I'm not going to ***** about the refs even though I thought it was horrendous. I'm not concerned about the loss, I'm concerned by the way the team is playing and the strategy they employ and lack of adjustment. That said after watching the play replay of the Watt hit on Smith's arm in slow motion at least 7 times I cannot understand how that is not a fumble in the context of everything you see every week. The only thing that moved forward was his wrist. A bit. They clearly rushed up to the line and hurry snapped. How was that not worth the challenge?
Can anyone explain the lack of a fumble call?
- Thread starter SteelerSask2
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,464
- Reaction score
- 1,162
- Points
- 113
The hand did appear to be moving forward with the ball in place, but I don't think he had control, or intent to throw that pass when it came out. I never quite got that rule, it seems when it's close like that they always err on the side of the offense.
Joe
Joe
I don't get why, in questionable calls like that, don't you rule it a fumble, let the possession be established, then review the play as a turnover. If a ref blows the whistle before a team establishes possession, even if they rule it a fumble via a challenge, possession would still go to the offense. It is totally asinine why you try to make a call that is almost impossible to see in live action instead of ruling it as a fumble and if the defense recovers it is automatically reviewed.
Ball was in complete control when released, my problem is I think he threw a lateral, not a forward pass. That would be a live ball.
So is it arm moving forward or wrist flipping ball. Because I saw no forward movement of the arm. Can anyone post the replay here?
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 17,523
- Reaction score
- 21,531
- Points
- 113
Whatever the call on the field was it was going to stand based on replay. I could see it argued either way.
I was under the impression that his arm moved forward due to Watt hitting him backwards.
I just feel like if flipping your wrist forward is the standard for a forward pass then most big QB's should just flip it at contact. No sack.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 511
- Reaction score
- 430
- Points
- 63
The thing I'm not understanding is, whether it was a pass or not, how is that not textbook grounding?.
because he was hit and had no control of where the ball was going.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 3,145
- Reaction score
- 3,969
- Points
- 113
Because he was hit, therefore there is no way to tell who or where he was throwing to.
And this clearly would have been like the tuck rule. We would not have won the challenge, and everyone would be bitching that he lost the time out.
Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app
totally disagree. I've seen a hell of a lot less called a fumble.
His arm was hit, so no grounding was possible.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 511
- Reaction score
- 430
- Points
- 63
If his arm was hit it was a fumble. If his arm wasn't hit he was throwing it to a half of the field where literally no players were at.
so if a guy is throwing the ball and his arm is hit the ball still goes in the direction he intended it to? sorry it doesn't work that way. I am not sure his arm was going forward, but in a lot of cases that were clearly passes where the arm is hit, the ball goes off the hand wildly since the collision between the defensive player and the arm forces it to.
It didn't matter because if they ruled it a fumble, they threw a flag and were going to call Watt for roughing the passer, once they determined it was an incomplete pass they picked up the flag and said no foul.
If you watch the replay, he starts to throw the ball once he's being tackled by Watt. IMO, that could be a case for intentional grounding as that is a lot different than attempting to pass before being contacted.
Side note, that should go down as a sack for Watt.
Side note, that should go down as a sack for Watt.
I'm breaking down this play. It was a pass, not a fumble, but the Steelers still should have maintained possession. WHA?????
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 3,145
- Reaction score
- 3,969
- Points
- 113
You're correct, they picked up the flag. We don't know what they were going to call. And changing from a pass to a fumble or vice versa doesn't negate roughing the passer...EVER.
Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app
You want to know what it was? Well it wasn't a fumble, and it wan't an incompletion...
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nLiKa9F_ytk" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nLiKa9F_ytk" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Good analysis Stryker. Not the way I had thought but in no circumstances is that a pass. Mistake by the refs bigger one by coaches.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 3,145
- Reaction score
- 3,969
- Points
- 113
I take back my post. While I didn't take the direction of the "pass" into consideration, I was only looking at a hand "coming forward" and the way the league tends to lean on calls like that.
But your replay clearly shows its a lateral which negates whether it's a fumble or pass attempt all together.
Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app
The refs correctly saw the ball in possession moving forward, but failed to realize that that forward motion was a lateral motion. The ball hitting the ground and immediately rolling forward gave the optical effect of a forward pass. I was screaming for a review when it happened, but from the sideline, I can see how they missed this due to the optical effect.