Loose Ball Interference on Vaval fumble?

[TecnoGenius]

In the OTT@EDM game July 6:

On the fumble/facemask/TD/non-fumble: A better example of illegal interference on a loose ball?

The D guy forces the fumble.  Then he finishes his tackle on the QB.  But then he's holding the QB back/down and he's scrambling for the ball.  No other player is involved: just the QB and the one D guy.

Last time I asked I was informed the D guy can finish his tackle.  And in that case a 2nd D guy came in and got the ball.

But in this case, the D guy "finishes his assignment", then actively impedes Ford from the ball and goes and gets it himself.  So is THIS not illegal interference (II)?

Refs/command did say there was a fumble (presumably reviewed), so clearly they didn't care about II.  Maybe, like the facemask, they were waiting for a challenge on that aspect?

I guess my question is: if there are just 2 guys involved, like here, can II ever be called or will they always just say the D guy was finishing his job?

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

In the OTT@EDM game July 6:

On the fumble/facemask/TD/non-fumble: A better example of illegal interference on a loose ball?

The D guy forces the fumble.  Then he finishes his tackle on the QB.  But then he's holding the QB back/down and he's scrambling for the ball.  No other player is involved: just the QB and the one D guy.

Last time I asked I was informed the D guy can finish his tackle.  And in that case a 2nd D guy came in and got the ball.

But in this case, the D guy "finishes his assignment", then actively impedes Ford from the ball and goes and gets it himself.  So is THIS not illegal interference (II)?

Refs/command did say there was a fumble (presumably reviewed), so clearly they didn't care about II.  Maybe, like the facemask, they were waiting for a challenge on that aspect?

I guess my question is: if there are just 2 guys involved, like here, can II ever be called or will they always just say the D guy was finishing his job?

Better question is how did they initially miss that obvious RTP call?

[TecnoGenius]

Better question is how did they initially miss that obvious RTP call?

I didn't spot it live.  And it was subtle, the D let go very fast.  But there was the telltale head twist.  It looked worse in slowmo than live.

What I find interesting is the FM foul occurred like 1s after the fumble... That negates the fumble?  I'm not sure on the rule here.  What if that same D guy FM'ed the QB 5s after the fumble during the scramble?  Does that also negate the fumble?

Or is it based on possession: a FM after the D gains possession of the fumble would NOT negate the fumble?

[dd]

I didn't spot it live.  And it was subtle, the D let go very fast.  But there was the telltale head twist.  It looked worse in slowmo than live.

What I find interesting is the FM foul occurred like 1s after the fumble... That negates the fumble?  I'm not sure on the rule here.  What if that same D guy FM'ed the QB 5s after the fumble during the scramble?  Does that also negate the fumble?

Or is it based on possession: a FM after the D gains possession of the fumble would NOT negate the fumble?

I would say it does negate the fumble. If a Qb throws a pass and before it is intercepted, there's a RTP foul, ball goes back to the offense, don't see why the same wouldn't apply to a fumble.

[TecnoGenius]

I would say it does negate the fumble. If a Qb throws a pass and before it is intercepted, there's a RTP foul, ball goes back to the offense, don't see why the same wouldn't apply to a fumble.

I would say you're right.  Just seems odd that a UR that happens after the "issue" can negate said issue.  It's like a get of jail free card.  QBs should really ham it up on the slightest tap if they realize they just INTed or fumbled!  I'm talking full Cody!