Touch back ruling on fumble..

[Brandon]

Maybe I don't understand the rules like I thought I did. When the Atlanta player recovered the fumble at the one yard line in the field of play, he went on to intentionally without force roll back into the end zone and was for some reason awarded a touch back. Am I wrong in thinking that should have been a safety? I was under the impression touch backs are only awarded if momentum is carrying you into the end zone. He clearly rolled back on his own.

 

[Skerfalcon8710]

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/...nted-falcons-a-touchback-after-packers-fumble

 

[Poppa San]

I thought he was on the goal line as well at the time. Didn't know any part in the emd zone makes it a touchback.

 

[melvin dangerr]

Maybe I don't understand the rules like I thought I did. When the Atlanta player recovered the fumble at the one yard line in the field of play, he went on to intentionally without force roll back into the end zone and was for some reason awarded a touch back. Am I wrong in thinking that should have been a safety? I was under the impression touch backs are only awarded if momentum is carrying you into the end zone. He clearly rolled back on his own.

You know I am glad you brought that up, saw that, he rolled into the end zone in touched and it should of been a safety, not saying refs influenced game but saw some calls that were no calls and that one was missed

 

[sschind]

I don't see anything wrong with the ruling. If he didn't have possession prior to any part of his body touching the goal line it should be a touchback. No different than a punt coverage guy standing on the goal line while downing the ball at the 1 foot line. Now I understand that as Packer fans we clearly saw he had possession prior to touching the goal line but I can't help but wonder if we would have seen it the same way had it been a Packer defender making the same play.

 

[melvin dangerr]

I don't see anything wrong with the ruling. If he didn't have possession prior to any part of his body touching the goal line it should be a touchback. No different than a punt coverage guy standing on the goal line while downing the ball at the 1 foot line. Now I understand that as Packer fans we clearly saw he had possession prior to touching the goal line but I can't help but wonder if we would have seen it the same way had it been a Packer defender making the same play.

But he did get it and rolled in the Endzone untouched that's different than downing the ball on the spot he was still live when he possessed the ball then rolled in the end zone the ball should have been down at the 1 1/2 yard line not a touch back

 

[PackerFanLV]

yup i thought the same thing, ball should have been dead at the 1 or a saftey.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You know I am glad you brought that up, saw that, he rolled into the end zone in touched and it should of been a safety, not saying refs influenced game but saw some calls that were no calls and that one was missed

yup i thought the same thing, ball should have been dead at the 1 or a saftey.

You should read the article the Falcons fan linked to. The NFL ruled that Collins foot touched the end zone when he fully gained control of the ball. Therefore it is a touchback.

 

[InFamous]

You should read the article the Falcons fan linked to. The NFL ruled that Collins foot touched the end zone when he fully gained control of the ball. Therefore it is a touchback.

Well there are pictures floating around where it looks like the possession was gained before the endzone was touched by the leg. And personally, to me, in real time it looked like the roll into the endzone was intentionally and the possession was gained before touching the endzone. Replay was painting a different picture to be honest. So there wouldn't have been indisputable evidence anyways.

And no matter what, we lost fair and square to a better team. No doubt about it.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

This call would really be getting scrutinized today and probably more relevant to do so, had the final score been closer than a H.S. Basketball game blowout. Normally, I would say one play can change a game, but in this case, I'm keeping that gun in my holster.

 

[Ceodore]

don't disagree with the ruling i guess, but i was surprised it wasn't looked at/talked about a little more closely in the game. thought he was pretty close to having the ball sitting still and then chose to roll backwards into the endzone.

 

[PackerFanLV]

You should read the article the Falcons fan linked to. The NFL ruled that Collins foot touched the end zone when he fully gained control of the ball. Therefore it is a touchback.

I read the rule, but my eyes saw different and it looked like he intentionally rolled into the enzone to me. All said and done the falcons clearly was the better team yesterday on all phases of the game.

 

[sschind]

Like I said, I wonder how our eyes would have seen it if the roles had been reversed. Pretty much every fan has a tendency to see things his team's way when its a close play.

 

[mongoosev]

I think some would have questioned the call had it been the Packers doing the same thing. Only thing is we wouldn't shoot ourselves in the foot to bring it up in a conversation.

 

[melvin dangerr]

You should read the article the Falcons fan linked to. The NFL ruled that Collins foot touched the end zone when he fully gained control of the ball. Therefore it is a touchback.

Saw that was too long to post but another ref quoted it was recovered at the 1 yd line and his leg crossed the goal line after he had touched the ball at the 1yd line he was untouched and rolled into the endzone advancing the ball, the ball was not recovered on the line or endzone so the ref should have blown it dead at the 1yd line, I wished MM would have challenged and forced a ruling on the field but his flag was stuck in his back pocket..

 

[sschind]

I think some would have questioned the call had it been the Packers doing the same thing. Only thing is we wouldn't shoot ourselves in the foot to bring it up in a conversation.

Some would but not nearly as many as the way it is now.

 

[melvin dangerr]

I think some would have questioned the call had it been the Packers doing the same thing. Only thing is we wouldn't shoot ourselves in the foot to bring it up in a conversation.

Yes it has been times on these threads during the season that calls that have gone our way with a question mark has been replied we go away with one I have said it a few tomes but it's only fan tribalism to my team that I don't make much of it,if it's in our favor, I'm sure I'm not the only one if I am, ok it's me..

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Saw that was too long to post but another ref quoted it was recovered at the 1 yd line and his leg crossed the goal line after he had touched the ball at the 1yd line he was untouched and rolled into the endzone advancing the ball, the ball was not recovered on the line or endzone so the ref should have blown it dead at the 1yd line, I wished MM would have challenged and forced a ruling on the field but his flag was stuck in his back pocket..

McCarthy challenging that play would have resulted in a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for delay of game as it occurred on a turnover which are automatically reviewed by the league. The booth officials decided that Collins foot touched the end zone at the time he fully gained control of the ball therefore there´s nothing you can do about it.

 

[Claymaker]

The one play McCarthy should have challenged was the 3rd down conversion to Jones on 3rd and 6 on the first drive of the game. He was easily a 1/2 yard short of the marker. It wasn't even close. Fox didn't even mention it, they only cared to show if it was a catch or not.

Just a couple plays can change an entire game, no matter what the final score is. That play and the punt were 2 huge plays in the game. Had the Packers gotten Atlanta to punt on that first drive who knows what happens.

The fumble was the final nail in the coffin.