LOL yeah his explanation was that "The ball started to come lose from his arm, then the knee hit the ground, but Peterson still had a firm grip with his hand. Vikings ball."
I think it should have been a fumble, but it did appear that AP really did have a grip on the point of the ball, which I didn't notice until the ref said that.
Originally posted by Lord Evolution
Especially Ed Horrible. He blew yet another game changing call. What was worse than the actual call to not reverse the Peterson fumble was the explanation. The dude is only popular because of his guns. He is an awful ref and clearly doesn't know the rules. Anyone in their right mind would have called that a fumble, especially with multiple replay views. This guy needs to apologize to the entire Saints fan base, like he did with the Chargers. ****in idiot."He fumbled, then his knee hit the ground, however, I do not want to change my call, so....Vikings ball!"
Actually the problem is generally the rules not the refs not knowing the rules and he has been in the past one of the highest graded refs in the NFL. The AD fumble was not clear at all not even close. So demanding an apology for it is retarded. Just as a random guess I would say there were easily 15 worse calls this week than that.
Originally posted by forumcrew
Actually the problem is generally the rules not the refs not knowing the rules and he has been in the past one of the highest graded refs in the NFL. The AD fumble was not clear at all not even close. So demanding an apology for it is retarded. Just as a random guess I would say there were easily 15 worse calls this week than that.
Just a random guess.... 😆
GTFO of here.
The ball clearly came out, at no point did Peterson regain possession before his knee hit the ground. His hand was on the ball, after the initial fumble, but it came out again not a millisecond later. The point is, he didn't regain possession, everyone except Ed Horrible knew the rule. I think you need bigger glasses, that was one of the most blatant fumbles I have ever seen.
If Peterson had possession of the ball when his knee hit the ground on that play, then there would be a lot more fumbles because every game where a receiver catches the ball but has it knocked out before he truly has possession, it would be ruled a fumbled.
You and Ed Horrible need bigger glasses.
Originally posted by forumcrew
the rules for WR's having possession to be ruled a catch vs the rules for a RB being down or fumbling are entirely different. All you are doing is proving you do not know the rules.
No it's not. Possession is possession no matter what position you are playing. And holding onto the ball slightly for one second, is not possession, doesn't matter if it's a running back, receiver or corner back.
Originally posted by Lord Evolution
No it's not. Possession is possession no matter what position you are playing. And holding onto the ball slightly for one second, is not possession, doesn't matter if it's a running back, receiver or corner back.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
.....It's different. If you're a receiver and bobble the ball, you don't have possession. If you're a RB and bobble the ball, it's still live.
That is exactly my point. Peterson was a runner, he fumbled the ball, did not have possession when his knee hit the ground, therefore, that is a fumble, but it was ruled that he was down, because he had his hand on the ball. If a receiver catches a pass, but only has it for a second before it's knocked out, it is ruled an incomplete pass. Catch my drift? It's ruled an incomplete pass because the receiver does not have possession, if he did, then when the ball is knocked out, it would be ruled a fumble. Peterson had possession, had the ball knocked out before his knee hit the ground, but he put his hand on the ball for a second right before his knee hit the ground. Here is where Ed Horrible doesn't know the rules. Even though Peterson had his hand on the ball, he does not have possession of it. This is what I'm talking about when I say possession is possession, no matter the position. If you know what qualifies as possession in the NFL, then you would know that Peterson did not have possession of the ball when his knee hit the ground. Horrible just blew the call, because if that qualifies as possession, then like I said, there would be a hell of a lot more fumbles when receivers catch the ball to only have it knocked out a second later.
Originally posted by DanZeke25
And the ground cannot force a fumble, so [B]if the ref believes that Peterson had enough of a grip on the ball, then it was not a fumble because the ground caused him to lose total possession of the ball. [/B]
Here is where Horrible blew the call. I agree, if Peterson had possession, then his knee hit the ground, "the ground cannot cause the fumble" rule wouldn't even come into play, since his knee hit, the play is dead anyway. But having the ball, after a fumble, for a second is not possession. You have to do more than just grip the ball and lose it then very next second to have possession. The ground didn't cause the fumble, the ball was fumbled when it was knocked out, I believe from behind, and possession wasn't gained until the Saints player picked it up and started running the other way.