Fumble. Maybe I’m biased.

[NorthWillRiseAgain]

The only difference between the two QB “fumbles is the fact that only one actually had a recovery without the whistle.

Someone explain how the first was any different of a ruling, and how the hell you can recover something after a play is dead any 19/22 players are regrouping?

 

[NorthWillRiseAgain]

I also get the kick out of bounds rule. But based on illegal touch, that SHOULD negate it in future rules.

 

[BigB87]

Taking off my homer glasses, the first one looked like the ball was loose in Martinez's hand and he just kind of pushed it forward. The one with Illinois it looked like he had control with his hand moving forward and his arm getting hit made it come out before he planned but he still had control as he came forward. By the by, I think both were probably correct even if I don't want them to be.

 

[redfanusa]

I realize it would have sucked for Illinois to be screwed out of a fumble recovery because of a whistle, but the whistle blew. The entire Nebraska team had stopped playing and was walking the opposite direction. How do you give players a recovery when the play is over? It was a bad call, and flies in the face of 100 years of football rules.

 

[BigB87]

I realize it would have sucked for Illinois to be screwed out of a fumble recovery because of a whistle, but the whistle blew. The entire Nebraska team had stopped playing and was walking the opposite direction. How do you give players a recovery when the play is over? It was a bad call, and flies in the face of 100 years of football rules.

That's my issue with it. Watching the replay, sure it was a fumble, but anything that takes place after the whistle (i.e. the recovery) shouldn't stand. After all, if someone threw a block after that same whistle, it'd be a late hit.

 

[Headcard]

Both were very clearly incomplete passes.

 

[jedihusker]

Taking off my homer glasses, the first one looked like the ball was loose in Martinez's hand and he just kind of pushed it forward. The one with Illinois it looked like he had control with his hand moving forward and his arm getting hit made it come out before he planned but he still had control as he came forward. By the by, I think both were probably correct even if I don't want them to be.

The Adrian Martinez one was probably a fumble, but the refs definitely got it wrong. The rule for that specifically says if there is recovery in the IMMEDIATE CONTINUING ACTION after the play is blown dead, you can grant recovery. That was not even remotely close to that, the ball rolled around with almost no one paying attention to it for a good while. Nebraska didn't have a chance to recover it, because they correctly didn't attempt to dive on a ball that had long since been blown dead. The refs blew that one plain and simple, and that's a massive call to blow.

The second one is harder, but the ball moves in his hand before he propels it forward. I think it's a fumble, but whatever. Defense stayed strong and got the stop.

 

[BigB87]

The Adrian Martinez one was probably a fumble, but the refs definitely got it wrong. The rule for that specifically says if there is recovery in the IMMEDIATE CONTINUING ACTION after the play is blown dead, you can grant recovery. That was not even remotely close to that, the ball rolled around with almost no one paying attention to it for a good while. Nebraska didn't have a chance to recover it, because they correctly didn't attempt to dive on a ball that had long since been blown dead. The refs blew that one plain and simple, and that's a massive call to blow.

The second one is harder, but the ball moves in his hand before he propels it forward. I think it's a fumble, but whatever. Defense stayed strong and got the stop.

Ya, that's probably the best way to put it in the Martinez one. I think the fumble/non-fumble calls were right, but what happened after on ours was wrong.

 

[NECoach31BB]

I also get the kick out of bounds rule. But based on illegal touch, that SHOULD negate it in future rules.

That was a really smart play in the return man. Yet it should be illegal to do that.

 

[schuele]

The Adrian Martinez one was probably a fumble, but the refs definitely got it wrong. The rule for that specifically says if there is recovery in the IMMEDIATE CONTINUING ACTION after the play is blown dead, you can grant recovery. That was not even remotely close to that, the ball rolled around with almost no one paying attention to it for a good while. Nebraska didn't have a chance to recover it, because they correctly didn't attempt to dive on a ball that had long since been blown dead. The refs blew that one plain and simple, and that's a massive call to blow.

The second one is harder, but the ball moves in his hand before he propels it forward. I think it's a fumble, but whatever. Defense stayed strong and got the stop.

I don't see how they allowed Illinois' recovery but didn't give them a touchdown. The play was either blown dead or it wasn't. If the recovery was legal, why not the return? It's not like it's a muffed punt that can't be advanced.

 

[jedihusker]

That's my issue with it. Watching the replay, sure it was a fumble, but anything that takes place after the whistle (i.e. the recovery) shouldn't stand. After all, if someone threw a block after that same whistle, it'd be a late hit.

That's another issue I had. If any Nebraska player decided to make sure and ran to pick up the ball, and in the process bumped; brushed; tapped; or just looked at an Illinois player funny, 8 flags and a few hats would have flown. Nebraska played that play exactly right; numerous refs blew the play dead and everyone moved on to the next play. Never should have even reviewed it since there wasn't clear recovery in the IMMEDIATE CONTINUING ACTION. They blew it big time. Nothing will be done, but whatever.

 

[schuele]

That was a really smart play in the return man. Yet it should be illegal to do that.

Yeah - really stupid rule, but a brilliant play taking advantage of it.

 

[BigB87]

I don't see how they allowed Illinois' recovery but didn't give them a touchdown. The play was either blown dead or it wasn't. If the recovery was legal, why not the return? It's not like it's a muffed punt that can't be advanced.

Ya, I honestly thought it was going to get called a TD.

 

[jedihusker]

Ya, I honestly thought it was going to get called a TD.

That I can actually answer. Here is the exact rule I referenced above.

b. Loose ball by a passer ruled incomplete forward pass when there is clear
recovery or the ball goes out of bounds in the immediate continuing action
after the loose ball.
1. If the replay official does not have indisputable video evidence as to
which team recovers or the ball going out of bounds, the ruling of
incomplete pass stands.
2. If the replay official rules fumble and the ball is recovered, the ball
belongs to the recovering team at the spot of the recovery and any
advance is nullified.

As you can see, number 2 says any advance is nullified. So that part they actually got right. Completely blew the "immediate continuing action" thing, but got the rest correct.

 

[schuele]

That I can actually answer. Here is the exact rule I referenced above.

As you can see, number 2 says any advance is nullified. So that part they actually got right. Completely blew the "immediate continuing action" thing, but got the rest correct.

Thanks. Was not aware of that.

 

[redfanusa]

You play until the whistle. And sometimes long after the whistle.

Had I been Frost, I would have told Nebraska players to pick up every loose ball the rest of the game, and run it the length of the field for a TD, just to prove a point. The whistle blows for a reason.

 

[yunginsNU2]

Lets just say these reds blew a ton of calls ...seriously im so tired of the flags and missed calls.. on both sides..

 

[BigB87]

Touche, that makes sense now.

 

[NECoach31BB]

Yeah - really stupid rule, but a brilliant play taking advantage of it.

Absolutely true.

 

[jedihusker]

You play until the whistle. And sometimes long after the whistle.

Had I been Frost, I would have told Nebraska players to pick up every loose ball the rest of the game, and run it the length of the field for a TD, just to prove a point. The whistle blows for a reason.

I made that exact comment after the first play of the last Illinois drive. 99% sure that was an incomplete pass, but they didn't review it and the tv angle was from behind, so you don't know, he might of had it long enough for that to be a fumble. Can't remember which Nebraska defender came to pick the ball up right after it touched the ground (clear recovery in the immediate continuing action!), but he should have taken off running to the endzone. Would have been funny, refs almost guaranteed to flag him for delay of game or knowing them, maybe USC.

 

[jedihusker]

Speaking of reviews and fumbles, it's quite funny the refs were Johnny on the spot with all our fumbles and reviews of said fumbles, except two. The already mentioned one above, and the only one that would have helped us. Somehow missed the Wandale fumble, and subsequent recovery in the end zone. I'm willing to bet if Illinois had somehow ended up with ball on the Wandale play, they would have reviewed it.

 

[Mack In Motion]

From the outset one of the weirdest officiated games in a while.

Weird fumble calls, picking up a block in the back flag, a BS out of bounds on a kickoff that never went out of bounds, etc.

And maybe I'm old fashioned, but when a QB throws the ball 15 yards downfield, that's a forward pass, not a fumble, regardless of if it's Illinois or Nebraska. /Grumpy old man rant

 

[jedihusker]

Lets just say these reds blew a ton of calls ...seriously im so tired of the flags and missed calls.. on both sides..

I agree for the most part. I don't have a problem with no calls if the refs are just "letting them play", problem is, they weren't. Nebraska: 11 penalties for 119 yards. Illinois 4 for 30* (technically stats say Illinois had 4 for 66, but 46 of those yards come from long kickoff return called back for holding. Offensive plays called back due to penalty don't have the yards gained counted in the penalty, so why should kickoffs? Counting yards of actual called penalties; 2 holds, offsides and 12 men, gets 30). Prior to this game, Illinois was 110th out of 130 in penalties per game with 8.33 and 125th out of 130 in penalty yards per game with 84.33 (by comparison Nebraska was tied for 33rd with 5.33 penalties per game, and 44th with 48 yards per game). That's a ridiculous disparity and indicates mostly one sided officiating to me, Matt Millen's whining notwithstanding. Speaking of, it's interesting he felt the need to make mention of a number of supposed missed calls against Nebraska, didn't say much about the stuff Illinois was constantly getting away with (there was plenty).