Cowboyz1 Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 So the NFL rule states a player that intentionally bats the ball out of the endzone should be penalized 10 yards and the ball goes back to the offense. Supposedly this rule has been a rule for a long time. However, I have seen punters, QBs and various other players intentionally bat a ball out of the endzone to prevent a touchdown for years without getting called a penalty. So I wonder why this rule has never been called correctly. Strange but the Lions find ways to lose games like this year and and year out. As a Megatron owner it wouldn't have mattered in the least the week but man the Lions can sure foul up a nice effort. Great play by Kam as he is making his case for more money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Brown Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Thanks Obama! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 ... I do not recall once seeing a penalty for intentional batting of the ball ... and I do recall seeing punters and/or QBs batting the ball out of the back of the endzone to prevent a TD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud29 Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 I've seen it called before on fumbles, but it's pretty rare. This one was as obvious as it gets, huge missed call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 It is a colossal failure by the refs ... the ref.s huddled on it ... and it was a turnover in the last 2 minutes so it should have been automatically reviewed ... that means every ref involved missed it. Absolutely horrible officiating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 I don't think illegal batting is a reviewable play per NFL rules. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Brown Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 It is a colossal failure by the refs ... the ref.s huddled on it ... and it was a turnover in the last 2 minutes so it should have been automatically reviewed ... that means every ref involved missed it. Absolutely horrible officiating. It wasn't reviewable. So they just completely boned it on the field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Yeah, oops. Also, lost about $30 in DFS thanks to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Yeah .. so there was no review ... still a pretty big failure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboyz1 Posted October 6, 2015 Author Share Posted October 6, 2015 I think the rule is a bit silly because I can't think of a reason to give the offense another chance after fumbling the game away if a player just knocks it out of bounds. Not sure how it creates an advantage one way or another. Forcing players to at least attempt to recover the ball seems rather mute to me. However, if it is a rule, and it sounds like it is, the refs blew the call badly. Detroit didn't deserve to have this rule save their asses but the refs need to do their jobs as officiating seems to be getting worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 I agree ... it seems like a silly rule. The ref on television said it was so that offense would have a chance to recover the ball before the defense batted it out. Excuse me? That seems like a stupid reason to have a rule ... the offense should have held on to the ball in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboyz1 Posted October 6, 2015 Author Share Posted October 6, 2015 (edited) I agree ... it seems like a silly rule. The ref on television said it was so that offense would have a chance to recover the ball before the defense batted it out. Excuse me? That seems like a stupid reason to have a rule ... the offense should have held on to the ball in the first place. This........ It also sounds like an injury waiting to happen forcing a scrum for the ball in the endzone. Edited October 6, 2015 by Cowboyz1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpinalTapp Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 at this point, the only fair thing to do is the keep the game outcome and reverse the fumble off calvin johnson's record ;o) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA Baracus Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 (edited) I am not seeing points awarded to SEA D for a recovered fumble. C'mon NFL...there are fantasy outcomes at stake here! Get your manure together! Edited October 6, 2015 by BA Baracus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 I am not seeing points awarded to SEA D for a recovered fumble. C'mon NFL...there are fantasy outcomes at stake here! Get your honda together! Is that how it's scored? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the outlaw Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Is that how it's scored? no, it was ruled a touchback... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud29 Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 I agree ... it seems like a silly rule. The ref on television said it was so that offense would have a chance to recover the ball before the defense batted it out. Excuse me? That seems like a stupid reason to have a rule ... the offense should have held on to the ball in the first place. Usually, I think it helps the defense more than the offense - prevents a RB or WR from being able to bat their own fumble out of bounds before the opposing team can recover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 The rule is in place to prevent offensive players from batting the ball forward, especially on 3rd or 4th down. I'm sure it would be called if it happened in a situation like that. Both teams have a case here. Since it wasn't called, the Lions have a case. If it was called, the Seahawks could bring up the last 50 instances of it happening without being called. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Seattle gets all the calls 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Seattle gets all the calls And Carroll went on a connipition after he felt a couple calls went to the Packers a couple weeks ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 I think the rule is a bit silly because I can't think of a reason to give the offense another chance after fumbling the game away if a player just knocks it out of bounds. Not sure how it creates an advantage one way or another. Forcing players to at least attempt to recover the ball seems rather mute to me. However, if it is a rule, and it sounds like it is, the refs blew the call badly. Detroit didn't deserve to have this rule save their asses but the refs need to do their jobs as officiating seems to be getting worse. Well except as pointed out in another discussion what happens if the offense fumbles otherwise and it isn't recovered by the oponent, like the ball goes out of bounds. It comes back to the spot of the fumble. Great play by Chancellor and an almost great play by Calvin. Luckily I still got enough points from Calvin (needed 3) to win my game. Strange though that Calvin is being credited with a lost fumble, but the Seahawks defense does not show a fumble recovery. I guess the change of possession makes it a lost fumble but not a recovery for the defense. (Chancellor should get credit for forced fumble.) Here is the play description 3-1-SEA11 (1:51) (Shotgun) M.Stafford pass short left to C.Johnson to SEA 1 for 10 yards (K.Chancellor, E.Thomas). FUMBLES (K.Chancellor), ball out of bounds in End Zone, Touchback. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huskerborn78 Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Batting the ball out of the back of the endzone is most certainly NOT a fumble recovery. It is a turnover by rule NOT by possession, which is what a fumble RECOVERY is. This rule is no different then a punt kicked into the endzone, a missed field goal, or turnover on downs. The ball was forced out by the defense, and is a live ball, but is STILL the offense's ball until RECOVERED by the defense. If the ball is inadvertently knocked out of bounds (not including endzone) the offense regains possession. If it is knocked out of bounds through the endzone it is a TOUCHBACK TURNOVER, NOT a fumble recovery by the defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the outlaw Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 I read an article this morning that stated KJ Wright was being interviewed on the radio by Scott Ferrall after the game last night, where he was talking about how he intentionally batted the ball out of the end zone and Pete Carroll overheard Wright's half of the conversation, and made him abruptly hang-up the phone and end the interview... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud29 Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 I read an article this morning that stated KJ Wright was being interviewed on the radio by Scott Ferrall after the game last night, where he was talking about how he intentionally batted the ball out of the end zone and Pete Carroll overheard Wright's half of the conversation, and made him abruptly hang-up the phone and end the interview... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 I read an article this morning that stated KJ Wright was being interviewed on the radio by Scott Ferrall after the game last night, where he was talking about how he intentionally batted the ball out of the end zone and Pete Carroll overheard Wright's half of the conversation, and made him abruptly hang-up the phone and end the interview... Was that on TMZ or the onion? Why would it matter what Wright is telling somebody in an interview, is the NFL going to overturn the play and result, or fine him for being honest. Carroll sounds like a real control freak. 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.