I thought they got that one right, the clock one was bs, but the fumble was correct. Grossman's arm was going forward, and by the rules, it really doesn't matter why it's going forward, as long as it is, it's an incomplete pass. I believe they got it right.

__________________

Banner by Mark Clapper

That was kind of my point. His arm was going forward, because it was knocked forward.

I have listened to the refs explain this rule all year, and while by the book it can be called a forward pass, this is a clear case of no common sense being involved in the rules.

You have little to no chance of going after a quarterback from the front because your helmets might collide. If you go low to avoid that, you might hit him too low, or not see that he has thrown the ball and get flagged then. If you adjust to all of this by getting to them from behind, they get another free pass because of this stupid rule.

His arm went forward because he was hit, and the ball went out sideways. That rule needs to be changed if you are going to get anal in the NFL to the point of challenging every call made on the field inside of two minutes.

That's fine if that's your take, there are many rules I don't like that I think should be changed. But at it's current state, it doesn't matter why the arm goes forward, or how sideways the ball comes out. It only matters that is goes forward, which it clearly did which makes the call clearly right. The rule may be crap, but you can't allow that to affect calls, you have to call it by the rules in place which they did.

And that makes my point (at least in my eyes). Just to recap my reasoning here since it is all spread out through this thread.

Had the call on the field been "incomplete" - I would be fine with it. Once reviewed, there would not be conclusive evidence to overturn the call.

Instead, the call was "fumble". On review, it looks like the arm may have been going forward, but it is not conclusive that the arm was going forward before the ball was coming out. Reason being is because it was clearly a fumble and we are trying to us a technicality to overturn a call on the field.

Calls are to be overturned only when there is conclusive evidence. This was not conclusive. Yes, his arm was going forward, but it was not conclusive that he had control of the ball when the arm started forward. Why? because we all know he didn't. Common sense tells you he was fumbling that ball, and the replay official used a technicality which ultimately ended up saving the quarterbacks job most likely. The replay official could have kept it as a fumble and there would have been no controversy, and it would have been the right thing to do.

I have heard many people say it was a fumble, and many people say it was a correct call. It is obviously unclear enough that the ruling on the field should have stood.

And with that, I am off my soapbox.

i dont get the penalty on the bears for unnessicary roughness on the Bears when, who was it?(damn i have a bad memory), hit bulger in the head. The guy had no where else to hit him the blocker was holding him back. He would have missed if he would have went lower that was definatley an anal call

I thought it was pretty clear that his arm was going forward before the ball came out. I havent seen the replay since the game, but it looked like the ball may have gone backwards. This to me was the thing to look at with the call. The backwards pass would / should have been a fumble if it was in fact backwards.

In the end, the Bears did get a few calls go their way, but it did not affect the overall outcome of the game. Hester and Grossman pulled away down the stretch and the difference was m ore than just 1 or 2 maybe calls from the zebras.