fringe Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 When JoeTheisman's leg was twisted into a pretzel the Giants were comfortably in command of that game. Then a weird looking blond kid named Jay Schroeder came trotting in, scared shit of the fearsome Giants rush. Of course, he promptly led the Redskins to victory. Which led the way to other backups like Kevin Sweeney, Gary Hogeboom, Ryan Leaf (?!) some guy named Cody and others too numerous to mention who have excelled against the Giants. Almost happened today again against Drew Stanton. Luckily the stupidity of the Lions coaching staff (how could you not challenge that fumble?) overcame the Scrhoeder syndrome today. But it wasn't easy. Phew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 When JoeTheisman's leg was twisted into a pretzel the Giants were comfortably in command of that game. Then a weird looking blond kid named Jay Schroeder came trotting in, scared shit of the fearsome Giants rush. Of course, he promptly led the Redskins to victory. Which led the way to other backups like Kevin Sweeney, Gary Hogeboom, Ryan Leaf (?!) some guy named Cody and others too numerous to mention who have excelled against the Giants. Almost happened today again against Drew Stanton. Luckily the stupidity of the Lions coaching staff (how could you not challenge that fumble?) overcame the Scrhoeder syndrome today. But it wasn't easy. Phew. It was definitely out, but worth a challenge, you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 It was definitely out, but worth a challenge, you're right. I actually thought the receiver downed it with his hand before Grant did. Depends on how they define the possession in that case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 I actually thought the receiver downed it with his hand before Grant did. Depends on how they define the possession in that case. I think it has to be an elbow or a knee, though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. P Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 actually i think the rule is the ground cant cause a fumble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 I think it has to be an elbow or a knee, though He was lying on the ground with the defended on top of him. Can't be any more down than that, it just depends if the call one hand laid on the ball "possession". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lughead Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 He was lying on the ground with the defended on top of him. Can't be any more down than that, it just depends if the call one hand laid on the ball "possession". Ask Calvin Johnson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 He was lying on the ground with the defended on top of him. Can't be any more down than that, it just depends if the call one hand laid on the ball "possession". the ball came out when he was in the air. they showed it multiple times. they would have challenged it if they had seen something that could overturn it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fringe Posted October 17, 2010 Author Share Posted October 17, 2010 the ball came out when he was in the air. they showed it multiple times. they would have challenged it if they had seen something that could overturn it. not sure that's accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 not sure that's accurate. they had plenty of time to look at it, the Giants calmly walked up to the line of scrimmage and were in no hurry to snap the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 the ball came out when he was in the air. they showed it multiple times. they would have challenged it if they had seen something that could overturn it. Oh sure, it was a fumble definitely. I'm talking about who recovered it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fringe Posted October 17, 2010 Author Share Posted October 17, 2010 they had plenty of time to look at it, the Giants calmly walked up to the line of scrimmage and were in no hurry to snap the ball. you are going on the assumption they are competent. 95% of coaches would challenge that- with the 2 variables that tree pointed out, it's crazy not to. someone with your name already said that in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Sorry, does not compute...not following. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fringe Posted October 17, 2010 Author Share Posted October 17, 2010 It was definitely out, but worth a challenge, you're right. yea ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 yea ok It was worth a challenge because they really had nothing to lose...they wouldn't have won it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fringe Posted October 17, 2010 Author Share Posted October 17, 2010 It was worth a challenge because they really had nothing to lose...they wouldn't have won it though. so what didn't you compute Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 so what didn't you compute tree's statement about who recovered it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fringe Posted October 17, 2010 Author Share Posted October 17, 2010 tree's statement about who recovered it.... oh he's saying when they were wrestling for the ball, there was a time that the receiver had his hand on the ball solely. they could have called posession then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Man I must have watched a different play. I didn't see anything close to possession from Burleson, unless you count when he was trying to pin it to his ass while flailing around looking for the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
so-cal dub Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 oh he's saying when they were wrestling for the ball, there was a time that the receiver had his hand on the ball solely. they could have called posession then. You're right he did, but only after we had both hands on it first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 You're right he did, but only after we had both hands on it first. Looking at it again the both appear to grasp the ball at the same time. http://www.nfl.com/videos/detroit-lions/09000d5d81b67bf3 I thought they'll usually give the benefit of the doubt to to the receiver in a case like that? I honestly don't know how it should have been called but it was DEFINITELY worth a challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Looking at it again the both appear to grasp the ball at the same time. http://www.nfl.com/videos/detroit-lions/09000d5d81b67bf3 I thought they'll usually give the benefit of the doubt to to the receiver in a case like that? I honestly don't know how it should have been called but it was DEFINITELY worth a challenge. He barely even had 1 hand on the football while Deon Grant was ripping from the one hand that was desperately trying to cling to it..I don't think possession could have ever been clearly given to Burleson.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fringe Posted October 18, 2010 Author Share Posted October 18, 2010 Looking at it again the both appear to grasp the ball at the same time. http://www.nfl.com/videos/detroit-lions/09000d5d81b67bf3 I thought they'll usually give the benefit of the doubt to to the receiver in a case like that? I honestly don't know how it should have been called but it was DEFINITELY worth a challenge. agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazedDogs Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Looking at it again the both appear to grasp the ball at the same time. http://www.nfl.com/videos/detroit-lions/09000d5d81b67bf3 I thought they'll usually give the benefit of the doubt to to the receiver in a case like that? I honestly don't know how it should have been called but it was DEFINITELY worth a challenge. I agree, it was worth a shot, several times I've seen the Giants in a similar situation where it looks like someone gets possession of a fumble, then there's a pileup and the ball changes hands. They probably wouldn't have overturned it, but at that point the Lions had nothing to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now