The overturned fumble

[Flamma]

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

This is all you had to say. I agree completely for the same reasons you do. We saw the ball come free. No way in that short period of time did he fumble, regain possession, then fumble again. It's one of the dumbest reversals I've ever seen. Logic would dictate that he never totally regains possession. Nothing showed with certainty that he did, yet they reverse the call?

I can understand making a bad call. But to make a low IQ stupid call is taking it to another level.

They don't even abide by their own rules. There has to be irrefutable proof to overturn a call. There wasn't.

 

[J-man]

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 really hope your being sarcastic and I missed it. If not sorry, but I think your smoking crack if you actually saw that. All you could see was a piece of the ball, there was no way at all to tell if he had control over it or if it was still lose, as the other angle showed. I'm not saying he didn't, but there was zero undisputable evidence that he regained control of that ball. In fact, if you watch the side view to it's full completion, not just when you first lose site of the ball and they kept stopping the replay, but watch it all the way through and you will see as he rolls towards his back the ball is still lose in his hands before it's knocked away and recovered. I'd say that view, from start to finish, shows undisputable evidence that he never did regain control of the ball and the call that it was a fumble recovered by Dallas was the correct call.

 

[Starstruck22]

Here's one from the Cowboys website:

There were a plethora of these. Does anyone know what constitutes holding in the nfl anymore. Probably the most inconsistently applied in the NFL. Grabbing someone with one arm around the entire body is HOLDING!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Starstruck22]

I really hope your being sarcastic and I missed it. If not sorry, but I think your smoking crack if you actually saw that. All you could see was a piece of the ball, there was no way at all to tell if he had control over it or if it was still lose, as the other angle showed. I'm not saying he didn't, but there was zero undisputable evidence that he regained control of that ball. In fact, if you watch the side view to it's full completion, not just when you first lose site of the ball and they kept stopping the replay, but watch it all the way through and you will see as he rolls towards his back the ball is still lose in his hands before it's knocked away and recovered. I'd say that view, from start to finish, shows undisputable evidence that he never did regain control of the ball and the call that it was a fumble recovered by Dallas was the correct call.

Bingo…..just another instance of screwing Dallas when they can and they will

 

[Dallasfann]

Do you know how I know it was not conclusive enough to overturn the call...because there is an 11 page thread on a Cowboys forum where cowboy fans are disagreeing with one another that it was a fumble AFTER a 20 point win.

It was one of the worst overturned calls I've ever seen if we are going off NFL rules. If it was the NFC divisional round vs the Eagles and we lost by 3 points after that. It would be the most talked about topic in sports for years.

 

[Kevinicus]

Guys, you keep arguing about whether or not he regained possession. That's irrelevant.

What matters is that there is no visual evidence that he had posession when his knee touched, or any point after that. That's all that's necessay for the play to stand as called.

He could have regained posession and lost it again before his knee hit (far more likely he never did regain posession though).

 

[CowboyFrog]

Guys, you keep arguing about whether or not he regained possession. That's irrelevant.

What matters is that there is no visual evidence that he had posession when his knee touched, or any point after that. That's all that's necessay for the play to stand as called.

He could have regained posession and lost it again before his knee hit (far more likely he never did regain posession though).

This is the point..how do they overturn the call on the field when it has to be indisputable evidence which they did not have.

 

[OmerV]

I think the refs got it right, but I agree it was very hard to see with certainty. I thought they might stick with the original call because of that.

 

[blueblood70]

I think the refs got it right, but I agree it was very hard to see with certainty. I thought they might stick with the original call because of that.

NOT MIGHT BY RULE they were NOT allowed to overturn it nothing clear about it.

fumbles a fumble if you dont have clear indisputable evidence to overturn. That and the ghost roughing that called back an INT and other non-holding and facemask calls. We got jobbed. not spilt milk as a zoner implied.

yes we won,

in win we can whine harder as it doesn't matter anymore but makes it clearer there were issues that created a situation where drives were extended, points scored off those mistakes made our defense stay on the field a ton longer. Thank gawd its bye week and not short week or something.. it matters even in a win.

 

[jaythecowboy]

Guys, you keep arguing about whether or not he regained possession. That's irrelevant.

What matters is that there is no visual evidence that he had posession when his knee touched, or any point after that. That's all that's necessay for the play to stand as called.

He could have regained posession and lost it again before his knee hit (far more likely he never did regain posession though).

I was so confused because where they had it paused they show the knee down and once they pushed play the ball was well out lol.

 

[DripTooHard]

We got shafted on the fumble and the interception that was cancelled out after a ridiculous penalty call…
If that interception had stood, we probably score at least a field goal and go in at halftime 31-7 up.

But then most turn the TV off and stop watching. Vegas folks stop putting money on the game. Bad for the NFL.

 

[GORICO]

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

He has a good agent

 

[RonWashington]

He has a good agent

Lol …. Maybe I’m not all bad , thanks . You guys ( most ) of you in this board are a pretty good bunch of fellas to talk Pokes and other topics .

 

[Runwildboys]

I think the refs got it right, but I agree it was very hard to see with certainty. I thought they might stick with the original call because of that.

I have to disagree. From what we see in the replay, at least the one shown earlier in this thread, the ball squirts out from pretty much the same place where he originally lost it. For that to happen in less than 2 seconds, I don't see any possible way he could have regained possession.

 

[Zekeats]

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.

Exactly. Refs still assume, it's entertainment. Do people really believe that Vegas doesn't play a role in outcomes/scores? Why else do the refs have the ability to make calls that can't get overturned?

 

[leeblair]

This one was worse:
https://fb.watch/gyKFTSLPfx/

 

[Runwildboys]

This one was worse:
https://fb.watch/gyKFTSLPfx/

Explain what you mean, please.

 

[leeblair]

Explain what you mean, please.

This was a touchdown. The official at the goal line was about to raise his arms and signal a touchdown when an official comes running from behind-who couldn't have seen the play to make the call- says something to the first official and rules the runner down at the one yard line. Not only did he overrule the official in position to make the call, but by doing so he forced Detroit to decide whether or not to challenge it. Had it been ruled a touchdown it would have automatically been reviewed, but he stopped that. It was purposely done, the Lions fumbled on the next play, and instead of them having the lead late in the game, the momentum shifts drastically and the Lions self-destruct.
This is an obvious example of referees changing the outcome of a game. It went in the Cowboys favor, so no one here wants to talk about it, but what if it doesn't?
This is crooked officiating at it's worst.

 

[Runwildboys]

This was a touchdown. The official at the goal line was about to raise his arms and signal a touchdown when an official comes running from behind-who couldn't have seen the play to make the call- says something to the first official and rules the runner down at the one yard line. Not only did he overrule the official in position to make the call, but by doing so he forced Detroit to decide whether or not to challenge it. Had it been ruled a touchdown it would have automatically been reviewed, but he stopped that. It was purposely done, the Lions fumbled on the next play, and instead of them having the lead late in the game, the momentum shifts drastically and the Lions self-destruct.
This is an obvious example of referees changing the outcome of a game. It went in the Cowboys favor, so no one here wants to talk about it, but what if it doesn't?
This is crooked officiating at it's worst.

But it wasn't a TD. His knee was down when the ball was at the one foot mark. Yes, it was a bad spot, but it wasn't a TD.

 

[75boyz]

I mean, yep, the name of the game is irrefutable evidence. Kind of like a murder trial. You gotta absolutely be convinced theres no reasonable doubt.

This was just a reg season fumble call that had no great impact in big picture standings.

How about playoff doozies like:
That infamous tuck rule call that seemed so stupid at the time, but at least it was in the rule book.

The Dez caught it call was just as bad but again, it was in the rule book at the time BUT has since been changed.

The most egregious in recent playoff memory was the Rams PI on the Saints receiver in a championship game to decide a chance to go to the SB.

If I'm a Saints fan, I still ain't recovered from that one.