 again, I didn't look to me like Reed was "attempting to secure possession" while going out of bounds as the rule states. He HAD possession while sliding out. The ball movement was not an attempt to secure it, but rather to brace himself or the player about to jump on him.

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Note 2: If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or there is no possession.[/font][/size]

[A Fish Called Yanda]

[quote name='nk02442' timestamp='1355250359' post='1258108']
WRONG. Show me in the rule book where it says the ball can't move. Its about possesion, which as been explained 100 times, is subjective.
[/quote]

[quote][size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Note 2: If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline, he must maintain complete and [b]continuous control[/b] of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or there is no possession.[/font][/size][/quote]

It is not solely about possession. You cannot have possession of the ball if you do not control it. Reed did not control the ball because it was moving. Therefore, by that rule, he did not have possession.

Also, the movement of the ball was not "slight". There was significant movement of the ball as he attempted to maintain control. He was out of bounds at that point, therefore there was no recovery.

[Twistidfunk]

Watch the replay again. Reed had no "momentum" from running "full tilt" down the field. He was almost standing there and leaped for the ball....a poorly executed leap near the sideline. He botched it. Never had possession.

End of story. The refs got it right

[jimmypowder]

[quote name='nk02442' timestamp='1355250165' post='1258100']
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.
[/quote]

This is true .

[big hits and ball hawks]

The ironic thing is he probably should have picked it up and ran for it, which is what they're taught not to do. I haven't looked at the replays over and over because I don't like watching replays of losses, so maybe he couldn't have done it. When I was watching the game though, it seemed like he had room to do so. Since I don't completely remember it, I can't side with anyone with whether he could have just fallen on it or if he had no choice but to slide for it. I thought he had it, not even with the purple shades. I thought it was arguable but I was in the moment, so maybe i was seeing it through purple shades.

I still think it's arguable regardless. However, it doesn't matter now and even though the recovery would have most likely won the game, it wasn't the reason we lost. Time to move forward.

[baltravens]

This ought to be said: Fumble recovery or not, if we did not let the Redskins marched down the field with 4 minutes left and score with a back-up QB, and get a two-point conversion, we would not be having this discussion.

NOTE: I do not know if someone has already pointed this out.

[H8R]

[quote name='Twistidfunk' timestamp='1355253064' post='1258160']
Watch the replay again. Reed had no "momentum" from running "full tilt" down the field. He was almost standing there and leaped for the ball....a poorly executed leap near the sideline. He botched it. Never had possession.

End of story. The refs got it right
[/quote]

This.

[H8R]

[quote name='nk02442' timestamp='1355249920' post='1258088']


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.
[/quote]

How could he clearly posses the ball inbounds but defy the "laws of motion"? I thought it was impossible for him to do that " running full tilt"? I can understand a back track, and appreciate you admitting the truth. Thanks.