Redskins vs Giants GameDay Thread

Looked to me like he was out of bounds by that point.
The only way I could validate this touchdown is to say that he had possession in bounds for 1/3 of a second.
And thats not enough.....I sure as hell would not have awarded six points to the opponent had it been them.

That's it...had the Giants scored on such a play, we'd all be screaming bloody murder about that today.

Point is if it were the other team, its a TD ... Bias ass refs

I did and I would've said he had no control. The ball is still moving

Absolutely the right call

So you're saying he had possession until he was out of bounds?

1/3 second, or more like a second, was when the runner broke the plane of the goal line with the ball under his control. Touchdown.

the good explanation i read is that while RG3 did re-gain control before the ball crossed the plane ... since he lost and then re-gained control of the ball (all while in the air), he needed to maintain control as he hit the ground (like a receiver who makes a toe-tap reception in the endzone).

the spirit of the rule (im guessing) is that you need to establish possession throughout the entire football act .... but it seems strange that re-establishing possession by falling out of bounds matters.

but did the ball touch the ground though? it looked like he bobbled it but kept it off the ground?

i think the rule was applied technically correct.

i dont think that rule ever envisioned being applied to what happened on RG3's dive (having control-losing control-regaining control).

i imagine an exception will be made where this rule will not apply to a player who had previously established control on the play (ala runner)

a couple years ago this is a touchdown, just wierd how the league is so poorly run

the good explanation i read is that while RG3 did re-gain control before the ball crossed the plane ... since he lost and then re-gained control of the ball (all while in the air), he needed to maintain control as he hit the ground (like a receiver who makes a toe-tap reception in the endzone).

the spirit of the rule (im guessing) is that you need to establish possession throughout the entire football act .... but it seems strange that re-establishing possession by falling out of bounds matters.

but did the ball touch the ground though? it looked like he bobbled it but kept it off the ground?

i think the rule was applied technically correct.

i dont think that rule ever envisioned being applied to what happened on RG3's dive (having control-losing control-regaining control).

i imagine an exception will be made where this rule will not apply to a player who had previously established control on the play (ala runner)
The rule was correctly applied (unfortunately) but it's a bad rule. It's just dumb. He had possession, it was never fully out of his hands (i.e. on the ground or in the air) and possession was never in conflict with the other team. To me a fumble isn't a fumble until the ball hits the ground or is in peril of changing possession. I don't understand why the NFL is so stubborn in having/enforcing stupid rules and yet still missing basic calls like the roughing the passer in the Seattle game.

I really hope the Belicheck proposal passes that makes every call reviewable and that tools like Jeff Fisher get off the Competition Committee that makes the game more convoluded than simple.

*Unrelated pet peeve: I hate penalties enforced that had nothing to do with the outcome of the play like illegal formation because the WR doesn't cover up the tackle or holding on a fair catch or touchback. Just pick up the damn flag and move on.*

It may be the right call but that play happens a bunch in the nfl and is never looked at. O well not that it matters we r 3-11

First 3 picks should be OL, DE and S. Not necessarily in that order, if possibke trade back.

This.

Griffin regained control before he crossed the goal line, and kept control till he hit the ground. I can post screenshots online on my home PC. Just play the second video from the top on the link above, when they replay RG3's run, click to pause and continue right before the ball crossed the goal line, then watch all the way through.

Refs botched this one badly.

I honestly dont know the exact rule. All I am doing is explaining what Triplett gave as an explanation on the field. Here is the long version...

According to his explanation, the fact that he lost control prior to going over the goal line means he then had to "regain possession" of the ball for it to be a TD. In order for that to happen, he had to gain control of the ball and then either make a football move or maintain possession through the ground to "regain possession". Since he was in midair, making a football move wasnt going to happen. So he is left with maintaining possession through the ground as if he is now a receiver, which he didnt do. Since this wasnt a pass, the call cant be incomplete, so it reverts back to being a fumble. Now we have a fumble with RG3 laying out of bounds when he "regains possession". So it is ruled a fumble from prior to the goal line until he "regains possession" over the goal line and out of bounds. And a fumble over the goal line and out of bounds is a touchback, which is what was called.

Is that how the rule reads in the rulebook? I have no clue. And would love to see the exact rule pertaining to this. But that is the reasoning that Triplett used in making the call (with, at a minimum, an assist from the ones in New York helping with the replay calls).

On the play right before the disputed touchdown, RGIII sent a floater to Reed in the left flat that was broken up. If RGIII had thrown a bullet to the back shoulder instead of a floater, it was 6 points.