[kevkrom]

the refs correctly reversed the call that Hasselbeck fumbled the ball during his 4th quarter scramble.

At first, I thought so too. But the more I think about it, especially with all of the Seattle whiners nit-picking about other calls, I'm not so sure. Hasslebeck was going down of his own voilition (he stumbled). While he was already on the way down, but not yet down, there was incidental contact with a defender. When he hit the ground, he was not touched before the ball came loose. The question is, does that incidental contact constitute "down by contact"? I'm not sure sure... I thought you had to either be touched while down or have gone down as a result of contact with a defender.

[Echo Talon]

At first, I thought so too. But the more I think about it, especially with all of the Seattle whiners nit-picking about other calls, I'm not so sure. Hasslebeck was going down of his own voilition (he stumbled). While he was already on the way down, but not yet down, there was incidental contact with a defender. When he hit the ground, he was not touched before the ball came loose. The question is, does that incidental contact constitute "down by contact"? I'm not sure sure... I thought you had to either be touched while down or have gone down as a result of contact with a defender.

You are a moron.

[Tallguy]

And if Hasselbeck had bounced back up & continued running (instead of fumbling) the Steelers fans would be screaming about him being touched on the way down. You see, either way the "ground" should be allowed to cause a fumble. You have to take the "ref-factor" out of this common event on a football field.

[IFly4Him]

good point; Michaels and Madden seemed to indicate that the incidental was good enough so I was relying on their understanding...