I know some of the Guys and Gals are fairly versed on the rules on our humble forum, so I was hoping someone could articulate to me how the down by contact to fumble overturn happened yesterday.

I know that there is a lot of disagreement on if it was a fumble or not, I for one think the ball was jarred loose initially but maintained possession with the receiver until the knee contacted the ground.

My problem is this:

1) It was rule down and it appeared that the whistle was blown prior to recovery.
2) I really didn’t see enough evidence to overturn the ruling, yes ther was a “clear” recovery, but like mention previous it appeared to occur after the whistle blew.
3) The jags were able to get to the line and snap the ball seemingly 2-3 seconds prior to them blowing the following play dead to review it.

How did this happen and what do the rule books say should happen? Just an odd series of events against the Jags and I don’t want to use the #becausejaguars or the refs screwed us excuse without understanding the rules a bit more.

Thank you for reading and any clearification!
Go Jags!

---

Ima be real with you.


Every interpretation I had about the rules in that situation, went out the window yesterday.

---

If you think I offended you, don't worry, I meant to. #facts 
  
#iamlegend

Ima be real with you.


Every interpretation I had about the rules in that situation, went out the window yesterday.

^^ This.  That is why the answer is #becausejaguars.  We tend to get fire hosed by this stuff constantly.  Honestly lets make believe the fumble didn't happen on that play, did you think we were going to win?  I didn't.

---

The Khan Years

Patience, Persistence, and Piss Poor General Managers.

Ima be real with you.


Every interpretation I had about the rules in that situation, went out the window yesterday.

^^ This.  That is why the answer is #becausejaguars.  We tend to get fire hosed by this stuff constantly.  Honestly lets make believe the fumble didn't happen on that play, did you think we were going to win?  I didn't.

I believe we were headed for a TD on that drive.  And, yes, I believe if we had scored a TD there we would have won.

---

Ima be real with you.


Every interpretation I had about the rules in that situation, went out the window yesterday.

^^ This.  That is why the answer is #becausejaguars.  We tend to get fire hosed by this stuff constantly.  Honestly lets make believe the fumble didn't happen on that play, did you think we were going to win?  I didn't.

I agree with the underlined.

The Other is just negativity. Unless you have a crystal ball or can see the future, you cant make that assumption.

---

If you think I offended you, don't worry, I meant to. #facts 
  
#iamlegend

Thanks for the replies, yeah I felt like it was a hose job. I wasn’t sure about the rules but that game and the call had me hot as hell. I don’t ever recall anything like that happening before, but oh well. I guess the cool thing about the jags is the 1000 and 1 ways to lose a game.

---

The NFL is definitely rigged to a degree. I know that sounds crack pot but it's true. Just think about it this way the line in Vegas yesterday was colts by 3. What was the final score of the game?

NBA already got busted for having Refs fix games. Would it really be that surprising to find out a few NFL refs fix em too? Not like these guys are getting paid millions.

---

The NFL is definitely rigged to a degree. I know that sounds crack pot but it's true. Just think about it this way the line in Vegas yesterday was colts by 3. What was the final score of the game?

NBA already got busted for having Refs fix games. Would it really be that surprising to find out a few NFL refs fix em too? Not like these guys are getting paid millions.

I've been sayin this for a while but of course im in the minority.

---

If you think I offended you, don't worry, I meant to. #facts 
  
#iamlegend

1: It was blown down but it was clear that had that not occurred the clots would have recovered. We've had calls like this go our way in the past
2: Judgement call. I thought he was down for the same reason as you.
3: The review was buzzed to the refs before the ball was snapped but they blew the whistle after the snap. The point of reference for a call to review is when the flag is thrown or when the buzzer goes off, not when the whistle is blown. This happens practically every week in the NFL to the point where commentators even mention the fact the offense was trying to snap the ball before the call was made.

---

1: It was blown down but it was clear that had that not occurred the clots would have recovered. We've had calls like this go our way in the past
2: Judgement call. I thought he was down for the same reason as you.
3: The review was buzzed to the refs before the ball was snapped but they blew the whistle after the snap. The point of reference for a call to review is when the flag is thrown or when the buzzer goes off, not when the whistle is blown. This happens practically every week in the NFL to the point where commentators even mention the fact the offense was trying to snap the ball before the call was made.

1. I can’t disagree here

2. Same

3. The coach and ref can communicate the intent to challenge it, but if the play isn’t stopped beforehand then it’s irrelevant. I’d be more understanding if the ref was in the middle of stopping the play. Instead, a couple seconds passed in the new play. It was well beyond the point of challenging.

---

3: The review was buzzed to the refs before the ball was snapped but they blew the whistle after the snap. The point of reference for a call to review is when the flag is thrown or when the buzzer goes off, not when the whistle is blown. This happens practically every week in the NFL to the point where commentators even mention the fact the offense was trying to snap the ball before the call was made.

This goes all of the way back to our infamous bottle-throwing game against the Browns in 2001. Quincy Morgon clearly dropped the ball on a 4th and 2 play, but it was intially ruled a catch. The Browns ran another play in which Tim Couch faked a spike, then actually spiked it. While discussing that, the refs learned that the booth was trying to stop that play so they could review the Morgan "catch", but the communication failed for some reason. So, they did review the first play, correctly reversed the call, which meant the Jags won. Then the bottles started to sail because the fans thought the same thing that once the ball is snapped, there can be no review.

---

Ima be real with you.


Every interpretation I had about the rules in that situation, went out the window yesterday.

^^ This.  That is why the answer is #becausejaguars.  We tend to get fire hosed by this stuff constantly.  Honestly lets make believe the fumble didn't happen on that play, did you think we were going to win?  I didn't.

Win?  Probably not on that drive.  But, tie?  Absolutely, and the way the defense stepped up in the 2nd half, Indy's offense wasn't a given to get in FG range in OT, let alone hang 7.

I have to agree with the others who said the rules pretty much got tossed yesterday.  Possession was in the eyes of the beholder, and NY said it was a fumble despite evidence to the contrary.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

The NFL Official Interpretation for that play from the Official Handbook, Page 7, Subsection 3, Paragraph 1: "[BLEEP] Jacksonville."

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

^^ This.  That is why the answer is #becausejaguars.  We tend to get fire hosed by this stuff constantly.  Honestly lets make believe the fumble didn't happen on that play, did you think we were going to win?  I didn't.

Win?  Probably not on that drive.  But, tie?  Absolutely, and the way the defense stepped up in the 2nd half, Indy's offense wasn't a given to get in FG range in OT, let alone hang 7.

I have to agree with the others who said the rules pretty much got tossed yesterday.  Possession was in the eyes of the beholder, and NY said it was a fumble despite evidence to the contrary.

Even if it was a fumble I'm just hung up on the irrefutable evidence part.

Like... they had to super slow mo it just to come to the conclusion that he MAY have maybe fumbled before being down.

Isn't that by definition a call that should "stand"?
Stupid refs.

---

Whistle blew before the recovery happened, play should have been dead even if it was a fumble.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

---

It's amazing to think how many lost fumbles we've gotten because the refs claimed to of blown the play dead or forward progress stopped

---

Here we go again

3: The review was buzzed to the refs before the ball was snapped but they blew the whistle after the snap. The point of reference for a call to review is when the flag is thrown or when the buzzer goes off, not when the whistle is blown. This happens practically every week in the NFL to the point where commentators even mention the fact the offense was trying to snap the ball before the call was made.

This goes all of the way back to our infamous bottle-throwing game against the Browns in 2001. Quincy Morgon clearly dropped the ball on a 4th and 2 play, but it was intially ruled a catch. The Browns ran another play in which Tim Couch faked a spike, then actually spiked it. While discussing that, the refs learned that the booth was trying to stop that play so they could review the Morgan "catch", but the communication failed for some reason. So, they did review the first play, correctly reversed the call, which meant the Jags won. Then the bottles started to sail because the fans thought the same thing that once the ball is snapped, there can be no review.

If there's one fanbase in the NFL who should know about this rule (other than the Browns of course) it's the Jaguars. But people on here love their little persecution complex.

---

Initially, I thought we got saved by the quick whistle only to realize if the ball is picked up immediately after the whistle it gets awarded to the recovering team -- that was news to me.

Additionally, since the replay was so close (either way), I thought there had to be clear evidence the ball was out to overturn. We got screwed. Now our franchise is in disarray.

---

This goes all of the way back to our infamous bottle-throwing game against the Browns in 2001. Quincy Morgon clearly dropped the ball on a 4th and 2 play, but it was intially ruled a catch. The Browns ran another play in which Tim Couch faked a spike, then actually spiked it. While discussing that, the refs learned that the booth was trying to stop that play so they could review the Morgan "catch", but the communication failed for some reason. So, they did review the first play, correctly reversed the call, which meant the Jags won. Then the bottles started to sail because the fans thought the same thing that once the ball is snapped, there can be no review.

If there's one fanbase in the NFL who should know about this rule (other than the Browns of course) it's the Jaguars. But people on here love their little persecution complex.

Yeah the game where they incite a fan riot, call the game early and then the NFL forced them to march out half dressed players 30 minutes later to come out to take one more snap to officially "finish" the game... that's definitely a model the NFL should live by.

---

If there's one fanbase in the NFL who should know about this rule (other than the Browns of course) it's the Jaguars. But people on here love their little persecution complex.

Yeah the game where they incite a fan riot, call the game early and then the NFL forced them to march out half dressed players 30 minutes later to come out to take one more snap to officially "finish" the game... that's definitely a model the NFL should live by.

The fan behavior and subsequent actions are irrelevant. What matters is if the attempt to challenge or review is made before the ball is snapped. There have been times where a coach's challenge flag is noticed too late. Should the challenging team be penalized for the refs' inattentiveness?

---