The overturned fumble

[Tommy]

I have been discouraged in recent years with the NFL’s rule changes where as a viewer at home you have no idea anymore what the referees are going to decide when they review a play. I use to feel I knew the rules well enough where I was sure of the call after watching it but not anymore.

But that overturned fumble has to be the worst reversal I have ever seen. The replay with the side view clearly shows the ball coming loose but during the review the officials had to see some view that was indisputable that the runner reestablished control of the ball and then fumbled a second time after his knee had already touched the ground. The only other view they showed was from behind and there is no way you can say that he reestablished control and lost it again.

That call really has me concerned. How in the world can any official stand by the call that they see irrefutable evidence of reestablishing control and losing it again?

Has anyone heard any other explanation? Was there another view we did not see?

 

[Oz-of-Cowboy-Country]

Spilled milk.

 

[big dog cowboy]

But that overturned fumble has to be the worst reversal I have ever seen.

Clearly the RB had regained possession before he went down. The replay from the end zone (behind the RB) was the best angle. It was easy to see he had the ball when his knee hit the turf.

 

[baltcowboy]

I have been discouraged in recent years with the NFL’s rule changes where as a viewer at home you have no idea anymore what the referees are going to decide when they review a play. I use to feel I knew the rules well enough where I was sure of the call after watching it but not anymore.

But that overturned fumble has to be the worst reversal I have ever seen. The replay with the side view clearly shows the ball coming loose but during the review the officials had to see some view that was indisputable that the runner reestablished control of the ball and then fumbled a second time after his knee had already touched the ground. The only other view they showed was from behind and there is no way you can say that he reestablished control and lost it again.

That call really has me concerned. How in the world can any official stand by the call that they see irrefutable evidence of reestablishing control and losing it again?

Has anyone heard any other explanation? Was there another view we did not see?

That was awful. He never regained control after he fumbled running into the offensive linemen.

 

[Nav22]

Clearly the RB had regained possession before he went down. The replay from the end zone was the best angle.

Bull.

All you see is that the ball is brought back towards his body. There is ZERO evidence that he had control of it, because that angle didn’t show that.

All we know is that he fumbled, brought the ball back towards his body, and then lost it completely as he hit the ground.

More than likely that means he NEVER regained full control of the ball. The fumble should’ve stood.

EVEN IF you want to argue that he likely did regain full control of the ball, there is zero angle that shows that conclusively, which is what the standard of proof is supposed to be.

 

[Kalyan]

I didn't see indisputable evidence to ober turn, the end zone view could be a split second when that ball is held but still coming out as the other view showed the ball on the ground. But the refs and Moose feel otherwise, so benefit of doubt goes to Chicago

 

[lwehlers]

I have been discouraged in recent years with the NFL’s rule changes where as a viewer at home you have no idea anymore what the referees are going to decide when they review a play. I use to feel I knew the rules well enough where I was sure of the call after watching it but not anymore.

But that overturned fumble has to be the worst reversal I have ever seen. The replay with the side view clearly shows the ball coming loose but during the review the officials had to see some view that was indisputable that the runner reestablished control of the ball and then fumbled a second time after his knee had already touched the ground. The only other view they showed was from behind and there is no way you can say that he reestablished control and lost it again.

That call really has me concerned. How in the world can any official stand by the call that they see irrefutable evidence of reestablishing control and losing it again?

Has anyone heard any other explanation? Was there another view we did not see?

i also agree but i watched the replay again before posting and the running back did get the ball back.

 

[Praxit]

....THAT was total BS call. Bloke never had control.

 

[Adiba1977]

Clearly the RB had regained possession before he went down. The replay from the end zone (behind the RB) was the best angle. It was easy to see he had the ball when his knee hit the turf.

Disagree. You assume he had it. Ball could have bern loose. Shouldn’t overturn that call

 

[GroundZero1970]

Clearly the RB had regained possession before he went down. The replay from the end zone (behind the RB) was the best angle. It was easy to see he had the ball when his knee hit the turf.

Problem with ur assumption is the ball was in the other hand u couldn't see. There was nthn clear about it

 

[adwar]

Clearly the RB had regained possession before he went down. The replay from the end zone (behind the RB) was the best angle. It was easy to see he had the ball when his knee hit the turf.

Please tell anyone how it was clear he regained the ball from the replays. Explain how he lost the ball again in a few frames. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but there is no clear visual evidence to overturn the call on the field. If it was ruled down by contact, it would be the same discussion.

 

[Tommy]

Clearly the RB had regained possession before he went down. The replay from the end zone (behind the RB) was the best angle. It was easy to see he had the ball when his knee hit the turf.

I don’t agree that from that angle you can clearly and irrefutably say anything.

Which is what the refs have to see to change the call on the field. Not they they think or it looks like. There has to be not doubt that he regained control. It is not there.

 

[J12B]

Clearly the RB had regained possession before he went down. The replay from the end zone (behind the RB) was the best angle. It was easy to see he had the ball when his knee hit the turf.

It happened too quick for him to regain possession.

He lost it going down clearly and somehow barely secured it, that is not regaining possession.

The reason it came out was because he did not have enough full control.

Call should not have been overturned.

 

[mldardy]

Clearly the RB had regained possession before he went down. The replay from the end zone (behind the RB) was the best angle. It was easy to see he had the ball when his knee hit the turf.

Clearly? I don't think so. There was nothing clearly about that unless there's a camera on the players stomach.

 

[HungryLion]

Clearly the RB had regained possession before he went down. The replay from the end zone (behind the RB) was the best angle. It was easy to see he had the ball when his knee hit the turf.

Clearly? Clearly? How can you argue that the player clearly regained possession of a ball, when as soon as it’s touched again, it pops out?


It defies logic

 

[Tommy]

i also agree but i watched the replay again before posting and the running back did get the ball back.

I haven’t watched it again after the game.

But after watching again would you say it is irrefutable and that there is not doubt at all that he has control of the ball?

 

[Jipper]

Bull.

All you see is that the ball is brought back towards his body. There is ZERO evidence that he had control of it, because that angle didn’t show that.

All we know is that he fumbled, brought the ball back towards his body, and then lost it completely as he hit the ground.

More than likely that means he NEVER regained full control of the ball. The fumble should’ve stood.

EVEN IF you want to argue that he likely did regain full control of the ball, there is zero angle that shows that conclusively, which is what the standard of proof is supposed to be.

I get your frustration and the league ref said that what they saw was repossession.

If you were going to be mad at it, I'd be mad bc it could have gone either way and they aired on the side of the reversal vs the call on the field.

I watched it many times and it did look like he repossed going down

 

[Cowboys22]

There was nothing seen on tv replays to conclusively say he regained possession. That looked to me to be a purely "keep the game close" call on the part of the refs. Way to much of that going on for years now.

 

[loublue22]

should have obviously been a "call stands"

 

[doomsday9084]

All the replays I saw did not show indisputable evidence that he had the ball back. I mean, it wasn't even close to indisputable. The endzone view was "maybe, kind of, possibly" he had the ball back. What was indisputable was that the ball came out before his knee went down and that Dallas came out with the ball. If he had such great control of it going down, why was there a scrum for the ball in the first place and how did LVE get it?

I do think this kind of thing matters. In a close game, this type of thing is going to change the winner of the game.