I was under the impression that if an offensive player fumbles the ball forward into the end zone he is the only player on the offense that can recover the ball. I remember Curtis Martin doing this a few years ago and someone other than Martin recovered for the Jets and it was a touch back for the other team. Did the nfl change this rule or did the refs screw another one up on this call?
THANK YOU. I was confused about this too, but didn't want to sound like a dumbass by getting up in arms about this. To those more knowledgable, please answer.
Here's what found: 1. If the ball is fumbled on 1st, 2nd or 3rd down and with more than two minutes left in either half, any offensive player can recover the ball for a touchdown. 2. If the ball is fumbled on 4th down or with less than two minutes in the half, only the offensive player who fumbled the ball can recover it for a touchdown. 3. If, in situation two, a different offensive player recovers the ball, the ball goes back to the original line of scrimmage and the offense keeps the ball.
It was ruled correctly.. the only way it wouldn't be a touchdown was if it was a 4th down play or after the 2-minute warning.
No, the rule is that a player can't ADVANCE a fumble past where it was fumbled UNLESS he is the one who fumbled it in the first place. However, any player can fall on the ball to recover it and it is dead there. Since the SF player fell on it in the end zone, it was a touchdown. But if he had recovered it on the 1 yard line, he would not have been able to advance it into the endzone for the touchdown - thus, in this case, the SF woud have maintained possession on the 1 yard line. The only way this wouldn't apply is if it were 4th down.
That said... I think there was significant cause for Mangini to review that play. Not sure receiver ever had possession, and even if he did, at least take a look in the first half. There was also a fumble that reminded me of the denver- cotchery fumble, where the officials ruled the player down by contact, even though the ball was still loose when he fell on it. Believe it was on the muffed punt... am I wrong?
that would be impossible. to fumble in the end zone implies possession in the end zone which would be a touchdown... or am i missing something?
No, you aren't missing anything. If the ball had broken the plane, it would have been a touchdown and the play would be dead at that instant. So yeah, the fumble could not have taken place "in the endzone".
The fumble can be advanced, hence why it was a touchdown. If it was 4th down or within the 2-minute warning, the ball would be brought back to the point of the fumble (or the spot of recovery if the ball was recovered behind the line of scrimmage).
The rule is the way it is because there was a famous playoff game between Oakland and Miami in the 70s that Oakland won by recovering a fumble in the endzone on 4th and goal. (I.e. a Miami player tackled the QB - i think it was a sack - and the ball was fumbled foward into the endzone and was recovered by another Raider there for the game winning touchdown). Because Miami had them stopped and it was 4th and goal with the season on the line, it was felt that Miami didn't deserve to lose the way they did. So they changed the rule to the way it is now.
Oh, we are saying the same thing. We are just using differnent words and not agreeing on semantics. If a player fumbles at the 30 yard line, and his teammate recovers it at the 35 (5 yards past where it was fumbled), he CANNOT advance it FROM THAT point. (i.e. the ball is dead where he recovered it - so his team maintains possession where he recovered it and he can't keep running down the field) But a player can always recover it ahead of where it was fumbled, as long as, it's not in the endzone either on 4th down OR within 2 mintues of the end of the game. Yeah, I was saying the same thing you were saying. I was just using the word 'advance' to mean carry the ball PAST where it was recoverd. ONLY the same player who fumbled can "take the ball past where it was initially recovered".
