PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Did Leonard Pope Fumble Or Step Out Of Bounds Against The Packers?


Count Alex's Wins
12-18-2011, 05:05 PM
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2011/12/18/2645142/packers-vs-chiefs-leonard-pope-fumble

The Kansas City Chiefs have won their first game in the post-Todd Haley era, 19-14, simultaneously ending the winning streak of the Green Bay Packers. The Chiefs' defense was great, while the Packers did not play up to their normal standard on both sides of the ball. However, that doesn't mean that the game wasn't without a little bit of controversy.

In the fourth quarter, Leonard Pope got down to the three-yard line on a 33-yard reception, on which he lost control of the ball. The officials ruled that Pope stepped out of bounds before fumbling out of the back of the end zone. Mike McCarthy considered a challenge, but kept the flag in his pocket. Did he make a mistake? It's close, but yes.

Video at link.

ChiefsandO'sfan
12-18-2011, 05:05 PM
Yes he did

Guru
12-18-2011, 05:06 PM
he stepped out of bounds.

Demonpenz
12-18-2011, 05:06 PM
I thought it was a fumble, but the chiefs would have probably punched it in on the next play.

Count Alex's Wins
12-18-2011, 05:06 PM
he stepped out of bounds.

It looks to me like when his foot hits the ball is already out.

jd1020
12-18-2011, 05:07 PM
I thought it was a fumble, but the chiefs would have probably punched it in on the next play.

Ummmm. It would have been GB ball.

Bowser
12-18-2011, 05:07 PM
It's really close. If McCarthy had challenged that, he may have well had it turned into a fumble resulting in a touchback.

Garcia Bronco
12-18-2011, 05:08 PM
I thought it was a touchback, but I never saw his feet go out. At first I thought it was a TD.

ChiefsandO'sfan
12-18-2011, 05:08 PM
MikePereira Mike Pereira
In KC/GB - Pope play at goal line should have been challenged and it would have been a fumble & touchback giving GB the ball. KC FG good.

DenverDanChiefsFan
12-18-2011, 05:09 PM
Sure looked like a fumble on the replay. Glad GB didn't challenge.

Okie_Apparition
12-18-2011, 05:10 PM
It was a fuck you to Romeo/Chiefplanet dipshits

jd1020
12-18-2011, 05:10 PM
I really don't understand why McCarthy decided against challenging. What do you have to lose?

O.city
12-18-2011, 05:11 PM
It was def a fumble touchback. Dunno why you don't review.

DA_T_84
12-18-2011, 05:11 PM
The feed i was watching switched to the cincy game for 10 seconds.... just long enough to miss the play in question...

Anyone got video of it?

Guru
12-18-2011, 05:11 PM
I really don't understand why McCarthy decided against challenging. What do you have to lose?

maybe they didn't have access to the replays they needed to makethe call at the time.

jd1020
12-18-2011, 05:11 PM
The feed i was watching switched to the cincy game for 10 seconds.... just long enough to miss the play in question...

Anyone got video of it?

:facepalm:

jd1020
12-18-2011, 05:12 PM
maybe they didn't have access to the replays they needed to makethe call at the time.

Still... what do you have to lose? A TO vs taking points off the board? I think I bet with the TO.

Guru
12-18-2011, 05:14 PM
Still... what do you have to lose? A TO vs taking points off the board? I think I bet with the TO.

at the time, no points were on the board for that play. It wasn't ruled a TD.

DA_T_84
12-18-2011, 05:14 PM
ah missed the final line in the op...

jd1020
12-18-2011, 05:15 PM
at the time, no points were on the board for that play. It wasn't ruled a TD.

The Chiefs were in FG range...

DRU
12-18-2011, 05:15 PM
I was very worried they were going to challenge it during the game. What was interesting is that they actually replayed it on the screen at the stadium a lot more than they usually do on a call like that, especially when it would hurt us.

No idea why they didn't challenge that, unless they didn't think it would be conclusive and figured, hey, we've got Aaron Rodgers, we'll be fine. Ha!

notorious
12-18-2011, 05:15 PM
I thought he stepped out before the fumble.

kstater
12-18-2011, 05:15 PM
I thought it was a fumble, but the chiefs would have probably punched it in on the next play.

Had it been a fumble, it would have been a touchback.

Easy 6
12-18-2011, 05:17 PM
If we got away with one, who cares?

We take it up the ass on bad calls all. the. time... karma.

Count Alex's Wins
12-18-2011, 05:19 PM
The feed i was watching switched to the cincy game for 10 seconds.... just long enough to miss the play in question...

Anyone got video of it?

Video at link. I can't embed.

SNR
12-18-2011, 05:21 PM
Probably was a fumble out of the end zone and Green Bay ball.

Whatever, though. Makes up for the missed hold on Hali in Green Bay's own end zone. That should have been two points for us, which the officials totally missed.

thurman merman
12-18-2011, 05:24 PM
Who cares? It only resulted in 3 points. Chiefs won by 5 points. Doesn't matter.

DRU
12-18-2011, 05:26 PM
Probably was a fumble out of the end zone and Green Bay ball.

Whatever, though. Makes up for the missed hold on Hali in Green Bay's own end zone. That should have been two points for us, which the officials totally missed.

And the one on their long play that ended with their first TD. Hali would have had another sack on that play had he not been blatantly held...again.

mcan
12-18-2011, 05:28 PM
I'm not positive, but I don't think this play would have been challengable anyway. Because the player was ruled to have stepped out of bounds and the whistle blew, the play is dead. It's not the same as down by CONTACT, which is now challengeable as long as a player clearly recovers the fumble. The play could only be challenged, i believe, if the call had been "fumble" and KC would have had the opportunity to say that either the player was out of bounds before the fumble, or the ball crossed the plane before the fumble. But I've never seen this situation before... So, maybe somebody who's willing to peruse the rulebook can give some clarity.

Backwards Masking
12-18-2011, 05:30 PM
I can't believe after we iced the game the announcers started playing that play OVER and OVER and saying that non call was the difference even though we only got 3 on that drive and won by 5.

Disgusting.

we play the best game of the year against the 13-0 Super Bowl Champs with a new coach AND new quarterback, we win, and the announcers point to bogus non call that WOULDN"T HAVE EVEN MADE A DIFFERNCE as the reason Mr. Perfect and the Packers lost.

Makes we wanna puke.

Great job, Romeo, Orton and Defense. I'm real proud of you, you won it fair and square. Kicked some ass.

mcan
12-18-2011, 05:33 PM
I'm not positive, but I don't think this play would have been challengable anyway. Because the player was ruled to have stepped out of bounds and the whistle blew, the play is dead. It's not the same as down by CONTACT, which is now challengeable as long as a player clearly recovers the fumble. The play could only be challenged, i believe, if the call had been "fumble" and KC would have had the opportunity to say that either the player was out of bounds before the fumble, or the ball crossed the plane before the fumble. But I've never seen this situation before... So, maybe somebody who's willing to peruse the rulebook can give some clarity.

Lets say that I'm a running back and I'm sprinting down the sideline by myself on a breakaway to the endzone... Suddenly I hear a whistle and the ref is putting his toe on the line and waving his arms, stopping the play. Even if the replay shows that I never stepped out of bounds, this isn't a challengable play. They can't just say, he never stepped out, so he would have scored... Uhhh, here's 6 points. So, when a player is ruled out of bounds NOTHING afterwards matters except for personal fouls. The play is dead. Period. Nothing can be reviewed past that moment. This used to be the case for "down by contact" for the same reasons, but they have a narrow margin for allowing those now. It has to be a clear "player is either down or fumbled at the same spot and the defense CLEARLY recovered the ball." But it doesn't apply here since it was called out of bounds.

jd1020
12-18-2011, 05:35 PM
Lets say that I'm a running back and I'm sprinting down the sideline by myself on a breakaway to the endzone... Suddenly I hear a whistle and the ref is putting his toe on the line and waving his arms, stopping the play. Even if the replay shows that I never stepped out of bounds, this isn't a challengable play. They can't just say, he never stepped out, so he would have scored... Uhhh, here's 6 points. So, when a player is ruled out of bounds NOTHING afterwards matters except for personal fouls. The play is dead. Period. Nothing can be reviewed past that moment. This used to be the case for "down by contact" for the same reasons, but they have a narrow margin for allowing those now. It has to be a clear "player is either down or fumbled at the same spot and the defense CLEARLY recovered the ball." But it doesn't apply here since it was called out of bounds.

Fumbles are challenged all the time after the play has been ruled "dead."

mcan
12-18-2011, 05:38 PM
The more I think about it, this really IS a weird scenario. Because if the player had fumbled into the field of play and THEN stepped out of bounds (but the ref just called him out of bounds), even if the defense recovered the fumble, I'm not sure the new "down by contact" rules apply...

jd1020
12-18-2011, 05:39 PM
The more I think about it, this really IS a weird scenario. Because if the player had fumbled into the field of play and THEN stepped out of bounds (but the ref just called him out of bounds), even if the defense recovered the fumble, I'm not sure the new "down by contact" rules apply...

They didn't have to recover the ball. The ball was inbounds and rolled out of the endzone. That's a touch back. GB ball.

It's really not as "weird" as you seem to think it is.

crazychiefsfan
12-18-2011, 05:40 PM
who cares

mcan
12-18-2011, 05:45 PM
Fumbles are challenged all the time after the play has been ruled "dead."

It used to be, that if the whistle blew, anything after that was moot. So, I plow through the line and fumble while being tackled, and there is a mad scramble for the ball. If they called it a fumble on the field, it was live and players could then keep playing and try to recover the ball. If the player was ruled DOWN before the fumble, the whistle would blow and if players continued to scrap for the ball, it was a 15 yard penalty. So that was unchallengable. For a few years, the refs were told to error on the side of calling it a fumble, so that the teams could at least challenge it if they wanted to, but these were getting out of hand. The NFL wanted to make "down by contact" challengable, but didn't want players hitting each other after the whistle... So, now refs are instructed to NOT blow the whistle, and let the scrum go, and AFTER someone has come away with the ball, then make the ruling on the field of whether or not the player was down and allow challenges either way, but it's all about the WHISTLE.

when a player steps out of bounds, the whistle blows. So, no team is ALLOWED to try and recover a fumble. In this instance, no recovery is necessary because it would have been a touchback, but since the whistle BLEW, the same rule (i believe) would apply. Making this play unchallengable. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. This is actually a weird scenario.

mcan
12-18-2011, 05:46 PM
They didn't have to recover the ball. The ball was inbounds and rolled out of the endzone. That's a touch back. GB ball.

It's really not as "weird" as you seem to think it is.

Read my last post. the fact that nobody needs to recover the ball is what MAKES it weird. If people needed to recover the ball, then it clearly WOULD not be a challengable play, because the whistle would have blown.

jd1020
12-18-2011, 05:49 PM
Read my last post. the fact that nobody needs to recover the ball is what MAKES it weird. If people needed to recover the ball, then it clearly WOULD not be a challengable play, because the whistle would have blown.

You win.

Clearly a weird situation and an unchallengable play. Clearly.

Especially after the former head of officiating said that it was a fumble out of the endzone and a touch back.

mcan
12-18-2011, 05:54 PM
You win.

Clearly a weird situation and an unchallengable play. Clearly.

Especially after the former head of officiating said that it was a fumble out of the endzone and a touch back.

:D:D:D:D:D

i'm still not sure that's the actual rule though. even though it probably should be. Thanks!

suzzer99
12-18-2011, 06:42 PM
NBC just showed McCarthy trying to pull out the flag but struggling, then giving up when the next play started. If he's able to reach into his pocket correctly Chiefs might have lost.