The Fumble That Wasn't

[MountaineerCowboy]

Correct me if I am wrong (I know you will), but even if they reviewed that and said the runner was not down and it was a clear fumble, was the runner also not touching the ball while being out of bounds meaning it wouldn't have mattered anyways? The replayed that I've seen clearly looked like the runner made contact with the ball while also being out of bounds. Would that not make the fumble meaningless then?

Basically, does the offense player touching it while being out of bounds not down then ball right there?

 

[cheftjpeck]

Correct me if I am wrong (I know you will), but even if they reviewed that and said the runner was not down and it was a clear fumble, was the runner also not touching the ball while being out of bounds meaning it wouldn't have mattered anyways? The replayed that I've seen clearly looked like the runner made contact with the ball while also being out of bounds. Would that not make the fumble meaningless then?

Basically, does the offense player touching it while being out of bounds not down then ball right there?

That’s the way it appeared to me as well - was the player recovering the fumble was also touching out of bounds at same time as recovery -
What was missed before that though was Micah running Edmonds out of bounds on previous play as well as the egregious miss of an obvious delay of game on the same play as fumble / non fumble -

then the subsequent defenses failure to still stop the cardinals repeat RPO attempts that netted them the yardage repeatedly to run out the clock

bottom line we lost they won - let’s break down the total team failure that caused the loss - Arizona played better
Cowboys didn’t

 

[MountaineerCowboy]

That’s the way it appeared to me as well - was the player recovering the fumble was also touching out of bounds at same time as recovery -
What was missed before that though was Micah running Edmonds out of bounds on previous play as well as the egregious miss of an obvious delay of game on the same play as fumble / non fumble -

then the subsequent defenses failure to still stop the cardinals repeat RPO attempts that netted them the yardage repeatedly to run out the clock

bottom line we lost they won - let’s break down the total team failure that caused the loss - Arizona played better
Cowboys didn’t

I agree, but we're seeing a lot of talk about the fumble, when even if it was reviewed probably wouldn't have went our way anyways unless I'm misinterpreting the rules regarding the offensive player touching it while out of bounds.

 

[Vanilla2]

For me the frustration was the ref jumping in and empathetically whistling the runner down. There has been no harm in the past letting that play out and then have the discussion. Not a good look for the league but they don’t care cuz they’re making money by the truck load as is.

 

[JBS]

If that indeed is what happened , then yes, the ball would be dead. That’s a great catch on your part. I haven’t seen it yet to confirm but that’s how the rule works.

 

[thunderpimp91]

If that happened yes your are correct. I didn't see him touch it while being out of bounds though. Not saying it didnt happen, i'm just yet to see an angle that shows it.

 

[Creeper]

Correct me if I am wrong (I know you will), but even if they reviewed that and said the runner was not down and it was a clear fumble, was the runner also not touching the ball while being out of bounds meaning it wouldn't have mattered anyways? The replayed that I've seen clearly looked like the runner made contact with the ball while also being out of bounds. Would that not make the fumble meaningless then?

Basically, does the offense player touching it while being out of bounds not down then ball right there?

Are you saying Odighizuwa was out of bounds when he touched the football? I didn't see that. I thought he was inbounds. I will look for video of the play. But if he had a foot out of bounds he cannot recover the ball. Then it would be a dead ball. If a player who is out of bounds touches the ball inbounds the ball is considered out of bounds. If this was the case then the clock should have stopped.

 

[MountaineerCowboy]

If that indeed is what happened , then yes, the ball would be dead. That’s a great catch on your part. I haven’t seen it yet to confirm but that’s how the rule works.

I've slowed the replay down as slow as YouTube will allow and the only angle that they actually show the whole sequence is the view that you see on TV.

From that view it looks like the ball hits off his knees while his backside is already out of bounds.

 

[MountaineerCowboy]

Are you saying Odighizuwa was out of bounds when he touched the football? I didn't see that. I thought he was inbounds. I will look for video of the play. But if he had a foot out of bounds he cannot recover the ball. Then it would be a dead ball. If a player who is out of bounds touches the ball inbounds the ball is considered out of bounds. If this was the case then the clock should have stopped.

No, I'm saying the runners backside was out of bounds when the ball hit off his knees.

It looked to me as if the runner fumbled and while trying to regain the ball deflected it off his knee while his backside was already out of bounds.

The good angles cut off before the play is over, so you never get a good view of it.

 

[Creeper]

Okay, I found some video and watched it multiple times pausing frequently to see the actual positions of the ball, players, etc.

I have revised my opinion on the fumble. It is a fumble. Yes, the runner's head hits the ground but the still picture does not show that the ball was already moving before his head hit the ground. From the side angle you can see the ball is coming loose with the runners head off the ground. Look at the second video clip at the :03 mark. Did Dallas recover? From the video I have seen it is difficult to tell if Odighizuwa touched the out of bounds line during the recovery but it looks to me like he did not. His back leg may be over the out of bounds line, but it is not touching the ground so he is in bounds.

The one thing I cannot determine from the video is whether Edmonds touched the ball while he was out of bounds. We need a different camera angle for that. If he did then it is a dead ball at that spot. But the clock should have stopped. The rule is Edmonds has to be out of bounds. The fact he is in contact with Demarcus Lawrence does not make him out of bounds.

Based on all this, the play definitely should have been reviewed and there were only 2 options. 1. It is a fumble and Dallas has the ball. or 2. It was a fumble and Edmonds was out of bounds while in contact with the ball - AND the clock stops.

Would it have made a different? No. Because on the next play Murray ran around Gregory, who was too busy complaining to the refs to pay attention to Murray, for a 1st down just as the 2 minute warning was called.

Video Link:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/watch-cowboys-robbed-of-fumble-against-cardinals/ar-AASmL9B

 

[fredp22]

let it go already.
the team has to start playing better and stop trying to find fault by "slowing down the video as much as youtube can go" looking for something/anything to whine about.

 

[MountaineerCowboy]

Okay, I found some video and watched it multiple times pausing frequently to see the actual positions of the ball, players, etc.

I have revised my opinion on the fumble. It is a fumble. Yes, the runner's head hits the ground but the still picture does not show that the ball was already moving before his head hit the ground. From the side angle you can see the ball is coming loose with the runners head off the ground. Look at the second video clip at the :03 mark. Did Dallas recover? From the video I have seen it is difficult to tell if Odighizuwa touched the out of bounds line during the recovery but it looks to me like he did not. His back leg may be over the out of bounds line, but it is not touching the ground so he is in bounds.

The one thing I cannot determine from the video is whether Edmonds touched the ball while he was out of bounds. We need a different camera angle for that. If he did then it is a dead ball at that spot. But the clock should have stopped. The rule is Edmonds has to be out of bounds. The fact he is in contact with Demarcus Lawrence does not make him out of bounds.

Based on all this, the play definitely should have been reviewed and there were only 2 options. 1. It is a fumble and Dallas has the ball. or 2. It was a fumble and Edmonds was out of bounds while in contact with the ball - AND the clock stops.

Would it have made a different? No. Because on the next play Murray ran around Gregory, who was too busy complaining to the refs to pay attention to Murray, for a 1st down just as the 2 minute warning was called.

Video Link:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/watch-cowboys-robbed-of-fumble-against-cardinals/ar-AASmL9B

If the good angled replays didn't cut off so quick we'd be better able to see if the runner was, in fact, out of bounds and touched the ball or not, but we don't ever really get a clear view of it.

 

[MarcusRock]

Correct me if I am wrong (I know you will), but even if they reviewed that and said the runner was not down and it was a clear fumble, was the runner also not touching the ball while being out of bounds meaning it wouldn't have mattered anyways? The replayed that I've seen clearly looked like the runner made contact with the ball while also being out of bounds. Would that not make the fumble meaningless then?

Basically, does the offense player touching it while being out of bounds not down then ball right there?

This is a great catch. I think you may have something here. Here is the rule and I'll see if I can pull video.

RULE 3: DEFINITIONS
SECTION 21 OUT OF BOUNDS, INBOUNDS, AND INBOUNDS SPOT
ARTICLE 3. BALL OUT OF BOUNDS.

Item 1. Ball in Player Possession. A ball that is in player possession is out of bounds when the runner is out of bounds, or when
the ball touches a boundary line or anything that is on or outside such line, except another player or an official.

Item 2. Loose Ball. A loose ball that is not in player control is out of bounds when it touches a boundary line or anything that is
on or outside such line, including a player, an official, or a pylon.​

 

[MountaineerCowboy]

This is a great catch. I think you may have something here. Here is the rule and I'll see if I can pull video.

RULE 3: DEFINITIONS
SECTION 21 OUT OF BOUNDS, INBOUNDS, AND INBOUNDS SPOT
ARTICLE 3. BALL OUT OF BOUNDS.

Item 1. Ball in Player Possession. A ball that is in player possession is out of bounds when the runner is out of bounds, or when
the ball touches a boundary line or anything that is on or outside such line, except another player or an official.

Item 2. Loose Ball. A loose ball that is not in player control is out of bounds when it touches a boundary line or anything that is
on or outside such line, including a player, an official, or a pylon.​

I've slowed down the replay as slow as I could, but the only good view you get is the one you saw live. It looks to me that the ball was touched by the runner while his backside was out of bounds, but it's hard to tell. The good angles cut away before the play is over.

I kind of hope that he was touching it and it would have went to the Cardinals anyways just to ease the pain of the loss a little lol

 

[Brax]

I've slowed down the replay as slow as I could, but the only good view you get is the one you saw live. It looks to me that the ball was touched by the runner while his backside was out of bounds, but it's hard to tell. The good angles cut away before the play is over.

I kind of hope that he was touching it and it would have went to the Cardinals anyways just to ease the pain of the loss a little lol

His head was down before the fumble that is why the ref was pointing down emphatically, also if a player touches the ball without a clear recovery the play is dead and the last team with control gets the ball. Basically, there was no fumble so everything else doesn't matter.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Correct me if I am wrong (I know you will), but even if they reviewed that and said the runner was not down and it was a clear fumble, was the runner also not touching the ball while being out of bounds meaning it wouldn't have mattered anyways? The replayed that I've seen clearly looked like the runner made contact with the ball while also being out of bounds. Would that not make the fumble meaningless then?

Basically, does the offense player touching it while being out of bounds not down then ball right there?

well, I think its meaningless and useless to argue over a fumble and blame the not called fumble on the loss. we had plenty of opportunities to win that game and we didn't seize on those opportunities.

we allowed them to run the ball down our throat, knowing they will be running the ball. they ran the ball outside for 41 yards on that last drive....no good defense would allow that. and I don't want to hear the TOP, the TOP...if the defense needs the offense to win TOP every game, every time, then that defense is over rated.

three drops in the 4th quarter that would have help put us in position....zeke dropped an easy catch....pollard did the same and schultz the same. all of those would have helped put the team in better position. Dak had a couple of horrible over throws in 3rd and 4th quarter.

in close games against better teams, you need to seize the opportunities and cash in when they come. good teams will make some plays against you, that's what makes them good. but when you mess up because of you, that's on you....

this game was there in the end to be had and for us to come back given we had all the momentum in the 4th....they ran for 44 yards...again we knew they were going to run. yet they still ran for 44 yards.... on one freaking drive. when we knew what they would do.

this game was a total failure on all parts of the team.....the fumble is irrelevant to anything about this game....perhaps just an exclamation point in the end to an arse whooping we recieved.

 

[America's Cowboy]

Okay, I found some video and watched it multiple times pausing frequently to see the actual positions of the ball, players, etc.

I have revised my opinion on the fumble. It is a fumble. Yes, the runner's head hits the ground but the still picture does not show that the ball was already moving before his head hit the ground. From the side angle you can see the ball is coming loose with the runners head off the ground. Look at the second video clip at the :03 mark. Did Dallas recover? From the video I have seen it is difficult to tell if Odighizuwa touched the out of bounds line during the recovery but it looks to me like he did not. His back leg may be over the out of bounds line, but it is not touching the ground so he is in bounds.

The one thing I cannot determine from the video is whether Edmonds touched the ball while he was out of bounds. We need a different camera angle for that. If he did then it is a dead ball at that spot. But the clock should have stopped. The rule is Edmonds has to be out of bounds. The fact he is in contact with Demarcus Lawrence does not make him out of bounds.

Based on all this, the play definitely should have been reviewed and there were only 2 options. 1. It is a fumble and Dallas has the ball. or 2. It was a fumble and Edmonds was out of bounds while in contact with the ball - AND the clock stops.

Would it have made a different? No. Because on the next play Murray ran around Gregory, who was too busy complaining to the refs to pay attention to Murray, for a 1st down just as the 2 minute warning was called.

Video Link:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/watch-cowboys-robbed-of-fumble-against-cardinals/ar-AASmL9B

Clearly a fumble. The ball was not touched by the RB once he lost control of the ball and he went out of bounds. Should have been Cowboys ball.

The crooked officials messed up 3 times on that play. They allowed the play to run even though the time clock had reached 0 and the Cardinals took at least between 1-2 seconds to hike the ball afterwards. The ball was definitely fumbled and should have been awarded to the Cowboys. Finally, the officials should have called an officials timeout and reviewed that play. Why didn't the official up in the booth not call down immediately and told the head referee to review the play?

 

[MountaineerCowboy]

Clearly a fumble. The ball was not touched by the RB once he lost control of the ball and he went out of bounds. Should have been Cowboys ball.

The crooked officials messed up 3 times on that play. They allowed the play to run even though the time clock had reached 0 and the Cardinals took at least between 1-2 seconds to hike the ball afterwards. The ball was definitely fumbled and should have been awarded to the Cowboys. Finally, the officials should have called an officials timeout and reviewed that play. Why didn't the official up in the booth not call down immediately and told the head referee to review the play?

Do you have some video or picture evidence that the runner did not touch the ball while out of bounds?

 

[Creeper]

Clearly a fumble. The ball was not touched by the RB once he lost control of the ball and he went out of bounds. Should have been Cowboys ball.

The crooked officials messed up 3 times on that play. They allowed the play to run even though the time clock had reached 0 and the Cardinals took at least between 1-2 seconds to hike the ball afterwards. The ball was definitely fumbled and should have been awarded to the Cowboys. Finally, the officials should have called an officials timeout and reviewed that play. Why didn't the official up in the booth not call down immediately and told the head referee to review the play?

I cannot say I disagree. Except it is not clear to me if the runner touches the ball while out of bounds. I would need to see another angle. You might be right, but I just cannot tell for sure.

 

[Diehardblues]

Most likely the play is not over turned. Not enough visual evidence much like we have here after multiple reviews in slo mo.

Just more sour grapes from fans on a controversial call that didn’t go our way.