Mike Preston: SuperGenius

[psuasskicker]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/football/bal-sp.preston13nov13,0,4625770.column?coll=bal-sports-football


There were a lot of crazy plays yesterday. One that stood out was the apparent fumble by Ravens running back Mike Anderson in the third quarter. Clearly it was a fumble recovered by Tennessee at the Ravens' 36, but the officials ruled Anderson was down by contact.

It's stuff like this that really makes me question what this guy is smoking.
1) It wasn't "clearly recovered by Tennessee"...it was clearly fallen on by Vincent. Just cause a Tenn guy came out of the pile with it doesn't mean they had it.
2) It wasn't ruled down by contact, it was ruled a fumble.

Does he even watch the games?

- C -

[bobw2829]

It's wasn't cleary recovered by Vincent, and the refs did rule down by contact before the review.

[Heap86]

I try to stay away from Prestons articles, He is a Buzzkiller. Even after a Ravens win reading his columns are depressing, he seems to nitpick worse than some on this board.

[Losac]

It's wasn't cleary recovered by Vincent, and the refs did rule down by contact before the review.
Exactly. It was ruled down by contact on the field (which was a horrible call, because it was so obviously a fumble from the replay), but there was no clear view from the replay on who recovered. So, by rule, the official must revert to the call on the field, which was down by contact.

It was a lucky break for us, but still a horrible call by the officials and I would be very pissed if I were a Titans fan.

[52decleetzu]

Exactly. It was ruled down by contact on the field (which was a horrible call, because it was so obviously a fumble from the replay), but there was no clear view from the replay on who recovered. So, by rule, the official must revert to the call on the field, which was down by contact.

It was a lucky break for us, but still a horrible call by the officials and I would be very pissed if I were a Titans fan.

The bottom line is Vincent recovered so it wouldnt have mattered.I dont know what you were watching but he clearly fell on the ball and was ON THE GROUND so the play is over.Just because a Titan strips the ball out in the scrum doesnt mean that Vincent didnt recover it and it should have been their ball.

[Losac]

The bottom line is Vincent recovered so it wouldnt have mattered.I dont know what you were watching but he clearly fell on the ball and was ON THE GROUND so the play is over.Just because a Titan strips the ball out in the scrum doesnt mean that Vincent didnt recover it and it should have been their ball.
What happens anytime there is a fumble and a pile develops? It doesn't matter who initially falls on the ball. It's whoever comes out of the pile with the ball that determines possession. The way the refs explained it was that there was no clear view of who had possession, so they had to revert to the call on the field. Justify it any way you want, but the Ravens dodged a huge bullet there.

[Ravenswarrior19]

One more thing about the terrible call. The first official runs in pointing to the ground, rule that Anderson was down. Then the other refs come in scratching their heads and looking at each other. The scrum continued for close to 20 seconds before anyone blows a whistle or starts sorting through the madness. It must of been the longest scrum in history, and it cost Ogden a personal foul penalty. Its one thing to blow a call. Its another to make it worse when the rest of the crew totally ignores what is still going on at their feet.

[braven98]

Its hard to watch the game when you face is glazed by the dounuts you just ate

[sopranocorleone]

Sometimes he really does grasp for straws. Case in point, today's article about the defense and its slippage:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/football/bal-sp.preston14nov14,0,5084524.column?coll=bal-sports-headlines

I don't disagree with some of his points, especially concerning the secondary.

However, what is the deal with overanalyzing how the run defense performed on Sunday?

Yes, Travis Henry inexplicably ran for over 100 yards on Sunday. And he had some long gains at that. However, going into the game, the Ravens were ranked first in overall run defense and were giving up LESS than 3.0 yds per carry. In fact, they were among a handful of defenses to accomplish that feat over a span of eight games.

The run defense has been nothing short of lights out and dominant so far this season. And unlike like last year, they have the size up front, so there is little to no chance that they will wear down.

Of Preston fails to mention that as the game wore on, and Haley had a better grasp of where to line up and fill, the run defense improved greatly.

The Ravens should get some big tests against Atlanta, Pittsburgh and Kansas City down the stretch. But I believe that for the most part, last Sunday's struggles against the run, specifically in the first-half, are nothing to worry too much about.

[PeterB58]

What happens anytime there is a fumble and a pile develops? It doesn't matter who initially falls on the ball.It does matter if the official clearly sees (or he thinks he clearly sees) a player gain control of the ball - or "possession". If possession is gained when that player is on the ground and someone jumps on him and tries to tear the ball away, it should be ruled as down by contact. Recall last year, Boller recovered one of his fumbles and was on his back when a Bengal player took it out of his arms and ran down the field, it should have been ruled down by contact but because the referee never saw Boller regain possession (or just didn't interpret the rule correctly), the play was allowed to stand.
It's whoever comes out of the pile with the ball that determines possession.In that case you would have 11-on-11 free-for-all scrums whenever there is a fumble. That sometimes happens, but only when there is no clear indication on if a player gained possession initally and the official have not blown the whistle. Many times the official sees someone gain possession and blows the play dead (if that player is touched on the groud).
The way the refs explained it was that there was no clear view of who had possession, so they had to revert to the call on the field. Justify it any way you want, but the Ravens dodged a huge bullet thereI will agree on that point.