What Are You Experts Opinion - Will Rodgers be Charged A Fumble for Negative Points?

[Buttmonkey 8]

Could be huge - down 16 - he has Colston and I have Graham/Jeffrey - would like to be down 14 instead. Thoughts?

[Vikings4ever 496]

Fumble, yes. Why wouldn't he?

 

Fumble lost, no.

[Buttmonkey 8]

Fumble, yes. Why wouldn't he?

 

Fumble lost, no.

If he is the only one allowed to recover - and he didn't - didn't he in effect "LOSE" the ball - resulting in a lost fumble?

[Vikings4ever 496]

If he is the only one allowed to recover - and he didn't - didn't he in effect "LOSE" the ball - resulting in a lost fumble?

He's the only one who was allowed to recover and advance the fumble.

[Squintz82 45]

He's the only one who was allowed to recover and advance the fumble.

 

This is a bit confusing. So since Lacy picked up the ball, Rodgers wasn't charged with a LOST fumble?

[Criper 24]

Even though Rodgers didn't recover the fumble, it's not a turnover, is it? Wasn't the call a penalty in the endzone resulting in a safety since Rodgers didn't recover his own fumble? Still not a turnover though, right? Confusing.

[prisoners 2]

It's only a turnover because the penalty occurred in the end zone. If he was sacked in the end zone his score wouldn't reflect -2.

[skoal2k4 15]

it was a fumble but not a fumble lost because inside of 2 minutes, only rodgers (the person that fumbled) can recover and advance... anybody else can recover, but not advance, so a safety is the result since Lacy recovered it, but he can't advance it out of the endzone

[Vikings4ever 496]

Lost fumble = defensive player picks up the fumble

 

Green Bay recovered the fumble, but by rule they couldn't advance it out of the endzone, therefore, safety.

[nobody 2,066]

How would it be a safety if the offense didn't recover

[skinsrule05 30]

Definitely not a fumble lost.

[tigeru 65]

It isn't lost. Same as if it would have gone through their own endzone.

[roroco 75]

Like everyone said. It was not a lost fumble. It was a penalty that ended in a safety when Lacy picked up the ball.

 

That said... That is a pretty dumb rule. Why is the 2 minute exception even in there?

[nobody 2,066]

Like everyone said. It was not a lost fumble. It was a penalty that ended in a safety when Lacy picked up the ball.

 

That said... That is a pretty dumb rule. Why is the 2 minute exception even in there?

Holy roller

[Vikings4ever 496]

Like everyone said. It was not a lost fumble. It was a penalty that ended in a safety when Lacy picked up the ball.

 

That said... That is a pretty dumb rule. Why is the 2 minute exception even in there?

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-top-ten/0ap2000000113872/Top-Ten-Controversial-Calls-Holy-roller

 

Outside a desperate situation (ie under 2 minutes), no one would fumbling on purpose. The rule's there to prevent someone from trying it in desperation.

[roroco 75]

Holy roller

 

I remember the Raiders' game, but was that play really that transformative that the NFL had to legislate to prevent teams from fumbling on purpose? And why only the last two minutes of the game.

 

Just seems like a pretty dumb rule.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

I don't see how this is even a valid question.

 

[RLLD 3,465]

Like everyone said. It was not a lost fumble. It was a penalty that ended in a safety when Lacy picked up the ball.

 

That said... That is a pretty dumb rule. Why is the 2 minute exception even in there?

 

To keep the patriots from any shenanighans