I am specifically talking about the review. During the review, he must be able to see indisputable visual evidence a Browns player recovered the football.

---

The issue isn't the review its the stupid ref making the call while uncovering two players fighting over a ball they don't have.

---

I agree with the call. That said, the Browns are going to be very good in a few years if they stay patient.


They lead the league in rushing- that speaks to good coaching.


They found cast offs from other teams that have been able to contribute (Calhoun from us even)- that speaks to good management.


They put those cast offs in position to make plays- that speaks to good coaching.


They are trying to pile up picks to bring in players they consider targets to add to their culture/scheme- that speaks to good management.


They have been competitive in every game despite injuries/lack of talent and the obvious 0-4. They're playing hard.- that speaks to good coaching.

---

I don't think anyone ever doubted Hue Jackson is a good coach. There are always more than two problems in Cleveland, but the quarterback injuries and division strength stand out. Next week they will get their fifth loss at the hands of good old Tom Brady.

---

No they didn't. The tuck rule was already in existence or it would not have been called. That was made very clear in the controversy that ensued. Eleven years later, the NFL voted to delete it from the rulebook. I have no idea how somebody can assume the rule was invented in less than two minutes by the same man who originally ruled it a fumble. Boomer Esiason said this about it: "Good call, bad rule."

 

The NFL admits officiating errors more often than you think. The illegal bat in Detroit was one of them. So were Ed Hochuli's famous error in Denver, the false start non-call in Baltimore, a whistle-blowing incident at New England, multiple clock running errors, and (before Mike Periera retired) the Browns getting four timeouts in the second half.

 

They only time the "tuck rule" was ever used was to excuse the bad call by the officials.

 

It was clearly a fumble.  What the "tuck rule" described didn't fit what happened on the play at all.

 

As a result, they got rid of it so it wouldn't be misused again.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

They only time the "tuck rule" was ever used was to excuse the bad call by the officials.

 

It was clearly a fumble.  What the "tuck rule" described didn't fit what happened on the play at all.

 

As a result, they got rid of it so it wouldn't be misused again.

 

Wrong. That was the only time a "tuck rule" play created a nationwide controversy. It is impossible to make up a rule when your head is behind two black curtains.

---

/thread

---

Have you seen my baseball?

Wrong. That was the only time a "tuck rule" play created a nationwide controversy. It is impossible to make up a rule when your head is behind two black curtains.

 

Nope.

 

They used the rule in an incorrect way.  It did not apply to what happened, but they applied it anyway.

 

Have you ever been wrong?  Asking for a friend.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Nope.

 

They used the rule in an incorrect way.  It did not apply to what happened, but they applied it anyway.

 

Have you ever been wrong?  Asking for a friend.

 

I read a lot about tuck rule and in fact it was written in the NFL rulebook. The actual text of the rule itself was published in the aftermath of the controversy. It may have been applied incorrectly but to say it wasn't already in existence before the game makes absolutely no sense.

---