Wright has the right (NPI) to try and recover the fumble. He has the right to bobble the ball and not put his knee down in the E.Z. If he runs out of the E.Z. while bobbling the ball, it is still a touch-back and Seattle possession. If Wright would have acted a bit more like he was trying to recover the ball, there would be less controversy. A rule that penalizes you for not performing a little farce is a bad rule, so perhaps it deserves to be ignored?
any downside to recovering the fumble? That seems like the safest course of action.
Your team might not end up with the ball. You can try to recover it but footballs have a nasty habit of bouncing away when you try to catch them.
I wasn’t even aware of the rule, but now that I know, it was a bad call. But hey, what’s another win for Seattle due to a bad call? Happens all the time.
JAQ, Packers fan
I don’t see why you’re punished for fumbling the ball out of the end zone. In my opinion, if Seattle recovers in the end zone, it should be a touchback just like now. But if nobody recovers and it slips out of the end zone, then it should be spotted for the offense where the fumble occurs just as it would be if fumbled out of bounds.
Me too. This fumble in the end zone rule is very strange. But, a win is a win… Go Hawks.
Dumb rule for sure, but it is not like the NFL or any major sport does not have a ton of them. Wright bats the ball out of the end zone to make sure the Lions don’t somehow recover. As Telemark noted, bouncing balls can sometimes be very fickle. Falling on it or plucking it out of the air isn’t always a sure thing.
The funny thing is that if he extends his arm it would be a clear batting. One could argue that he tried to grab it close to the body, missed grabbing it and since it was headed out of bounds, oh well game over. At least the back judge can argue that.
Wright admitted that he intentionally batted the ball out of the endzone unaware of the rule. So there’s no point to argue he tried to grab it.
I’m not Saint Cad, but I think the argument is not “that’s what Wright was trying to do”, but rather, “that’s what the back judge may have believed Wright was trying to do.”
Yep. I will say it wasn’t obvious AND the back judge may have assumed the Wright was not more aggressive for fear of getting control and stepping out of bounds for a safety although I believe if his momentum carries him out by rule it is a touchback.
Since the ball was already in the end zone, there’s no chance of a safety. He could’ve recovered the fumble and then stepped out (or simply taken a knee) for a touchback.
I think this is why this call doesn’t bother me as much as some other refereeing screwups in the past. If the call had been made, then it would have felt like the Lions were winning on an obscure technicality. Definitely the wrong call was made, though.
I’m not upset in terms of “the Seahawks got lucky” or “the Lions got screwed” because honestly the Lions deserved to lose as soon as Johnson let himself get stripped of the ball. Yeah, batting is less risky than falling on the ball, but there was no one else around and I’d wager that 95% of the time Wright can just fall on the ball safely.
What does bother me is that the NFL refereeing is so damn incompetent. It might seem like a strange rule, but it’s not unheard of (both my friend and I said “wait, aren’t you not allowed to do that?” when the ball got batted). The fact that the ref didn’t throw a flag and no one upstairs reviewed it (or later tried to claim it was a “judgment call” and non-reviewable) is pretty bad. Seems like the NFL should really just pass the rule change that allows everything to be reviewable and let the guys upstairs do their job.
True but did he know that? The rule is clear you may not bat the ball in any direction in an endzone but Wright didn’t know that. Maybe Wright thought (or the BJ thought that Wright thought that since he judged Wright’s intent) that recovering in the endzone and going out of bounds is a safety.
In other words - know the rules!!! That was directed to Wright.
You should also include the back judge. I think the whole “it wasn’t intentional” baloney the back judge supposedly was pushing was to gloss over the fact that he didn’t know the rule book well enough to know that what he clearly saw was illegal.
^^^
The refs are trained to throw a flag (not necessarily stop play) if anything is questionable. Since the rule is no batting in any direction in the endzone a flag should have been thrown and then discussed. No shame in waving off a flag.
You realize that I am the (only?) one who wanted the replacement refs backs over the constant screwjobs the Seahawks used to get from the refs. I’ve given up counting on ref competence and am looking forward to the day the side judge’s pants fall down* while running along with a play.
Did they review whether Johnson got in the end zone in the first place? Seemed very close when he fumbled to me…
I disagree because for one, the rule that a fumbled ball going out of the end zone is stupid in the first place. And second, given that that is the rule, if the other team intentionally knocks it out then it wasn’t really “fumbled” out by the offense.
To me, the ridiculous part of this arises when they say “that can not be reviewed”. If the intention of replay is to get things right, then use it to get things right. dammit. Once a play is in review, everything directly related to the results of the play should be eligible for review.