Cutler, the Bears’ QB, fumbled the ball in last night’s game against the Bears, but was ruled down before the fumble and the whistle blew. After the whistle, a Jet player picked up the ball and ran in to the end zone. Upon review, it was concluded that it was a fumble and it was the Jets’ ball at the point of the fumble since the play was over when the whistle blew. My question is why wasn’t a delay of game penalty assessed against the Jets?
Because they don’t call delay of game for that.
That would have been extra salt rubbed in the wound after having a legitimate touchdown erased from the board due to inept officiating. I would have LOL’d louder than I already had.
I’m not sure why a delay of game would even be warranted.
The usual practice after administrative clock stoppages (like reviews) is to only start the play clock after a whistle and to have 25 seconds set.
If the Jets only got the ball back because of the review, this prevents an unfair/unwarranted penalty for a good play. And despite what some people might claim, the point of the rules actually is to codify some semblance of fair play.
In terms of a codified reason, I suspect it has two components:
- Does the player still possess the ball, or if he launches the ball, did he launch it toward the proper spot or to an official
- Is the player moving in a “football manner”
If instead of running to the end zone, he’d run to the locker room or up into the stands, that would be a delay of game. If he drop kicked the ball through the uprights or threw the ball into the stands, that would be a delay of game.
But since he still possessed the ball, and was moving in a normal football manner (to score in case the whistle didn’t actually blow), no penalty. It’s worth noting that the officials are told to let questionable fumbles play out before blowing the play dead, so there is extra leeway granted to players playing out the action in that kind of circumstance.