The overturned fumble

[RonWashington]

does he pull in 20 mil a year???

He eats well has a roof over his head and a cat that menaces him .

 

[Brooksey]

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.

Yeah clearly..post it up

 

[bsbellomy]

His arms went up towards the QB’s neck. You can make the argument that they never touched his head. That’s fine. But what I’m saying is….. in real time….. refs are constantly making that call. Constantly.

It needs to change, arms going "towards" the head and neck is meaningless. He either broke a rule or he didn't. Maybe the refs made mistakes, as you say, but nobody should say it's the RIGHT call, or even an acceptable one.

 

[Starstruck22]

Told my brother that if it would’ve stood of it was polllard

Bingo

 

[Starstruck22]

Yeah clearly..post it up

Total BS. I watched all angle presented and none showed conclusively he regained control. PERIOD! Ad the consensus on here did t not see it and the announcers did not say they saw conclusive evidence though they assumed he regained possession.

 

[bsbellomy]

Lol. You have the video, you now have the rules since you didn't know them and then you ask for more video that isn't available while not answering any of my questions. All the proof needed here. Thanks for playing.

You say that was DRIVING THROUGH the QB??????

 

[EST_1986]

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

Except he did

 

[Brooksey]

Total BS. I watched all angle presented and none showed conclusively he regained control. PERIOD! Ad the consensus on here did t not see it and the announcers did not say they saw conclusive evidence though they assumed he regained possession.

Agreed there was nothing clear about him regaining possession from any angle

 

[TheHerd]

Except he did

He might have, but do you really think there is irrefutable evidence of that?

 

[xwalker]

But xwalker, what part about the call is close? They needed irrefutable evidence to overturn that call. Do you think looking at the replay that it almost looked irrefutable?

I don't think it was a fumble but I also don't think it was irrefutable evidence to overturn; although it's possible they have more/different angles than what we saw.

Many of the holds vs Parsons are very very obvious but don't get called.

It's funny because the NBC Sunday Night pregame they were showing highlights from the day and they had it paused on a Cowboys-Bears play...The paused play clearly showed a Bears OL with a choke hold on a Cowboys pass rusher.

 

[Manster_Mash]

The NFL needs to look at that. Horrendous over-turned call. One of the worst uses of instant replay I have ever seen.

 

[DogFace]

Again. Refs are communists-“almost” by definition.

 

[Starstruck22]

I don't think it was a fumble but I also don't think it was irrefutable evidence to overturn; although it's possible they have more/different angles than what we saw.

Many of the holds vs Parsons are very very obvious but don't get called.

It's funny because the NBC Sunday Night pregame they were showing highlights from the day and they had it paused on a Cowboys-Bears play...The paused play clearly showed a Bears OL with a choke hold on a Cowboys pass rusher.

Parsons was mugged incessantly.

 

[Starstruck22]

I don't think it was a fumble but I also don't think it was irrefutable evidence to overturn; although it's possible they have more/different angles than what we saw.

Many of the holds vs Parsons are very very obvious but don't get called.

It's funny because the NBC Sunday Night pregame they were showing highlights from the day and they had it paused on a Cowboys-Bears play...The paused play clearly showed a Bears OL with a choke hold on a Cowboys pass rusher.

The nfl aint looking at nothing. This is by design. It is a scam from on high.

 

[Fizziksman]

Again. Refs are communists-“almost” by definition.

they support common ownership of the means of production?

 

[speedkilz88]

I don't think it was a fumble but I also don't think it was irrefutable evidence to overturn; although it's possible they have more/different angles than what we saw.

Many of the holds vs Parsons are very very obvious but don't get called.

It's funny because the NBC Sunday Night pregame they were showing highlights from the day and they had it paused on a Cowboys-Bears play...The paused play clearly showed a Bears OL with a choke hold on a Cowboys pass rusher.

Here's one from the Cowboys website:

 

[cmoney23]

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.

This is incorrect. You can see the ball was by his arm but you don't see him have control or possession.

 

[mahoneybill]

As soon as they. Roughy I think Blandino on with the knee touching the ground zi felt it would be overturned

 

[MarcusRock]

Here's one from the Cowboys website:

Again, not a hold. And you can't tell holding from a still picture. Also, Parsons is clearly using a rip move here. The people constantly complaining about holding don't know the rules on holding, especially about the rip move that appears to be Parsons' favorite.

 

[Brooksey]

According to the "he fumbled" crowd: He fumbled, re-gained possession and then fumbled again but only after his knee was down. They say that because they see an end zone shot of the ball on his thigh with the knee down?
The side view shows he's fumbling all the way to the ground. It starts while he's upright and continues until we see it rolling around on the turf after he's down.

Kearse is blocking the so called regain of possession so they used a snap shot from behind the endzone, lol.
There was no clear evidence. NONE.