Why Lacy's second cough up wasn't a fumble.

[PackwillBEback]

So, obviously (once again) many fans have no idea what is going on. Lions fans are crying foul. Even though Mike Pereira correctly analyzed the call:

Mike Pereira ‏@MikePereira Dec 28
Right call in #DETvsGB -- The contact makes Lacy automatically down.

So, to educate people a bit, this is WHY Lacy did not fumble the ball and the correct call was made, so you can show the crying Lions fans that refuse to acknowledge objectiveness some factual, opinionated information.

Per the NFL rulebook:

Rule 7, Section 2, Article 1-f: "An official shall declare the ball dead and the down ended: when an opponent takes a ball that is in the possession of a runner who is on the ground."

and the Casebook example in Article 7.30:
"First-and-10 on A40. A2 and B3 collide in air at the B30 as both legally go for a pass. They fall to the ground without the ball, and then A2 catches the ball while lying on the ground. After a momentary pause, B3 reaches over and takes the ball from A2.
Ruling: A’s ball, first-and-10 on B30. An opponent cannot take the ball away from a player in possession while he is down on the ground. (7-2-1-f)"

Absolutely clear cut, the letter of the rule backed by a thorough example in the NFL's casebook demonstrates why Walt Anderson got the call right. He knows the rulebook, he knows the casebook and he knows how to apply it. That is why he officiated Super Bowl XLV, and some ignorant, fat Lions fan cries.

 

[El Guapo]

The basic rule is that when a player with possession of the ball is in contact with the ground (i.e. knee, elbow, body), the player is down and the play is dead once he is contacted by an opponent. That's why you usually see a fallen offensive player "tapped" by the defense because that's all it takes to essentially make the tackle. The moment the opponent touches you the play is dead. He was down by contact before the ball was even touched.

 

[Narveson]

Yep, the microsecond the defenders body touches the offensive player while he's on the ground, he's down by contact.

 

[Jdeed]

He would have had to touch the ball only and then they might have had something.

The Offense player was still gaining yards not stopped laying on the ground.

When you are making a football move to advance the ball and the ball gets knocked out by hitting the ball only it doesnt matter what part of your body is touching. The refs said as much during the timeout to Caldwell. Had the Defender only touched the ball they might have ruled in the Lions favor. But because he touched the player first is was ruled down.

 

[Ceodore]

Yeah this was pretty cut and dry for me when i saw it live.

 

[ivo610]

Down by contact ... Pretty self explanatory

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

They should apply that logic to some of the receiving touchdown rules...

 

[PackwillBEback]

They should apply that logic to some of the receiving touchdown rules...

That has to do with the process of a catch though, separate concept.

 

[Poppa San]

That has to do with the process of a catch though, separate concept.

So change the rules that define the process of a catch so that it passes the eye test.

 

[JK64]

It was a good call. Did the refs blow the whistle right away? When the Lions took off with the ball, I was saying that Lacy was down, how can the refs let the Lions advance the ball. Good thing no one got hurt on that play.

 

[adambr2]

So change the rules that define the process of a catch so that it passes the eye test.

How would you word it? Just honestly asking.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

It was a good call. Did the refs blow the whistle right away? When the Lions took off with the ball, I was saying that Lacy was down, how can the refs let the Lions advance the ball. Good thing no one got hurt on that play.

The refs are taught to let the play run it's course if there is any doubt as turnovers are automatically reviewed. If they blow the whistle too early then the play is dead, but if they don't blow the whistle they can always reverse the call after review.

I am also curious as to the wording of the rule, saying that the defense can not take the ball from a player in contact with the ground. So what happens in the case where a receiver makes a great diving catch and then while lying on his back holds the ball up for the refs to see he has the ball and then a defender snatches the ball out of his hands - without touching him. According to the letter of the rule, the play should be called dead since the player is on the ground. But if the defender hasn't touched him, then technically he isn't down yet, so would they let that play stand as a turnover or would they call the play dead according to the rule? To me, it should be a turnover, but the rule isn't stated that way.

 

[adambr2]

The refs are taught to let the play run it's course if there is any doubt as turnovers are automatically reviewed. If they blow the whistle too early then the play is dead, but if they don't blow the whistle they can always reverse the call after review.

I am also curious as to the wording of the rule, saying that the defense can not take the ball from a player in contact with the ground. So what happens in the case where a receiver makes a great diving catch and then while lying on his back holds the ball up for the refs to see he has the ball and then a defender snatches the ball out of his hands - without touching him. According to the letter of the rule, the play should be called dead since the player is on the ground. But if the defender hasn't touched him, then technically he isn't down yet, so would they let that play stand as a turnover or would they call the play dead according to the rule? To me, it should be a turnover, but the rule isn't stated that way.

If you can touch the ball without touching the body while the receiver is on the ground, it is a fumble. Nothing in the rules would call the runner down in that case.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

If you can touch the ball without touching the body while the receiver is on the ground, it is a fumble. Nothing in the rules would call the runner down in that case.

I assume that is just your opinion. Did you read the rule? The rule states that play is dead (runner is down) in that case. Here it is again: Rule 7, Section 2, Article 1-f: "An official shall declare the ball dead and the down ended: when an opponent takes a ball that is in the possession of a runner who is on the ground."

It specifically says the play is dead when an opponent takes a ball that is in the possession of a runner who is on the ground. It doesn't say that the player has to be touched first. So going by the letter of the rule, the play is dead the way I read it. I do agree that it should be a fumble, but again, that's not the way the rule is written.

 

[adambr2]

I assume that is just your opinion. Did you read the rule? The rule states that play is dead (runner is down) in that case. Here it is again: Rule 7, Section 2, Article 1-f: "An official shall declare the ball dead and the down ended: when an opponent takes a ball that is in the possession of a runner who is on the ground."

It specifically says the play is dead when an opponent takes a ball that is in the possession of a runner who is on the ground. It doesn't say that the player has to be touched first. So going by the letter of the rule, the play is dead the way I read it. I do agree that it should be a fumble, but again, that's not the way the rule is written.

http://espn.go.com/blog/detroit-lio...lains-why-he-challenged-eddie-lacy-non-fumble

According to the explanation they gave Caldwell, Detroit would have been given the ball if they had contacted the ball first without Lacy himself being contacted. So either their explanation was in error or the rule is poorly worded.

There is some room for interpretation there. If they slapped the ball out while the player was down, without touching the player, and it became loose, is it a live ball? Since they didn't "take" it, they just knocked it out.

Either way it's something that the rules committee should look at in the offseason and address.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

http://espn.go.com/blog/detroit-lio...lains-why-he-challenged-eddie-lacy-non-fumble

According to the explanation they gave Caldwell, Detroit would have been given the ball if they had contacted the ball first without Lacy himself being contacted. So either their explanation was in error or the rule is poorly worded.

There is some room for interpretation there. If they slapped the ball out while the player was down, without touching the player, and it became loose, is it a live ball? Since they didn't "take" it, they just knocked it out.

Either way it's something that the rules committee should look at in the offseason and address.

If that is the case, then the rule is worded poorly and should be rewritten and the reason I brought the issue up. Hopefully they will address it in the offseason.

 

[Mondio]

http://espn.go.com/blog/detroit-lio...lains-why-he-challenged-eddie-lacy-non-fumble

According to the explanation they gave Caldwell, Detroit would have been given the ball if they had contacted the ball first without Lacy himself being contacted. So either their explanation was in error or the rule is poorly worded.

There is some room for interpretation there. If they slapped the ball out while the player was down, without touching the player, and it became loose, is it a live ball? Since they didn't "take" it, they just knocked it out.

Either way it's something that the rules committee should look at in the offseason and address.

That's Caldwell's interpretation of the explanation though, he also believed Raiola stomped on a guy by accident and that Suh's feet were cold and numb and had no idea he stepped on the guy not once, but twice and had no clue he was standing on him. So take his words for what they're worth.

That may very well be the rule, but I wouldn't believe anything coming out of his mouth at this point. Shame a guy can go from a respected coach to a joke just by joining the Lions.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

There is some room for interpretation there. If they slapped the ball out while the player was down, without touching the player, and it became loose, is it a live ball? Since they didn't "take" it, they just knocked it out.

One of the definitions of 'take' is: to remove or cause to be absent. So no, I don't think there is room for interpretation. If the ball is removed from a player, it is considered taken.

 

[adambr2]

One of the definitions of 'take' is: to remove or cause to be absent. So no, I don't think there is room for interpretation. If the ball is removed from a player, it is considered taken.

I'm not sure where you found that definition, I couldn't online. To me, if you hit a ball loose from a player who is holding it up, and it's bouncing around on the ground free, you haven't "taken" it from him at that point. I'd also question then why the officials told Caldwell that it would have been a fumble had just the ball been touched.

Either way, it's a rule that needs to be more clearly defined or re-written and I would guess that they will in the offseason.

 

[JK64]

The ball must be considered as an extension of the player. The way I interpret the rule is, when the player is down and the ball or the player is touched the ball is dead and the player is down by contact.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

The ball must be considered as an extension of the player. The way I interpret the rule is, when the player is down and the ball or the player is touched the ball is dead and the player is down by contact.

That is what I was thinking - that the ball would be considered an extension of the player, but it's not clear if that is the intention.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

I'm not sure where you found that definition, I couldn't online.

I found the definition here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/takes (definition #2)