Sprtfan Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 There is no logical or reasonable human being that actually say that was not a fumble after watching the replay. Ed's explanation was ridiculous at best and had the ESPN guys speechless! I was playing poker last night while watching the game. Out of ten guys, only one thought it was not a fumble and he is a Viking fan and I'm not sure if he was even serious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 I would just like to take this opportunity to remind everyone to stock canned foods & water. Since Balzac, Az, & I agree - Hell has clearly frozen over and the Apocalypse is around the corner. This has been a public service announcement. And now back to your regularly scheduled pissing match... I still want to fight you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 By comparison if a receiver catches a ball near the sidelines & the ball is not completely in his possession (by completely meaning not moving around loose in his grasp) before he steps out of bounds then it is ruled an incomplete pass, even if the receiver clearly has full possession after stepping out. I don't see how the definition of possession on a fumble ruling should be any different. Actually, there's a perfect example of this not being the case in the Indy game. Reggie Wayne's one handed catch for a TD is essentially the reception equivalent of what they were saying was the case with Peterson. If you ask me, I think the catch was a catch and the fumble was a fumble but each was about as close to edge of being ruled either way as you can be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 It will be interesting to see how the league rules on this one. While I agree it ended up being a helmet to helmet hit....how much of that goes on Billy Miller? He clearly lowered his head before impact to deliver his own blow to the defender. Not sure it's totally fair to just blame the defender in a case like this, seems more like "incidental helmet to helmet" if you ask me. Is that really how you saw it? Wow, I saw it as a dude seeing he was about to get clocked and bracing himself. "Delivering a blow" was likely the last thing on that dude's mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Actually, there's a perfect example of this not being the case in the Indy game. Reggie Wayne's one handed catch for a TD is essentially the reception equivalent of what they were saying was the case with Peterson. If you ask me, I think the catch was a catch and the fumble was a fumble but each was about as close to edge of being ruled either way as you can be. No it wasn't at all. Wayne had the ball gripped in his hand, it was not moving at all in his grasp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 This thread needs something good from the Saints. http://i38.tinypic.com/fa3ity.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myhousekey Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 This thread needs something good from the Saints. http://i38.tinypic.com/fa3ity.gif Great clip but even it doesn't do justice on what a big hit that was. Dunbar has been a huge hitter on special teams this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 9/29/2008 Mike Pereira NFL Vice President of Officiating National Football League 280 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017 Brad Childress Head Coach Minnesota Vikings 9520 Viking Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr. Pereira, On two games this year, the Minnesota Vikings have been on the wrong side of two different calls made by your referees. In each of these events, both plays were reviewed and the call was still in correct. The 1st one was in Indianapolis when Joseph Addai’s touchdown showed the ball did not cross the goal line on the replay. Is you your official blind, how can you rule that a touchdown? The second play in the other was when Justin gage caught that pass on 4th down and your officials ruled it a 1st down. I challenged this play as the replay once again the player came up short of the 1st down. Your officials again upheld the decision and they went on to score a touchdown. I have a hard enough time coaching and my offense sucks, but I don’t need the help of your referees to lose more games. I have attached both game tapes for your review. I am requesting that anymore questionable calls or replays go in our favor, specifically the game against the Saints this Monday, October 6th, because if I lose this game, I will lose my job. Best Regards, Brad Childress Head Coach Minnesota Vikings 1-800-Dumb-Ass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBalata Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Is that really how you saw it? Wow, I saw it as a dude seeing he was about to get clocked and bracing himself. "Delivering a blow" was likely the last thing on that dude's mind. eh....whatever you want to call it. He clearly lowered his own head, which caused both heads to collide. That's my point. Its not like the defender was out there head hunting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myhousekey Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 (edited) I didn't think the Miller hit was intentionally to the head personally. It looked to me like Miller was looking at the defender to his right and only caught Griffin out of the corner of his eye at the last second before he got laid out. Edited October 7, 2008 by myhousekey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 No it wasn't at all. Wayne had the ball gripped in his hand, it was not moving at all in his grasp. I agree not the same at all. Wayne had control of the football the entire time and it never moved an inch. No clue how Hochuli ruled that a non-fumble, totally inconsistent with how it has been called since I have been watching football. If the ball carrier is loosing control of the football before the knee hits - fumble.period - this, he had it still in in his hand call is outrageous - I dunno, Hochuli has been a very good ref, I just think the dude has maybe read some of his own press clipping too much b/c of late his calls are not only off base, but just have the feel of a guy that thinks he is bigger than the game or peeps are paying to see him ref - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 eh....whatever you want to call it. He clearly lowered his own head, which caused both heads to collide. That's my point. Its not like the defender was out there head hunting. You're better off making a "speed of the game" argument but if Miller doesn't lower his head, then dude ends up getting him right in the chin rather than the helmet. Not exactly sure how that makes it any better. There were two players involved in that hit. One who had the luxury of sizing up his target for a few steps and one who was looking a different direction right up until the very last nano-second and seemed to do nothing more instinctively than tuck his head in. It seemed pretty evident to me that the defender was taking advantage of the fact that he was about to hit a guy who had no idea he was there and was going to make it count. Now, that's football and all but I find it humorous that you suggest Miller had any more to do with it than simply getting nailed off guard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 I see the trend this season. Instead of complaining about the commentators, it's going to be complain about the refs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 I see the trend this season. Instead of complaining about the commentators, it's going to be complain about the refs. Or, for the real winner's, complaining about the people that are complaining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 I see the trend this season. Instead of complaining about the commentators, it's going to be complaining about other people complaining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 No it wasn't at all. Wayne had the ball gripped in his hand, it was not moving at all in his grasp. I agree not the same at all. Wayne had control of the football the entire time and it never moved an inch. No clue how Hochuli ruled that a non-fumble, totally inconsistent with how it has been called since I have been watching football. If the ball carrier is loosing control of the football before the knee hits - fumble.period - this, he had it still in in his hand call is outrageous - I dunno, Hochuli has been a very good ref, I just think the dude has maybe read some of his own press clipping too much b/c of late his calls are not only off base, but just have the feel of a guy that thinks he is bigger than the game or peeps are paying to see him ref - You will both kindly notice that I said I think Wayne's was a catch and AD's was a fumble but that each was right on the edge. I do think the Wayne ruling had something to do with this as I have never seen a guy get credit for a one handed catch as he was falling out of bounds where the ball was not at least pinned to his chest or something. That might of set a precedent and in AD's case they may have thought that, like Wayne, both the ball and the hand were moving but not relative to one another until his knee hit the ground. After all, that's the rub. Not, if the ball is moving, but if the ball is moving relative to the hand. The ball could be moving relative to his body, relative to his forearm or even bicep, but not his hand. If that's the case, it's more like the Wayne situation than you are giving credit. Keep in mind that Wayne may have not actually secured the ball until he ultimately pinned it against his shoulder and that it may have just been resting in his hand. It was a very borderline call to be sure. Again, IMO, they were both borderline and I think that the ball was rotating out of AD's hand prior to him hitting the ground, but just barely, barely so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Great clip but even it doesn't do justice on what a big hit that was. Dunbar has been a huge hitter on special teams this year. I picked him up a couple of weeks ago in a dynasty league. I didn't think the Miller hit was intentionally to the head personally. It looked to me like Miller was looking at the defender to his right and only caught Griffin out of the corner of his eye at the last second before he got laid out. Agreed, I don't think it was an intentional helmet-to-helmet either, but he will likely get fined for it anyway because he was leading with the helmet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 You will both kindly notice that I said I think Wayne's was a catch and AD's was a fumble but that each was right on the edge. I do think the Wayne ruling had something to do with this as I have never seen a guy get credit for a one handed catch as he was falling out of bounds where the ball was not at least pinned to his chest or something. That might of set a precedent and in AD's case they may have thought that, like Wayne, both the ball and the hand were moving but not relative to one another until his knee hit the ground. After all, that's the rub. Not, if the ball is moving, but if the ball is moving relative to the hand. The ball could be moving relative to his body, relative to his forearm or even bicep, but not his hand. If that's the case, it's more like the Wayne situation than you are giving credit. Keep in mind that Wayne may have not actually secured the ball until he ultimately pinned it against his shoulder and that it may have just been resting in his hand. It was a very borderline call to be sure. Again, IMO, they were both borderline and I think that the ball was rotating out of AD's hand prior to him hitting the ground, but just barely, barely so. You should watch both replays again. The ball wasn't moving in Wayne's hand, the ball was moving in Peterson's hand. There is no similarity there at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 You will both kindly notice that I said I think Wayne's was a catch and AD's was a fumble but that each was right on the edge. I do think the Wayne ruling had something to do with this as I have never seen a guy get credit for a one handed catch as he was falling out of bounds where the ball was not at least pinned to his chest or something. That might of set a precedent and in AD's case they may have thought that, like Wayne, both the ball and the hand were moving but not relative to one another until his knee hit the ground. After all, that's the rub. Not, if the ball is moving, but if the ball is moving relative to the hand. The ball could be moving relative to his body, relative to his forearm or even bicep, but not his hand. If that's the case, it's more like the Wayne situation than you are giving credit. Keep in mind that Wayne may have not actually secured the ball until he ultimately pinned it against his shoulder and that it may have just been resting in his hand. It was a very borderline call to be sure. Again, IMO, they were both borderline and I think that the ball was rotating out of AD's hand prior to him hitting the ground, but just barely, barely so. all good - the Wayne catch was clear I thought- I mean the thing is these WR with their gloves on CAN secure the football with one hand- which is what Wayne did - and I thought the AP was clearly a fumble, and the explanation was something I had never heard before and inconsistent with every fumble I have ever seen in the NFL Just don't get the Hochuli thing anymore- I mean, he has made these very suspect calls with wacky explanations that I have never even heard before not sayin anything unethical is goin on but Mr. Hochuli clearly needs to check himself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 You should watch both replays again. The ball wasn't moving in Wayne's hand, the ball was moving in Peterson's hand. There is no similarity there at all. Why? I think the ball was moving in AD's hand and not in Waynes, that's why I said that AD's was a fumble and Wayne's was a catch. Mind you, IMO, it starts moving in AD's hand when his knee is like a fraction of an inch off the ground, so I have certainly seen things more cut and dry. My point is simply that I have never seen a catch like Wayne's get ruled a catch before that one. That is opens up a whole new can of worms in terms of what can be interpreted as possession and that we might likely see a number of plays that were previously thought of as fumbles not get called that way going forward. I truly believe that was going through the officials head when he looked at the replay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilfish2 Posted October 7, 2008 Author Share Posted October 7, 2008 (edited) In Wayne's case the Ref. said "after he gained possesion of the ball, he had one foot down, then his shin touched inside the endzone before his knee touched out of bounds...." Edited October 7, 2008 by neilfish2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 In Wayne's case the Ref. said "after he gained possesion of the ball, he had one foot down, then his shin touched inside the endzone before his knee touched out of bounds...." Here's the part where it gets iffy though. Do you think, had he not ultimately pinned the ball against his shoulder, he would have maintained possession of the ball when he hit the ground? If not, and you feel that he had enough possession of the ball for it to be ruled a TD, then the notion of possession is not as strict as before that call, assuming that we all agree that was a catch. Again, it's a very, very fine line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilfish2 Posted October 12, 2008 Author Share Posted October 12, 2008 (edited) As I was getting into my car following the Saints game, ESPN was finishing up an session talking about the Houston/Miami game. I caught the very end of the talk, and I hear the name Hochuli mentioned, So anyone know what did Hochuli and his crew messed up this week? Edited October 12, 2008 by neilfish2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrudge Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 So anyone know what did Hochuli and his crew messed up this week?Give it up. He made made one mistake in the first game of the season and has owned up to it. No one is perfect and refs can't see every play of every game from all angles. Move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL Fan Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 (edited) Yeah, this week's villian is going to be the guy who hosed the Cardinals out of a clear fumble recovery after Romo (I know, hard to believe) obviously fumbled and the whistle was blown VERY prematurely, just like Big Ed's. Edit to add that he got lucky and the Cards won. Edited October 13, 2008 by STL Fan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.