The McFadden non-catch

[HawkGA]

I knew it was getting overturned the second I saw it on Jerry's giant tv. He never secured that ball. KJ Wright was about to bend him like a taco and he knew it.

I called it a non-fumble in real time, you have to complete the football move and the ball came out mid-move.

Also, on replay you can see the ball shifting significantly as he initially transfers the ball.

The best I could argue is that it was a 50-50 call. Whereas the Luke Willson TD was clearly short (which I also called in real time). Overall I thought the refs helped Seattle more than they hurt them in this game.

His butt muscles? Really?

My brother and I were laughing hysterically about how millions of people were forced to watch Luke Willson's butt in slow-mo.

If he never attempts to tuck it in but just holds it in his two hands, gets hit and loses the ball, is it a fumble? What if he never attempts to tuck it in but just drops it b/c he craps himself in fear? Is it a fumble then?

I don't keep up with the rules as much as I used to, but if that honestly, truly, isn't a catch and a fumble per league rules, those rules need to seriously be examined. I know they put a lot of thought into it this offseason with the Dez situation, but sounds like they might have screwed it up more.

 

[TorontoHawk]

I argue with the rule itself. Who are we kidding, that's a catch and fumbe? However, the process of the catch was never completed, and therefore the referees got this correct. Take issue with the rule itself all you want, but the interpretation of the rule as it exists was correct.

If this had been Marshawn Lynch, and the call had been ruled a fumble, what would this place be like?[/quote

I agree, if this was Marshawn and they called it this board thread would be 10 pages with all sorts of post saying it was not a fumble but a incomplete pass and how the refs hate the Seahawks and Dallas gets all the calls crap.

 

[HawkGA]

I'll say that I think if the hit that knocked Lockette out had been the other way around, people on this board wouldn't have had a problem with it (neither would Bennett). But I don't think that is the case with the (non) fumble. Posters might be ticked at the Beast for being careless, but I don't think anybody would have been pointing to a technicality of it not being a catch. Okay, maybe *anybody* is a strong word. But I don't think it would have been a big deal. It'd be like a Patriots fan knowing to call out the Tuck Rule if the Refs hadn't brought up the Tuck Rule.

 

[nanomoz]

I'll say that I think if the hit that knocked Lockette out had been the other way around, people on this board wouldn't have had a problem with it (neither would Bennett). But I don't think that is the case with the (non) fumble. Posters might be ticked at the Beast for being careless, but I don't think anybody would have been pointing to a technicality of it not being a catch. Okay, maybe *anybody* is a strong word. But I don't think it would have been a big deal. It'd be like a Patriots fan knowing to call out the Tuck Rule if the Refs hadn't brought up the Tuck Rule.

The Lockette hit looked clean to me. Did people in the GD forum wig out?

 

[Largent80]

The refs in this game were atrocious vs. the Hawks. I almost had an aynurism at the game.

 

[Rat]

Everyone, including the refs, know that was a fumble. However, that kind of play is nearly always called that way, as the league has a warped view of what is considered possession, so I didn't get upset about it.

 

[Sealake80]

IMO he absolutely controlled the ball and made 2 football moves. 1. He turned up field and took multiple steps. 2. He tried to shift it to the other arm.

There was certainly not enough to over turn the call on the field.

The refs are TOTAL BS every game. The NFL conspiracy theorists are probably more right than your cognitive dissonance will allow you to consider. Good luck.

 

[IndyHawk]

It was a catch,he turns upfield and switches ball on his 3rd step.FUMBLE!!! I have seen a thousand to know better

 

[RichNhansom]

I suspect some here are projecting what they think the officials will call based on past history. I don't blame them, I said at the time it should be a fumble but knowing the officiating standards you can't say for sure.

When I watch it in regular and slow motion it appears he has caught the ball with both hands. It never bobbles or shifts. There is no question he took at least two full steps before he tried to shift the ball. I thought that was a football move and solidified the catch. No different than if he were switching hands after 10 steps.

I also disagree with those that want to blame rose colored glasses or say I would see it different if it were the other way around. I did call out the Willson TD as many others have.

I don't like winning on technicalities as much as I don't like losing by them. If I see a bad call I will call it no matter who it benefits.

 

[Hawkpower]

I argue with the rule itself. Who are we kidding, that's a catch and fumbe? However, the process of the catch was never completed, and therefore the referees got this correct. Take issue with the rule itself all you want, but the interpretation of the rule as it exists was correct.

If this had been Marshawn Lynch, and the call had been ruled a fumble, what would this place be like?[/quote

I agree, if this was Marshawn and they called it this board thread would be 10 pages with all sorts of post saying it was not a fumble but a incomplete pass and how the refs hate the Seahawks and Dallas gets all the calls crap.

Some would, no doubt, but by in large I disagree. Plenty of people here agreed that Wilson was probably short of the goal line later in the game.

Hawk fans are angry because the call was wrongly overturned, and they are justified in feeling so. Don't start throwing all hawk fans under the bus just because you disagree with the overwhelming majority.

 

[ihawk]

1) I would gladly have had Willson's TD overturned in exchange for not overturning the fumble.

2) It was amusing watching Dallas fans wearing "Dez caught it" t-shirts cheer their heads off when McFadden's fumble call was overturned.

3) does securing the ball mean you've tucked it? because he clearly held it securely with 2 hands before fumbling it in the act of trying to tuck it. he just waited 2 1/2 steps before trying to tuck it. he catches the ball and his arm swings carry it to the right and then back to the left as he looks and turns up field. he drops the ball as he tries to tuck it, not as he tries to catch it.

 

[formido]

Making a football move is no longer a rule, so much of the foregoing discussion is moot.

For those claiming this is obviously a fumble, I'd love a technical explanation under the rules for why Tavon Austin's catch and fumble counted as a fumble yesterday:

https://screen.yahoo.com/rams-tavon-aus ... 00457.html

What was the material difference between the plays that constituted possession and a fumble?

McFadden would have been a fumble when I was a kid and you can read the rule for yourself to see that it should have been a fumble today. The "football move" stuff was replaced by a bunch of "going to the ground" stuff which is totally irrelevant to this case. This case is actually ridiculously simple under the rule and follows your intuition.

This is the beginning of Rule 8-1-3:

"ARTICLE 3. COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS
A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:

secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has clearly become a runner (see 3-2-7 Item 2)."

You can read the rest by scrolling to Article 3 from this link to Rule 9, Section 1 - Forward Pass:

http://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/201 ... rward-pass

McFadden was a runner under any definition I can imagine. He ran for two steps before he lost the ball when he tried to tuck it. Pretending that you must tuck the ball to be a runner is obvious nonsense so I doubt anyone will make that claim. There was a close slow-motion shot right on his hands, and McFadden didn't bobble the ball in the slightest before he tucked it. This was a clear fumble under the rules.

 

[The Outfield]

If you've secured the ball enough to be able to attempt to transfer it to your other hand, it should be considered a catch. Let alone if you make multiple steps with the ball in your hand. I don't get what they were thinking.

 

[sc85sis]

Fumble. He catches it in his hands, takes two steps, turns his head and sees KJ and then fumbles. He had full control of it for those first two steps--it wasn't until he tried to tuck it to avoid KJ that it went flying out of his hands.

 

[grizbob]

All I know is if that had been a Seahawk it would have been a fumble. Cynicism is my middle name. :-(

 

[253hawk]

It was one of many poor calls by that crew as it appeared they were trying to keep the game close.

Anyone who believes this is not living on the reality plane. Why are they so interested in this game being close yet they let us blowout the Broncos in the Superbowl?

As if the penalty disparity last season wasn't bad enough -- through 8 weeks, Seahawks opponents have been called for 0 defensive pass interference, defensive holding, and illegal contact penalties. The odds of that happening has to be astronomical.

 

[scutterhawk]

The refs on the field looking right at it disagree with you

That's funny :roll: "Looking Right At It"?, It Wasn't Until The Review That It was OVERTURNED, so, nice try eh?
The Cowboys were given the benefit of the doubt......But in real life?, it was a catch & fumble.
IF it would have been a Seahawk made that exact same "Football Move", and fumble, you can bet your ass it would have been the Cowboys ball :141847_bnono:

 

[scutterhawk]

I knew it was getting overturned the second I saw it on Jerry's giant tv. He never secured that ball. KJ Wright was about to bend him like a taco and he knew it.

I called it a non-fumble in real time, you have to complete the football move and the ball came out mid-move.

Also, on replay you can see the ball shifting significantly as he initially transfers the ball.

The best I could argue is that it was a 50-50 call. Whereas the Luke Willson TD was clearly short (which I also called in real time). Overall I thought the refs helped Seattle more than they hurt them in this game.

His butt muscles? Really?

My brother and I were laughing hysterically about how millions of people were forced to watch Luke Willson's butt in slow-mo.

I see that as even more of an issue then....How many steps does a player have to make before it's considered a "Football Move" then? 3?, 4? maybe 5? is it that open to interpretation?
He took 2 full steps with the ball secured in his hands, and THEN mishandles it when attempting to transfer it to the crook of his Left arm.
Receivers have scored TD's with less evidence, and there's one posted back up the hill aways, SHOWING one as a TD against the Seahawks.

 

[twisted_steel2]

Reading through this thread.... :34853_doh:

All I can say is the NFL and it's crazy constantly changing rules about a catch, and vague interpretations, and various conflicting opinions on what something is, like a "football move", has rubbed off on all of you!

They have you hook line and sinker if you are buying that wasn't a fumble.

Using the old fashion simple eye ball test, that was a fumble. He caught it, then he dropped it. Don't lawyer it all up and make it so confusing with a 100 variables when you don't have to. It was a catch, he ran with it, then he fumbled it.

It's not hard. :th2thumbs:

 

[scutterhawk]

Reading through this thread.... :34853_doh:

All I can say is the NFL and it's crazy constantly changing rules about a catch, and vague interpretations, and various conflicting opinions on what something is, like a "football move", has rubbed off on all of you!

They have you hook line and sinker if you are buying that wasn't a fumble.

Using the old fashion simple eye ball test, that was a fumble. He caught it, then he dropped it. Don't lawyer it all up and make it so confusing with a 100 variables when you don't have to. It was a catch, he ran with it, then he fumbled it.

It's not hard. :th2thumbs:

OPEN..................................................SHUT. :th2thumbs: