Mike Vrabel savagely tweeted NFL's own rulebook at the league's officiating account to dispute Chiefs replay
Originally Posted by :
Charles Curtis
December 6, 2021 7:02 am ET
Apparently, Tennessee Titans head coach Mike Vrabel was spending his free Sunday night watching the Kansas City Chiefs and Denver Broncos face off in the evening matchup.
Vrabel’s Titans were on a bye. And during Sunday Night Football, he watched as a review of a Travis Kelce incomplete pass — the Broncos thought it was a catch and fumble that would have resulted in a turnover — was upheld.
The NFL Officiating account explained that “the third element of a catch – time – was not met. Therefore, the ruling on the field stood as incomplete.”
But Vrabel responded with an image from the NFL rulebook with the definition of a catch. No other words. Just that image.
I guess he thought it was a catch? Former referee Terry McAulay explained further and said that Vrabel appeared to agree:
The third element is “performing an act common to the game”. An “additional step” and “tucking the ball away” are both noted as acts common to the game. Time may be a factor but is superseded if an actual act common to the game is performed. https://t.co/Y8BixoYBl8pic.twitter.com/sWUvzeuI8x
That’s funny, isn’t it? A coach from another team tweeting a criticism at the NFL’s officiating account! Does that count as criticism? Could he get fined for that?
Also: Do I want more tweets from NFL head coaches like this? YES PLEASE!
Originally Posted by ThaVirus:
The ball is clearly tucked.
Wow it’s almost as if when you slow things down to the point that it’s an image that it becomes very misleading, hence why the tweet in the OP brings up “time”.
Even in the SLOW MO replay, the ball is knocked out immediately when the ball is tucked. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
He doesn’t understand anything. He’s on the wrong side of the argument 90% of the time because he can’t help but play contrarian.
Who knew being intentionally stupid could be so cool. [Reply]
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
It was obviously a fumble to everyone, except for idiots watching it in super slo-mo.
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
The only way that could've been considered a fumble is if you only watched it in super slo-mo, and ignored the full speed footage.
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
Both posts say the same thing, but the second one is more clear.
.
No, they don't.
Obviously a fumble except for slow mo =/= only a fumble in slow mo. [Reply]
Originally Posted by :
in the field of play, at the sideline, or in the end zone if a player, who is inbounds:
a. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
b. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
c. after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.
The first image shows Kelce with possession and one foot down, satisfying A and partial B (1 foot).
Second image shows Kelce with his second foot down and the ball tucked, satisfying the latter half of B (both feet) and a partial of C (tuck the ball away).
The last image, you can't see his left foot, but it hits the ground at pretty much the exact instant that the ball is knocked out of his hands.
At that point, you can argue that he'd secured possession of the ball, had both feet down, tucked the ball, and taken a third step. By rule, all of that could constitute a catch, hence the controversy.
Originally Posted by kcclone:
You're talking about plays where the receiver has clear control of the ball, which Kelce obviously did not.
Check the screenshots I've uploaded. Kelce clearly has control of the ball. From the instant it hits his hands until it's punched out by the defender, it does not move or jostle at all. [Reply]
I was 90% sure Cheffers was going to overrule that and give Denver a TD…it was so close I wouldn’t have been mad either way and was glad the call stood. Not conclusive enough to overturn. If it was called a fumble on the field that call probably stands. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ThaVirus:
I remember thinking that one was pretty close as well. IIRC, it was Jeudy and he was going to the ground at the time which added another layer to it. Since he was going to the ground as it was punched out, by rule, that one is an incompletion every time. No room for controversy there.
Yea wasn't the same but similar, anyway Chiefs won by multiple scores so doesn't matter. I don't even know if they scored on this drive. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BossChief:
I’m going to be honest.
I was 90% sure Cheffers was going to overrule that and give Denver a TD…it was so close I wouldn’t have been mad either way and was glad the call stood. Not conclusive enough to overturn. If it was called a fumble on the field that call probably stands.
Couldn't have given them the td. Would have been their ball at the point of recovery. [Reply]