Sanu fumble or Sanu Incomplete pass?

[XenoMorph]

Originally Posted by thebullfrog24

Am i the only person who thought that the sanu "fumble" was simply an incomplete pass?

He literally was just gettin ready to take his second step and the ball was already knocked out. It seems like no one is talking about that (probably because we won lol).

What are your guy's thoughts?

Neither it was a BAD whistle.

[XenoMorph]

Originally Posted by NC Bengal Mike

You would be the only one, it's a fumble

Didnt see it... But Fumble or Incomplete you could tell by the discription of the play that several players heard a whistle.

[PhxBENGALfanatic]

Originally Posted by thebullfrog24

Am i the only person who thought that the sanu "fumble" was simply an incomplete pass?

He literally was just gettin ready to take his second step and the ball was already knocked out. It seems like no one is talking about that (probably because we won lol).

What are your guy's thoughts?

I think it was a fumble! I was not sad when the refs blew the play dead. It was a big break!

[Lygraf]

you can't call it a touchdown being called back.

that idiot ref doesn't blow the whistle, our boys still think the play's alive and they make the tackle.

a crap ref mistake went our way. I'll take it, we don't get many of them these days

[oldschoolomen]

Originally Posted by BengalBaron

If the Gresham catch against the Ravens was incomplete, this catch was also incomplete. If I remember correctly, Gresham caught the ball and had firm passion of it. He made a couple of football moves and in his attempt to get a TD, he extended it across the goal line and fumbled it.

Gresham bobbled the ball in the field of play. While trying to regain control of the football, Gresham was going to the ground and only maintained control of the football after the ball had crossed the goal line.

Had Gresham caught the ball cleanly- touchdown
Had Gresham regained control of the ball in the field of play- touchdown
Had Gresham not gone to the ground in the act of making the catch- touchdown
But Gresham didn't catch the ball cleanly. He didn't gain control on the field of play, only in the endzone. He did go to the ground in the act of securing the ball, and because of that he had to maintain control through the landing, which he did not.

Very much like the Calvin Johnson play. The receiver has to maintain possession of the ball through the landing. Neither did, and (correctly) neither was ruled a touchdown.

Sanu gained control, started to tuck the ball away, and before taking two steps or making a football move, the ball was knocked out. This is different from the AJ Green play against the Ravens when Lewis failed to throw the challenge flag. Green controlled the ball, took three full steps, tucked the ball away, was tackled and his knee and forearm hit the ground when the ball came free. The ground cannot cause a fumble and Green should have been ruled down by contact.

[Harmening]

Originally Posted by jj22

it was an incomplete pass only cause it was a bengal. If it was a raider it was clearly a fumble.

bingo

[Ryan Mc]

Originally Posted by Go4It

Kind of reminds me of the 2005 game at Baltimore. Then Bengals TE Matt Schobel fumbled at the Baltimore 42 yard line where then Ravens safety Will Demps picked up the ball and went the distance for an apparent defensive TD. But an official inadvertently blew his whistle as Demps was about to pick up the ball. That cost the Ravens a defensive TD which turned that game in our favor. Anybody remember that game? The exact same thing happened yesterday and again the game turned in our favor.

I remember. The officials that day then compounded the error by giving Baltimore the ball at the spot of the recovery, when it should have remained our ball (as it did yesterday). Would have been really harsh for the Ravens for us to keep the ball, but that's the rule.

[henrizzle]

Originally Posted by graphicguy

Didn't really matter, although I do think it was a bad call. You could clearly hear the whistle, at which point the Bengals (and most of the Raiders) quit on the play.

So, instead of beating them by 24, we would have beat them by 17. It's still a blow-out. Actually, we could have beat them by 38. Raiders got lucky we didn't hang 50+ on them.

You don't know that. Ever hear of momentum? We weren't doing anything in the third quarter and that could've easily have gave them momentum to go in and mount a comeback.

[eliminate08]

Originally Posted by thebullfrog24

Am i the only person who thought that the sanu "fumble" was simply an incomplete pass?

He literally was just gettin ready to take his second step and the ball was already knocked out. It seems like no one is talking about that (probably because we won lol).

What are your guy's thoughts?

Completed pass and insanely awesome play by Hanson is what i thought.

Should have been a Raiders TD.

We would have still beat them but it was just a great play by Hanson, nothing bad on Sanu's part.

[Storm]

As a Bengal fan I remember the ol "inadvertent whistle" burning the Bengals on many occasions, I used to think they did it on purpose just to skrew them over

[Strongsville City Schools]

My initial thought was incomplete pass but It was clearly a funble based on replay we got lucky on that one but who cares it woulda made no difference

[GreenDragon]

Originally Posted by thebullfrog24

Am i the only person who thought that the sanu "fumble" was simply an incomplete pass?

He literally was just gettin ready to take his second step and the ball was already knocked out. It seems like no one is talking about that (probably because we won lol).

What are your guy's thoughts?

Incomplete pass. Sanu didn't have possession.

[noquicksnap1]

From Mike Pereira's twitter feed.....either way - game was over before this play. Bengal's have been on the bad end of many horrible calls - many of which actually impacted the final result.

Mike Pereira ‏@MikePereira

In OAK/CIN that play should have been ruled incomplete pass in the first place.

[OSUfan]

Originally Posted by thebullfrog24

Am i the only person who thought that the sanu "fumble" was simply an incomplete pass?

He literally was just gettin ready to take his second step and the ball was already knocked out. It seems like no one is talking about that (probably because we won lol).

What are your guy's thoughts?

To me it was a fumble. However, with the new rulings there is room for the debate of did he make a football move.

[noquicksnap1]

Originally Posted by oldschoolomen

Gresham bobbled the ball in the field of play. While trying to regain control of the football, Gresham was going to the ground and only maintained control of the football after the ball had crossed the goal line.

Had Gresham caught the ball cleanly- touchdown
Had Gresham regained control of the ball in the field of play- touchdown
Had Gresham not gone to the ground in the act of making the catch- touchdown
But Gresham didn't catch the ball cleanly. He didn't gain control on the field of play, only in the endzone. He did go to the ground in the act of securing the ball, and because of that he had to maintain control through the landing, which he did not.

[McC]

Originally Posted by tlotharw

I disagree. The only two players near the play for the Bengals were Sanu, who was knocked down, and Marvin Jones who was jogging towards the play as the Raiders kept playing. To me that play was a reflection of the lackadasical approach the Bengals took to the 2nd half and the Raiders playing with desperation. My recollection is that the Raider had possession before the whistle blew.

Who knows what the score would have ended up, but a touchdown there would have made it a 10 point game with over seven minutes to go. No telling what would have happened from there.

Nothing different in the final outcome. Just a slightly different score. The only way the Raiders could move the ball was running it. They were not going to score two more times by running the ball. Palmer would have thrown another pick in his lame *** attempt to come back. If we're playing what if, we can make up anything we want, right?

[BengalsRocker]

If we die by "football move" then we must also live by it.

I say incomplete. The whistle came because he couldn't hang on to it and did not secure and move with the ball.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[thebullfrog24]

People seem to be pretty half and half on incomplete/fumble lol.

For the people who think it is a fumble, i just don't understand where you saw the "football move" at.

You can't have one foot on the ground, go to take your second step and have the ball knocked out and it be constituted a "football move".


Also (because i know this will happen), I"M HAPPY FOR THE WIN. I am just arguing for arguments sake. Don't be that guy who says "OmG why ArE yoU Guys fiGhtiNg!?!?? wE WON!!!".

[Bengals Mike]

I thought it was a fumble when he took 2 steps with possession and the fumble recovery looked a lot like the one made by Greg Toler in Atlanta last week and the unbiased people I know who arent fans of either team thought it was a fumble too

[Ryan Mc]

Originally Posted by oldschoolomen

Gresham bobbled the ball in the field of play. While trying to regain control of the football, Gresham was going to the ground and only maintained control of the football after the ball had crossed the goal line.

Had Gresham caught the ball cleanly- touchdown
Had Gresham regained control of the ball in the field of play- touchdown
Had Gresham not gone to the ground in the act of making the catch- touchdown
But Gresham didn't catch the ball cleanly. He didn't gain control on the field of play, only in the endzone. He did go to the ground in the act of securing the ball, and because of that he had to maintain control through the landing, which he did not.

Very much like the Calvin Johnson play. The receiver has to maintain possession of the ball through the landing. Neither did, and (correctly) neither was ruled a touchdown....

Gresham's play actually WAS a touchdown, as confirmed by the former head of officiating Mike Perrera in his officials' review after the game. He explained that it's only an incompletion if the ball had come OUT of Gresham's hand when it hit the ground ... movement is not enough. That's why he stressed it was different to the Calvin Johnson play. With that play, the ball came out of Johnson's hand when he hit the ground. Perrera was highly critical of the ref for reversing Gresham's TD.

As for Sanu's play ... it's very close. The contact which dislodges the ball comes very quickly after he gets his hands on the ball ... I really couldn't predict what the result of a replay would have been. They might have gone fumble or incompletion on that ... there is an argument for either IMO. I think incompletion would be most consistent with how I've seen that ruled before (Perrera, who I mentioned above, always talked about "bang-bang" plays and how they didn't want "cheap" fumbles in the NFL, which to me would translate into the ball was dislodged so soon after he got his hands on it that the pass was incomplete, not a catch and a fumble)

[jrpost7]

watching it live, i thought incomplete, on replay it was a fumble.

Since the whistle blew, i figured the bengals would of gotten the ball where the ref thought it went out. Did anyone know of the option of replaying the down on the inadvertent whistle, i had never seen or heard of that before?

[Storm]

Originally Posted by yellowxdiscipline

Im trolling the Raiders forum and they swear that if it were called a fumble they would have won... Delusional fanbase.

Pot meet Kettle

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Originally Posted by Ryan Mc

Gresham's play actually WAS a touchdown, as confirmed by the former head of officiating Mike Perrera in his officials' review after the game. He explained that it's only an incompletion if the ball had come OUT of Gresham's hand when it hit the ground ... movement is not enough. That's why he stressed it was different to the Calvin Johnson play. With that play, the ball came out of Johnson's hand when he hit the ground. Perrera was highly critical of the ref for reversing Gresham's TD.

As for Sanu's play ... it's very close. The contact which dislodges the ball comes very quickly after he gets his hands on the ball ... I really couldn't predict what the result of a replay would have been. They might have gone fumble or incompletion on that ... there is an argument for either IMO. I think incompletion would be most consistent with how I've seen that ruled before (Perrera, who I mentioned above, always talked about "bang-bang" plays and how they didn't want "cheap" fumbles in the NFL, which to me would translate into the ball was dislodged so soon after he got his hands on it that the pass was incomplete, not a catch and a fumble)

Thank you.

He had 2 damn fingers on the ball the ENTIRE time, therefore he had possession.

[20YearsAndStillBelieving]

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-networ...fficial-Review


SALT IN THE WOUND, RAIDERS FANS, SALT IN THE WOUND. . .Now, recommence the crying.

[BengalsRocker]

Originally Posted by 20YearsAndStillBelieving

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-networ...fficial-Review


SALT IN THE WOUND, RAIDERS FANS, SALT IN THE WOUND. . .Now, recommence the crying.

Thank you.

Like I said before.

We have died by the non "football move" so we must live by it as well.

Bang Bang the pass would be incomplete by NFL standards if under review.