Redskins vs Giants GameDay Thread

Looking at the video, it occurs to me that had the play been upheld, there would be no great controversy about it -- probably even among Giants fans. And who the heck knows what would have happened the rest of the way out.

Story of the season, folks. Lots of what ifs.

That doesn't make sense with the rule that was quoted:



This is the operable phrase, I think. Griffin had possession, lost it and was attempting to re-secure it. He dragged his feet inbounds with the ball in his grasp (screen grab is out there), then fell to the ground. If he loses control of the ball (which he did) AND the ball touches the ground(which no angle I've seen shows) then maybe the ruling was correct. But the ruling on the field was a TD, so you need incontrovertible evidence to overturn it. I don't think that existed.

Who knows what would have happened from that point, but I just think it's another case this year (not just with the Redskins) of the officiating being worse than ever.

Thats not the operable phrase, because it doesnt cover out of bounds. That rule does not allow for possession to be made out of bounds (no rule does).

Once the fumble happens, possession needs to be made again. In order for possession to happen, it takes one of two things.

1) Regain control of the ball and make a football move.
2) Regain control of the ball, then land on the ground and maintain possession of the ball through the ground.

Neither of which happened. The ruling is that he never had possession in the end zone. He had it prior to the goal line, then regained possession out of bounds past the goal line. Possession is not determined by ball control, it is determined by ball control AND the football move or maintaining control through the ground.

It doesnt matter if the ball hit the ground because the ruling is that when he re-made possession, he was already out of bounds.

We've all learned a lesson: if you want to score a TD, hold on to the friggin' ball. Then the zebras can't say anything.

Did anyone else notice this at the end of the game? I thought he looked injured but then it hasn't been mentioned. Right knee. Seems like just a matter of time.

RGIII Appeared To Suffer Yet Another Leg Injury At End Of Loss To Giants - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/rg3-leg-injury-redskins-giants-2014-12)

We've all learned a lesson: if you want to score a TD, hold on to the friggin' ball. Then the zebras can't say anything.


Seriously. No excuse for the fumble or bobble or whatever in the first place.

Seriously. No excuse for the fumble or bobble or whatever in the first place.

Well if we are being critical. The original RG wouldn't of even been run down by JPP with 15yds of space. He would of walked in to the endzone. Sadly i feel that RG3 will never come back

Or, when a guy bobbles the ball in his hands, doesn't even fumble it, and replay shows he got control of it with both hands again before it broke the plane of the goal line, it's called a touchdown like it should have been.

Oh wait, we're the Redskins. Nevermind.

Seriously. No excuse for the fumble or bobble or whatever in the first place.

His arm got jostled if you look at the replay

Or, when a guy bobbles the ball in his hands, doesn't even fumble it, and replay shows he got control of it with both hands again before it broke the plane of the goal line, it's called a touchdown like it should have been.

Oh wait, we're the Redskins. Nevermind.

If there were no bobble, which is the proper way to do it, the rest of your post does not matter.

There are several ways that the disputed touchdown was a clusterfudge:

1) No bobble, no fumble accusation
2) Poor clock management by RGIII
3) Should have scored the play before by throwing a different pass to Reed

Yet, for a 3-11 team, we blame the refs, not the 3-11 players.