Raiders Still Steamed Over Non-Fumble

Raiders Still Steamed Over Non-Fumble

There are 278 comments on the The Associated Press story from Nov 27, 2006, titled Raiders Still Steamed Over Non-Fumble . In it, The Associated Press reports that:

There's been the Immaculate Reception, the Tuck Rule and now this for the Oakland Raiders.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Associated Press.

First Prev
of 14
Next Last

Oakland, CA

#1 Nov 28, 2006
It wasn't a pass. Anyone can tell that the
receiver wasn't attempting a pass. There was
no one to pass it to, and no reason to pass it. The reception by the receiver acheived a first
down, so you can't even dream up that the
receiver was confused he was a quarterback,
trying to throw the ball away to save a loss
of yardage. It was a fumble.

Clearly the receiver was celebrating, having
assumed the play was over. Spinning the ball
on the grass is not a forward pass, as it is
plainly and painfully clear what the intention
of the receiver was.

When an offensive player fumbles the football,
any defensive player can recover the fumble at
any time, no matter what down it is, and no
matter if it's in the last 2 minutes of either


Oakland, CA

#2 Nov 28, 2006
Imagine if one of the defensive backs decided
to tackle the receiver while he was about to
spin the football in his celebration. What
would the refs call it, "roughing the passer"?
Or would they harken up the tuck rule?
Moe Money

Jacksonville, FL

#3 Nov 28, 2006
Toonz wrote:
Imagine if one of the defensive backs decided
to tackle the receiver while he was about to
spin the football in his celebration. What
would the refs call it, "roughing the passer"?
Or would they harken up the tuck rule?
I'm with you Toonz, how come when Plaxico Burress did the same thing his rookie year with the steelers, they ruled it a fumble and the opposing team recovered the ball! And that was the end of that call....but why isn't it a fumble when the chargers do it? I'll tell you why, they were playing against the RAIDERS! That's why! It's that simple, I've said it once, and I'll say it again, the league has something against the beloved RAIDERS! But it's all good though, I'll be laughing when the chargers get eliminated from the first round of the playoffs!

Chesterfield, MO

#4 Nov 28, 2006
Is a spike a pass?

According to the NFL rulebook, it is. Look, we see a spike in every two-minute drill. In the eyes of an official, the spike of ball is the same thing. That the spike was made beyond the scrimmage line makes the act an illegal forward pass.

End of story, right call.

You cannot argue the call, what you CAN argue is the spirit of the rule. The spirit of the rule makes what the reciever did a fumble, not a forward pass, but an official cannot debate what the spirit of any rule is. It is his job to deal in black and white and not the grey areas of the rulebook.

That is what the NFL ultimately cares about. Getting the right call made. Like it or not, they got this one right.

By the way, that was one of the most stupid things I have ever seen a player do.


#5 Nov 28, 2006
what they should rule is that if that ever happens again, if they let them keep the ball they should bring the ball back where they hicked the ball and penalize them five yards for doing that;or a simple fumble would do.but it's the RAIDERS ,so at the point of the spike "forward" they moved the chargers back five yards and kept the ball..anyways, let's see what happens every so often another controversial call will work against the RAIDERS,it can only happen to THEE RRAIDAS, thee bad boys of the nfl.........

Oakland, CA

#6 Nov 28, 2006
Not a spike.

A spike has to take place in the pocket.
If it was intentional grounding, the ball should
have been given up on downs. Read the following
from this site:

Intentional Grounding of Forward Pass
1. Intentional grounding of a forward pass is a foul: loss of down and 10 yards from previous spot if passer is in the field of play or loss of down at the spot of the foul if it occurs more than 10 yards behind the line or safety if passer is in his own end zone when ball is released.

2. Intentional grounding will be called when a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage due to pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion.

3. Intentional grounding will not be called when a passer, while out of the pocket and facing an imminent loss of yardage, throws a pass that lands at or beyond the line of scrimmage, even if no offensive player(s) have a realistic chance to catch the ball (including if the ball lands out of bounds over the sideline or end line).
Moe Money

Jacksonville, FL

#7 Nov 28, 2006
Hey MarkL, by the way, it wasn't a spike! He flipped the ball in the air! So once again, BAD CALL POINT BLANK! Stop trying to justify a stupid call by the boys in the zebra uniforms!

Chesterfield, MO

#8 Nov 28, 2006
You guys don't get it. Its not what I say, but instead what the League's rulebook SAYS it is. You and I are not qualified to second guess the rule of the league.

If I catch a pass downfield, and I forward lateral the ball, it is illegal. So what are you telling me, that the only difference in the act of the lateral is that there must be someone to lateral it to???


The physical act is the same whether or not someone is there to lateral it to or not! That is what the official saw, that is what the official called. The same act is the call. Don't get on me, get on the rulebook. As long as you tell me that the rule is stupid, you got no arguement, but the second you tell me that the official is stupid for making the call, that is when I have to differ with you. The offical made the right call according to the rule.

Ain't life great!

Oakland, CA

#9 Nov 28, 2006
The refs interpret the rules.
At least one ref saw the fumble as a fumble.
He was overturned. Somehow, the ref in
charge interpretted the celebration as a
forward pass. We all saw what happened.
It wasn't intended as a forward pass, nor
a spike, nor tuck or lateral. It was relatively
unique, and the refs chose which rule to
apply to the action: forward pass. Apparently,
intentions have no place in their interpretations
of what constitutes a forward pass. Now, a
forward pass includes trying to spin the ball like
a top.


Pampa, TX

#10 Nov 29, 2006
Do YOU remember the unholy roller the raiders used against the chargers????

Oakland, CA

#11 Nov 29, 2006
To chargerfan, regarding the ol' holy roller
by Ken Stabler, Pete Banaszak and Dave Casper.

Of course I remember it. It was "inspired"
adlib to fumble forward. And if a Charger
had fallen on the ball, it would have been
a turn-over. It has not changed, that on
any fumble, no matter the down, or period,
or time on the clock, the opposing player
can take possession of a fumble.

Spinning the ball on the field, while the
ball was live, was not inspired. It was
an embarrassing mistake.
Why the head ref chose to call it a pass, is a
mystery. And you'll note in the article
I've linked to, the Raiders had the
integrity to cop to their hijynx after the
holy roller game. That was a time when
men were men.

From KC

Jefferson City, MO

#12 Nov 29, 2006
This call doesn't affect K.C. but it was obviously the WRONG call. I'm not a Raider's fan, quite the opposite but when the refs are able to fabricate rules to help the hometown team where does it stop? The receiver obviously threw the ball down with the intention of "rubbing" Oaklands face into the fact he had actually caught the ball. He wasn't touched, therefore the ball is still live and it was a FUMBLE. Anyone who says otherwise is just trying to justify the very bad officiating call. Unfortunately bad calls are becoming common place. I hope this ends soon. I'm already done paying to go see an NFL game in person because of this very reason.
From KC

Jefferson City, MO

#13 Nov 29, 2006
I am writing from KC not Charlottesville, VA!

Oakland, CA

#14 Dec 1, 2006
From KC-

One of the reasons people have condemned this
ruling is that the game is being morphed away
from being football, by lawyer-isms. I think
this does affect all of football. We have to
speak up when the refs start taking the ball game
away from the players. It is vital that the
league address this problem, because nobody wants
an errant celebration on the field, consisting of
spinning the ball to be construed as a
forward pass.

I'm not stretching the point to say that lawyer power is affecting more than just football.
I've witnessed an exercise facility at IBM in
San Jose being shut down because of the fear
of a lawsuit. What else are the lawyers screwing
this society out of? We must collectively
push our politicians to protect us from these
demons. I submit this, knowing that some might
think it wide of the mark, as far as the focus
of this string and the general scope of the
group, but I think it worth mentioning.
It's worth the effort because our sense of helplessness in the wake of the creeping inroads of the legal community, and the fact that most
of our lawmakers are lawyers.

Escondido, CA

#15 Dec 1, 2006
a raider fan talking about lawyers is funny. What team sues the league the most? A: Oakland. Oakland is STILL suing the league.

the reason its NOT a foward fumble NOW is precisely because oakland did it in '79. you're not following the bouncing ball, toonz. because of that "inspired play" (i called it cheating at the time), the rule was changed. the rule now is you cannot advance the ball forward intentionally. no one disputes that Jackson threw the ball intentionally. hence the call was correct. get over it already.

but i admit the chargers are lucky as shit that the dumbass didn't throw it backwards, like plaxico did. or we might have lost. then again, maybe not - the bolts did win by 7, after all.

San Clemente, CA

#17 Dec 1, 2006
Ohio St Buttguys wrote:
They are horrible. They have been horrible for four years. They are getting worse, not better. A blown call? What difference does it make?
nice name... nice location.
but go ucla!

Escondido, CA

#18 Dec 4, 2006
ucla sure messed up the moneymen's plans. GO BRUINS.

now can someone from the "nation" tell me that the faiders didn't lose by 9 to the Texans? baahaahaa, Al Davis - the gift that keeps on giving :)

Oakland, CA

#19 Dec 7, 2006
@ dmac-

I don't say get rid of lawyers, get rid of
courts. I say let's not let the lawyers
change the game, and on the greater arena,
let's not let the lawyers change this country.

The intention of the wide receiver was not
to pass the ball. We all saw what happened.

He spun the ball in celebration that he gained
a first down. There was no intention of passing
the ball, or tossing a lateral. If there
was a possible receiver, or any question
what happened wasn't a celebration, then
perhaps it might have correctly been ruled
a pass. If intentions aren't a factor,
then why not call it a fumble? At least
one of the refs thought it was a fumble.

Los Angeles, CA

#20 Dec 7, 2006
Get over it Toonz. The final call was the right one according to the rules. It's funny to see a Faider fan complaining that they got screwed because of a rule that was created because the faiders cheated and won the Holy Roller Game. Loser-faiders suck and so do their fans!

Escondido, CA

#21 Dec 7, 2006
I won't repeat boltman's astute discertation on raidernation ineptitude (toonz - you'll need a dictionary about now, or use this translation - i agree the raiders suck).

i agree he wasn't literally trying to pass to anyone in particular. the rule doesn't require that. but you ignore the opposite - Jackson also obviously didn't fumble the ball. a fumble is accidental, inadvertent (sorry for the big words again), unintentional. yet you agree it WAS intentional.

and like boltman said - that rule was changed specifically because of the raiders - so do get over it and quit calling your lawyers. lets face it - the Bolts would have won regardless of that play. Oaklane would have somehow choked the game away.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 14
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chris Carr Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Regular-Season Expectations of Minnesota Viking... (Sep '12) Sep '12 The Plan 2
News In Minnesota Vikings Territory (Aug '12) Aug '12 Laughing Bear Fan 1
News Minnesota Vikings Defense Hopeful with Secondar... (Aug '12) Aug '12 Laughing Bear Fan 1
News Minnesota Vikings Offseason Roll Call: Toby Ger... (May '12) May '12 Avant 2
News Minnesota Vikings' Most Disappointing Players o... (May '12) May '12 Laughing Bear Fan 5
News Minnesota Vikings: 5 Training Camp Battles We'r... (May '12) May '12 Avant 2
News Mel Kiper's Three Round Mock Gives Vikings a Le... (Apr '12) Apr '12 ezg357 1
More from around the web