First of all, let me say that I was rooting for Carolina yesterday; I had a bet on Carolina yesterday, so don't think that this is sour grapes in any way.

"The ground cannot cause a fumble" rule makes no sense. Look at the play in the 4th quarter yesterday. Carolina receiver Steven Smith is hit and the ball pops loose and is recovered by the Eagles.

But wait. The play is reviewed, and it just so happens that the replay shows that his knee touched the ground a milli-seceond before the ball popped out. So the ruling is "no fumble".

Clearly, on this play, it was the hit that caused the fumble, not his knee touching the ground.

It is the job of the receiver or running back to hold onto the ball. Period. A fumble should be a fumble, even if he hits the ground first.

More times than not; when a ball carrier hits the ground and then fumbles, the ground is the cause. There may be exceptions, but you have to stay true to a rule no matter what. The refferee cant say, "The player's knee hit the ground prior to the ball coming lose. However, it is my opinion that the hit made simultaneousely might also have been the factor. Thereforer, it is a fumble."

I dont think thats gonna happen.

I agree. There should be consistency.

The consistency should be, if the guy fumbles, he fumbles. As I said, his job is to hold onto the ball. If he fumbles when he hits the ground, the tackle had to contribute at least to some degree to the fumble.

He fumbled. Whether the ground caused it or no, he fumbled.

BTW, I don't know when this rule was put into effect, but I can tell you that when I first started watching football (the first game I can remember watching was the 1960 NFL title game between Green Bay and Philly) up until (it seems) fairly recently, that's the way it was.

A fumble was a fumble.

I will admit you have a point, but the NFL has more rules that they need to tweek before they get to that one. And at the pace they are going, they might not get to fumbling until the year 2114

I can picture Vince Lombardi talking to Jim Taylor: "Don't worry about it - the ground caused the fumble". It would be more like: "Hang on to the damn ball or I'll find someone that can".

If you lose possession of the ball, you fumbled!

The same thing happened in the Colts/Pats game. Towards the end, Brady found no players open and decided to run... A Colts player knocked him, he bounced to the ground and he fumbled. His knee touched the ground first, and the ruling was he was a down. WTF? The Colts could have made a comeback during that time [could have, not guaranteed seeing as how it was still in a snow storm] but the dumb rule restricted it from happening. It's a horrid rule... Your job is to hold on to the damn ball.

But if the guy's knee is down, then he's down and the play is over. There is no fumble if it happens after the play ends. The time that the "ground cannot cause a fumble" rule comes into play is if the ballcarriers arm or the ball is the first thing to hit the ground and then it pops out. The player has not been downed, but the fumble was caused by the ground.

I think that DC has the best argument here. How can a player fumble once he is down and the play is over?

That's the point, if you're completely on the floor, great... Play's done. But if you're basically still in the air and your knee taps the ground... It's still your job not to lose the ball. Yeah, it's a rule, but it sometimes just gets really silly and dumb.

That'snot what happened to Smith in the Carolina game yesterday. His knee was the first thing to hit the ground.

That'snot what happened to Smith in the Carolina game yesterday. His knee was the first thing to hit the ground.

That'snot what happened to Smith in the Carolina game yesterday. His knee was the first thing to hit the ground. [/b][/quote]You're right plawrence, his knee was the first thing to hit the ground. So that means that the player was down, and the play was over. You can't fumble if the play is over and dead. The rule was not an issue in this case. That would be like in basketball, if a player steps on the out-of-bounds line, but then shoots a 3-pointer and the defense goaltends the shot. The ball is turned over once the player steps on the out-of-bounds line, so there was no shot attempt, and because of that, there was no goaltend.

Technically, isn't the play is over when the whistle blows?

Since the refs first ruled that it was a fumble, I don't think the whistle had blown yet

Yes, the play is over when the whistle blows. But they overturned their original ruling after looking at the tape, saying that the runner was down before a fumble happened.

I guess my point is that within the rules as the presently stand, the call is correct.

I just think it's a stupid rule.

Definitely a stupid rule. Just like that f***ing "tuck rule".

Ugh. Don't get me started on that one. It's horrible also.

Funny how both of these terrible rules have bennefitted the Patriots greatly in the past few years. Coincidence?

Hahaha! I think not. :p

Plaw,

You may be against the rule now because it went against you but what if the rule goes your way and makes you happy, you may change your opinion. This rule is needed in football IMO.

See above. The call did not go against me.

With all the rules the NFL has nowdays, some being completely stupid, this one is a minor one. IMHO.

Just one thing plawrence. Since you were rooting for Carolina, and you had money waged on Carolina. Why complain like this.

The rules in football have become too discriminating. I mean that in the sense that they are trying to get down to a level of judgement that goes beyond human discernment. The game is comprised of speed and violence. This knee down, whistle blew business is very easy for the TV fan to judge with super-slo-mo and multiple angles. The referee is seeing the action in real time, limited vision. Now the coaches throw flags, they review the play and the whole tempo of the game is upset. I find it more and more difficult to watch a pro game with all the "refinements" they have made to the game. Let them play ball.

While we're at it - what about the overtime rule in the NFL? When most of the games are won by the team that wins the coin toss it is time to change the rule. At least both teams get a chance in college.

I agree with that one. The coin toss carries way to much weight. The team that wins the toss wins something like 60% of the OT games.

At least give the other team the ball once. Actually, both teams should have the ball an equal number of times, when possible, within a 15 minute time limit Maybe that will cut down on the team who has the ball first always playing for a field goal.

I totally agree. And this whole video replay thing is killing me too. I think that it is needed but the price for losing a challenge is too minor. One timeout? Come on. The penalty for losing a challenge should be much greater.

this dont make any sense
wat ya'll arguin here?

if ur down ur down. u cant fumble when ur down
'less i missed somin

We know the rule, OA. The argument is whether or not it's a good rule.

I kinda wish that it wasnt a rule because there would be a lot more fumbles in the game today. But other than that its a good rule.