Chargers got the ball and rolled up from the ground. He was not touched; so play was still live. He throws the ball to the ground in celebration and Raiders recover because the ball is still live. Refs rule it an illegal forward pass and Chargers retain possession.
Play will be shown over and over again all this week. You decide.
I guess that's payback for the Holy Roller play.
Originally Posted by Raisor
I'm a Raiders fan and that was a fourth and 2 play, plus i thought the Raiders declined it
I already have.
I hate the Raiders, so it was a legit call.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
The refs made the right call. Please change the thread title, as it is a bit misleading.
Odd, but correct, call brings confusion in S.D. game
...While the call was questioned on the field, NFL Supervisor of Officials Mike Pereira confirmed to ESPN's Chris Mortensen that the call was correct -- and not without precedent.
It is illegal to intentionally fumble a ball forward and, by rule, an illegal forward fumble is an incomplete pass. That makes it a dead ball. A 5-yard penalty is then assessed from the spot.
Jackson spinning the ball forward when he was not down by contact constituted an intentional illegal forward fumble and thus an illegal forward pass. Had he spun it backward, it would have been a live fumble.
A similar call was made when Plaxico Burress did the same thing with the Steelers on Oct. 1, 2000.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2676820
The announcer said that you have to be able to defend the play for it to be a foward pass.
9-2 for my Chargers! I will take it
Baseball is life
What does that mean...there were Raiders players right there, surely they could "defend" it. A bonehead move by the WR, but he was saved by the rulebook. Correct call refs.
A similar call was made? The Plaxico Brurres play was ruled a fumble. How can it be a similar call?
You are correct, it was ruled a fumble and Burress went on and on about feeling remorseful (vrs. Jacksonville). So, the precedent cited for this ruling was in error - was the erroneous citation made by the official or by the writer? By the way, I haven't seen the play. I am just taking issue at the meagre logic provided in print to justify the decision.
1. His arm wasn't going forward.
2. He spun the ball into the ground ahead of him.
3. Anyone now can make the case that a fumble that goes forward is actually a forward pass (legal or illegal).
But didn't they decline the penalty
No.
If you saw the play on the first of three calls they said the Raiders declined the penalty and i don't see any reason to accept it.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote