Bradshaw Fumble

[Thepatty13]

Was Victor Cruz's fumble (the one that got negated for 12 men on the field) any different than the one Bradshaw lost against us? Looked the same to me except our was called forward progress..

 

[shouldakepowens]

Exactly what I thought cruz was hit and being drove backwards

 

[MW49ers5]

I think the difference is Bradshaw had his forward progress stopped and was being tackled by one player (Brock) when another player Bowman came to strip the ball. Cruz had his forward progress stopped by one player and was in the process of fighting for possession with the same player before he was down.

Key difference - one player vs. two players.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Greg from Seattle thought Victor Cruz's first-quarter non-fumble in the Super Bowl, rendered irrelevant by a penalty for 12 men on the field, resembled the forward-progress call involving Ahmad Bradshaw that hurt San Francisco during the 49ers' game against the Giants two weeks ago.

"The only discernible difference I saw was that there were two men involved on Bradshaw's fumble two weeks ago," Greg wrote. "If this week's play had been ruled a fumble while the Niners were not permitted even to challenge, I would have been outraged. Curious to hear your perspective."

Mike Sando: I had the exact same thought, but it was a fleeting one because of the penalty. The 49ers weren't necessarily victimized by a horrible call, in my view. It seemed like one of those unlucky ones, along the lines of the chop-block call against Frank Gore in Philadelphia. I disagreed with the call against Gore and thought the 49ers caught bad break on the Bradshaw ruling. The Cruz play looked similar when watching the game live.

Former NFL officiating boss Mike Pereira, now a Fox analyst, offered this take: "Without this penalty, fans would have been left wondering why the play in San Francisco was ruled forward progress and this one wasn’t. In my opinion, both plays should have been ruled forward progress and not fumbles."

I dislike the forward-progress ruling when it's close. Rules require players making receptions to hold onto the ball through the conclusion of the play. Why not enforce the same standard for players running with the ball? If officials think forward progress has been stopped, then they should blow the whistle. Had the whistle blown when Bradshaw lost the ball? How about when Cruz lost the ball? If not, the play was live, right?

I'm open-minded on this, but that's how it looks from this angle.

I don't agree with Pereira. I think neither should be ruled forward progress. If a player is going to the ground continuously as the result of a hit, the play should stay alive until he hits the ground. If he's wrapped up and stopped, or is being actively dragged backward, then it's forward progress. Brock didn't even wrap up, and had effectively broken contact by the time Bradshaw fell onto him. If there weren't other players around and Bradshaw retained possession of the ball, he could have bounced off Brock and kept running.

 

[MW49ers5]

I disagree with Pereira on Cruz's fumble, that was clearly a fumble. As for the Bradshaw call, forward progress was clearly the correct call but the officials did a horrible job of calling it correctly on the field - meaning late whistle. As I said in another thread, blow the whistle too soon and you get complaints, too late and you get complaints. It's a grey area call that needs to be made more timely and consistently.

 

[Kinzu]

I disagree with Pereira on Cruz's fumble, that was clearly a fumble. As for the Bradshaw call, forward progress was clearly the correct call but the officials did a horrible job of calling it correctly on the field - meaning late whistle. As I said in another thread, blow the whistle too soon and you get complaints, too late and you get complaints. It's a grey area call that needs to be made more timely and consistently.

how do you figure the Bradshaw call was correct and the Cruz one was a fumble?

It was pretty clear the guy tackling Cruz was trying to strip away the ball instead of tackling him. He was holding Cruz up and pushing him backward. Forward progress being stopped is much more clear on that play if you want to call it.

The Bradshaw fumble happened as he was going to the ground. He was never stood up or pushed backwards. He got tackled from behind and fall on top of a defender as he lost the ball. He was never down and never stood up.

I guess maybe it's because Bradshaw fell backwards, but that is a lame excuse to use. Cruz easily went backward 2 yards before he got stripped. Bradshaw fumbled on the spot he got hit.

 

[iHATEdodgers]

how do you figure the Bradshaw call was correct and the Cruz one was a fumble?

It was pretty clear the guy tackling Cruz was trying to strip away the ball instead of tackling him. He was holding Cruz up and pushing him backward. Forward progress being stopped is much more clear on that play if you want to call it.

The Bradshaw fumble happened as he was going to the ground. He was never stood up or pushed backwards. He got tackled from behind and fall on top of a defender as he lost the ball. He was never down and never stood up.

I guess maybe it's because Bradshaw fell backwards, but that is a lame excuse to use. Cruz easily went backward 2 yards before he got stripped. Bradshaw fumbled on the spot he got hit.

I agree with your take. They were both fumbles. Oh well.

 

[MW49ers5]

how do you figure the Bradshaw call was correct and the Cruz one was a fumble?

It was pretty clear the guy tackling Cruz was trying to strip away the ball instead of tackling him. He was holding Cruz up and pushing him backward. Forward progress being stopped is much more clear on that play if you want to call it.

The Bradshaw fumble happened as he was going to the ground. He was never stood up or pushed backwards. He got tackled from behind and fall on top of a defender as he lost the ball. He was never down and never stood up.

I guess maybe it's because Bradshaw fell backwards, but that is a lame excuse to use. Cruz easily went backward 2 yards before he got stripped. Bradshaw fumbled on the spot he got hit.

I just reviewed the Vernon Davis fumble vs. Washington. That particular fumble (called a fumble) was as perfectly in between the Bradshaw & Cruz plays as you can get...

If it did come down to a distinct difference between the, now, three plays, I would say it is that Bradshaw was falling backwards - which you don't like. Both Cruz & Davis had their forward progress stopped, both were going backward, both were still standing and both were still fighting their defender(s) (Cruz, one defender, Davis, two defenders)

I think the part of my post where I said "it's a grey area call that needs to be made more timely and consistently", is the most accurate thing I can say. So, who knows...

 

[Kinzu]

Yeah I really don't like the falling backwards aspect of it. The reason is because it makes no sense.

On the Cruz fumble you're rewarding the defender for standing him up and trying to strip the ball. The entire point of the forward progress rule is to not allow this.

On the Bradshaw fumble you're rewarding the runner simply because of the direction he fell. The forward progress rule was not designed to be used due to the way a guy is falling down. It's designed to prevent plays like the Cruz fumble.

I'm not saying I think the Cruz play was ruled wrong though. He was still fighting and could have broke the tackle. I absolutely thought it was a fumble.

I agree there is a grey area on when to rule forward progress has been stopped. I don't think it should ever be used though until a play is clearly over. Once the defender or defenders have established dominance over the runner in such a way were he can not move forward the play is over. That is not something that happens instantly either so you should never get a quick whistle on it.

Neither Bradshaw or Cruz should have even been consider forward progress in my opinion. The Cruz play was much closer though.

 

[MW49ers5]

All good points, but, who knows...if we look for similarities between all three plays there are three.

One, forward progress was stopped.
Two, the ball was stripped.
Three, the whistle was blown after the ball was stripped.

So, hell it appears the refs aren't even sure how to call it.

 

[CalamityX11]

Former NFL officiating boss Mike Pereira, now a Fox analyst, offered this take: "Without this penalty, fans would have been left wondering why the play in San Francisco was ruled forward progress and this one wasn’t. In my opinion, both plays should have been ruled forward progress and not fumbles."

Terrible terrible reasoning by Pereria here. That means, nearly any head on hit that stops the RB going forward should be deemed stoppage of play. If he can't fumble that means the play should be ruled down....

Idiot! Glad you're no longer the head of officials.

It's football!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! fuckin sakes....

 

[CalamityX11]

I disagree with Pereira on Cruz's fumble, that was clearly a fumble. As for the Bradshaw call, forward progress was clearly the correct call but the officials did a horrible job of calling it correctly on the field - meaning late whistle. As I said in another thread, blow the whistle too soon and you get complaints, too late and you get complaints. It's a grey area call that needs to be made more timely and consistently.

There's no way that Bradshaw ruling was correct IMHO... especially in a game where earlier in the 1st half I believe, Gore, with the ball, was holding on to dear life while there were 3-4 giants on him and no whistle being blown. He's obviously not going anywhere yet no whistle blew?

As for the forward progress, my understanding and common viewing of the call being made is when player A moves to the 30(i.e.) but player B tackles him and pushes him back and back to the 25. Player A is given forward progress back to the 30.

Bradshaw wasn't pushed back for more than a few yards, he was getting tackled and being stripped as he was going down. No knee or elbow made contact to the ground before losing possesion. The whistle blew faster than a blonde cheerleader on gameday, complete BS.