COWBOYS COULDN’T HAVE RECOVERED THE BALL

[Fire Wade]

Appearing on Tuesday’s Dan Patrick Show, NFL director of officiating Mike Pereira explained that the Dallas Cowboys could not have recovered the loose ball that receiver DeSean Jackson discarded as he was on the doorstep of the end zone during Monday night’s game.

The outcome, then, is the same as it was on Sunday between the Chargers and the Broncos. The ball was dead when it hit the ground.

The key is that, in Jackson’s case, the ruling is that he was throwing a backward pass. By rule, the review of the touchdown call resulted in the ball being down where it landed.

ProFootballTalk.com - COWBOYS COULDN’T HAVE RECOVERED THE BALL

Isn't a backwards pass suppose to be a live ball even if it hits the ground?

[datruth55]

Originally Posted by MB3

ProFootballTalk.com - COWBOYS COULDN’T HAVE RECOVERED THE BALL

Isn't a backwards pass suppose to be a live ball even if it hits the ground?

Only if it's behind the line of scrimmage from my understanding.

[BigBenCan7]

Originally Posted by datruth55

Only if it's behind the line of scrimmage from my understanding.

What about laterals that hit the ground past the line?

[O Doyle]

IF THE WHISTLE HAD NOT BLOWN it would have been ruled a fumble. But because the refs thought he got into the endzone and whistled the play dead, the ball is automatically dead on the spot.

So no, it wouldn't have mattered even if a Cowboy would have picked it up the same way it didn't matter when the San Diego player picked it up when Cutler fumbled.

The fact is in both games the refs blew the call.

[BigBenCan7]

Originally Posted by EaglePhil

IF THE WHISTLE HAD NOT BLOWN it would have been ruled a fumble. But because the refs thought he got into the endzone and whistled the play dead, the ball is automatically dead on the spot.

So no, it wouldn't have mattered even if a Cowboy would have picked it up the same way it didn't matter when the San Diego player picked it up when Cutler fumbled.

The fact is in both games the refs blew the call.

I thought that the article was saying that even without a whistle, the ball would have been considered dead because it was a backwards pass, which I don't think is true.

[O Doyle]

Originally Posted by BigBenCan7

I thought that the article was saying that even without a whistle, the ball would have been considered dead because it was a backwards pass, which I don't think is true.

Read it closer, the key is that the whistle blew.

It says in the article that the change in the down by contact rule a few years ago allows the play to continue through the whistle but that same rule was not applied to cases like these. These meaning unforced fumbles. The whistle blew the play dead. There is no allowance for a continuance of play after the whistle on a play like this. Thats an exception that pertains ONLY to down by contact rulings.

[Ben Stiller]

Originally Posted by EaglePhil

Read it closer, the key is that the whistle blew.

It says in the article that the change in the down by contact rule a few years ago allows the play to continue through the whistle but that same rule was not applied to cases like these. These meaning unforced fumbles. The whistle blew the play dead. There is no allowance for a continuance of play after the whistle on a play like this. Thats an exception that pertains ONLY to down by contact rulings.

Just what I was going to bring up. There was a big deal about the whistle blowing early a few years ago because there were too many fumbles that didnt count. Now its happening again in a different way. I expect a rule change before long.