Down or not?

by joebirdie3 on Sep 24, 2007 9:23 AM PDT Comment 13 comments

What is the rule these days about how you are ruled down, and the "ground cannot cause a fumble" myth. I cant remember them all, but I can think of many instances in the past few seasons where a guy catches the ball, maintains possession, hits the ground and the ball pops out. The refs rule it a fumble and the other team runs it the other way.

I've heard also that "an elbow equals a knee". Is this also still true? In regards to the Davis play, the ref said he "barely got two feet down before he got hit" then the ball was dislodged when he hit the ground. If he barely got two feet down, then he got two feet down right? The ball popped out when his elbow hit the ground, not when the ball hit the ground, so he's down right? He was not able to make a "football move", but if that play happened on the sideline and the ball goes out of bounds, do they still call it incomplete?

I'd just like to know from someone more knowledgeable of the rules than me, are the statements "the ground cannot cause a fumble" and "an elbow equals a knee" still accurate in the NFL? Thanks

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors.

0 recs | Comment 13 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Not to be some kind of blog-nazi

... but this discussion could have been covered/started in the main thread (as a comment). It's not that I don't feel people are entitled to starting/creating diaries, it's just that I feel it would make the blog (and following it) a lot more cohesive and give it a (more proper) flow.

Again, I don't want to step on any toes or anything. It's just a suggestion. I don't know how Fooch (or anyone else around here) feels on this subject, but this is how I feel.

As far as I understand (I didn't get to watch the last three quarters of the game, save the last two minutes at Mays Field), Davis should have been ruled down. Every single thing I've seen in highlights (on NFL Network's website) has him down by contact. The ground shouldn't cause a fumble, and the pass should have been ruled incomplete if he clearly didn't have control. He HAD control, else they wouldn't have let the play continue as a fumble. It was just a bad call. A very bad call.

by sfgfan on Sep 24, 2007 9:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

One more thing about diaries...

... if the conversation already exists elsewhere (like the main section for example), then creating new diaries (about the same thing) will flush out (off of the main page) more pertinent or unique diaries. It's not much of a problem now, as the site probably averages less than 10 new diaries a week, but as the site grows it'll become pretty ugly pretty fast.

There are blogs (on SBNation) that have fallen victim to this. It is my hope that this site doesn't follow suit.

by sfgfan on Sep 24, 2007 9:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

for the record

this diary was created right at the same time as I was bringing this up in the link dump thread. It was a matter of poor timing. I also think the question here is a little different, because the diary was asking about the actual rules more so than the ref failing to interpret them correctly.

as far as I know, the ground can't cause a fumble, and an elbow does equal a knee. They ruled incomplete because you also have to maintain possession all the way through your descent to the ground, which I think is stupid, or at least enforced too strictly. The ground not causing a fumble is more of an issue on a running play or after a catch is clearly made and the guy is being tackled. Like if a guy gets tripped up, falls, and his arm hits the ground causing the ball to come out.

But yes, an elbow equals a knee, so if you are running with the ball and your elbow touches the ground you are down, even if your knee isn't.

Bring back the classic Uni's!

by wjackalope on Sep 24, 2007 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know

I know that the diary was created before your comment in the link dump thread. I guess (like the referees' and their rules) my interpretation of Fooch's mention of the call in the main "entry" was that discussion could follow within that thread.

I think Vernon did hold onto the ball until his back/body jackknifed and the ball popped loose. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but someone needs to ask the officials this: how was that incomplete pass any different from a wideout that goes up for a ball, has his legs taken out from under him, but holds onto the ball until AFTER he hits the ground? Would that situation be ruled incomplete as well? I'm pretty sure I've seen instances ruled otherwise.

by sfgfan on Sep 24, 2007 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

exactly

sometimes you get no feet on the ground. As I've said before, the most ludicrous part to me is still that it can't be ruled incomplete if it doesn't hit the ground. It never hit the ground. WTF?

Bring back the classic Uni's!

by wjackalope on Sep 24, 2007 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

the "rule"

apparently, the rule was interpreted by the deaf, blind and dumb man in a striped shirt to mean that when you catch the ball you have to clearly establish both feet down and make a "football move" (which apparently doesn't include stuff that happens on a football field, during a football game) and if you don't then you need to maintain possession when you hit the ground.

My beef is that catching a pass and getting one foot, the other toe, an elbow and your head down all while maintaining possession of the ball, means you made the catch, even if the ball pops out after the fact. Once Davis caught the ball and all those body parts hit the ground, the play was over and he was down.

The refs blew the call big time.

Lott's Prayer: Almost as many words as the Lord's Prayer, but the Lord wouldn't recognize any of them.

by Nosetackle Supreme on Sep 24, 2007 10:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

FYI

The rules were changed this year. A "football move" is no longer necessary (thank god since that term is a bit nebulous). All you need is two feet down (or elbow or knee) with possession.

Fire Conservative Playcalling Now.

by marcello on Sep 24, 2007 11:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

that makes it even worse

he had two feet down and possession and his elbow was down for a while before the ball came out.

I mean, what if you get one foot down, get hit and land on the ground and hold onto the ball. that's a catch. That's pretty much what happened. the ball only came out after he was rolling over. Such a terrible call.

Bring back the classic Uni's!

by wjackalope on Sep 24, 2007 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No no, you've got the two feet thing all wrong....

As the ref said after the game, and I quote, "He had one foot and a toe on the other one."

Oh, wait, nevermind. The ref is just a moron. I would have loved some jackass reporter to ask him at what percentage of the foot does it count? Is it 50% of your foot? 35? Maybe he comes up with an interesting number like 17.38. Who knows? Clearly, he's decided to take the rules into his own hands. This guy has just guaranteed that he won't be the ref during any postseason games.

Screwing up a call during the action of the game is one thing. It's difficult, things happen quickly, and they do their best. Screwing it up after leisurely watching slow-mo replays from many angles is unforgivable. His name is Gerald Austin and I hope all the bad things in the world happen to him and him alone.

Fire Conservative Playcalling Now.

by marcello on Sep 24, 2007 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

Players constantly get catches where they drag the tip of their toes of one foot in bounds as they're flying out of bounds. How is this situation really any different? You know Nolan will be submitting that call for review, so it'll be interesting to see what the NFL says "upon further review". It won't really change anything in the past, but like marcello pointed out, it'll guarantee that ref isn't there for the playoffs.

by sfgfan on Sep 24, 2007 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It was a bad call, but...

I think because the ref so badly misinterpreted the rules, and his explanation was so non-sensical, no one really understands exactly what he ruled and HOW he screwed up (not even Moose Johnston -- a good announcer). I believe I do, and it involves to new-ish rules that even some avid football fans aren't completely familiar with.

Fist of all, marcello is 100% right that the "football move" part of the rule was eliminated this year (because tons of fumbles were being reversed -- like Walt Harris' off Torry Holt in St. Louis last year -- because nobody knew what a "football move" was).

Secondly, there was a rule instituted a few years back that if you do not get 2 feet down, before you hit the ground, you must maintain possesion all the way through your landing (which would have made Butch Johnson's highlight reel TD catch from Staubach in Super Bowl XXII an incompletion).

So, the key to the play was whether Davis got his second foot down. If not, then by rule Davis would have had to keep control all the way through his landing, which clearly he didn't. That's all I was looking at during the replays because I knew that was the determining factor, and honestly, I couldn't really tell. He didn't quite have time to land (thank god for that, or his ACL would probably be shredded), but I thought maybe his cleat grazed a few blades of grass.

Because it was so close (and ruled against us on the field), I knew it was a 50/50 propostion that we'd get the ball back. The ball clearly DIDN'T hit the ground, so I thought it would be 1st & 10 either way. But here's where the ref really fucked up -- in 3 WAYS: 1) He forgot or ignored the change in the rule this year (no "football move" needed), 2) He ruled Davis's foot "barely" hit the ground (WHAT?!?!), and 3) He incorrectly ruled that the ball hit the ground.

In my heart, I thought it should be 1st and Goal Niners. in my head, I knew that 1st and 10 Steelers was at least a possiblity. But 4th down Niners was not even in the discussion. Ridiculous.

"You gotta bring ass, to get ass." --EDDIE DeBARTOLO JR.

by Josh from Hollywood on Sep 24, 2007 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

exactly

he never said "the ball touched the ground" in his explanation. He just said it was incomplete which made no sense. If he had said the ball hit the ground then I wouldn't say he's an idiot, just blind. But he didn't say that. Did he think it? Must have. Or not. What a moron.

Bring back the classic Uni's!

by wjackalope on Sep 24, 2007 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you!

That's pretty much exactly what I was looking for, and yes that ref is an IDIOT. I was surprised to see Mike Nolan not get too riled up after the call and after the explanation he got from the ref as well. At least we still made the field goal, but that play was sort of a turning point.

Still, we should have scored touchdowns on those 2 possessions that we got FGs on in the first half. Red Zone offense is definitely an area of concern.

by joebirdie3 on Sep 24, 2007 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs