I didn’t see it but apparently last weekend there was a play in the San Diego vs. Denver game that was controversial. The Denver QB fumbled the ball while getting ready to throw it. The ref mistakenly blew the whistle. San Diego recovered the ball. The play was reviewed (either with replay or the ref just thought about it) and it was determined that it was not an incomplete pass. However, by rule, the ball was retained by Denver at the place the ball was recovered (as opposed to the line of scrimmage, as would be the case with an incomplete pass).
I’ve read/listened to various opinions about this situation and the general consensus seems to be, “this is the NFL, this is 2008, there must be a way to prevent this from happening!” Certainly the rules can be changed in whatever way they want but it is a complex situation.
As it turns out, and I didn’t know this until this incident, there’s a relatively new rule that says that even if the whistle is blown the players can continue to play if there’s a potential fumble - unless the QB is involved. The explanation that I’ve heard is that they don’t want the QB to get hurt (but it’s okay for other players to get hurt, I guess). So, if this had been a running back getting ready to throw an option pass it would have been a fumble and San Diego would get the ball (actually, I don’t know if that’s true - the rule may say something about “in the act of throwing” or “any player attempting to make a pass” - I don’t know if it actually applies only to QBs. For that matter, I’m not sure what happens if this situation happens when a QB is handing off the ball, or running down field, or playing defense on a turnover.).
Honestly, I’m surprised that in a game like football there are any situations where it’s okay to keep playing after the whistle. The whistle is supposed to invoke some kind of pavlovian response by the players - everyone is supposed to stop. I always assumed that the main point of this was that everyone would know when to relax and not worry about getting hit. Apparently now if the whistle blows and some folks see a potential fumble all bets are off - better stay on your toes. This seems dangerous. What happens when a player thinks he sees a fumble and blasts someone after the whistle? Is that okay? It seems like the point of these rules changes is to take away situations where the ref has to make a judgment call - but obviously there’s still a judgment call to be made.
Hey, if you want to protect the QB in these potential fumble situations then change the rule so that the QB’s not allowed to go after the fumble and players aren’t allowed to hit the QB in an attempt to get the fumble. It seems dumb to me - but no dumber than the current rule.
Either that or you go back to letting the refs be part of the game, for better or worse.
