The overturned fumble

[MarcusRock]

Looked like a really bad call, I’d like to see it again in slow mo

Here is that sideline angle. There appears to be an assumption by the refs that he regained possession. Clearly possible, but if you cant see if the ball was sliding the whole trip down to the ground I don't think you can overturn the call on the field.

 

[MarcusRock]

Well ill have to own that one just know how you defend the refs so my bad..ill own it

In the one thread where I'm actually not defending them. Lol. No worries. We all assume.

 

[adwar]

In both replays you can see the forearm hit Fields in the neck area. I think it's pretty obvious.

I disagree completely. He definitely got hit on other plays that could have been penalties, but nothing from the broadcast replays show a penalty. “In the neck area…..” this is where we are at now?

 

[Starstruck22]

Looked like a really bad call, I’d like to see it again in slow mo

It was shown at all angles at slow mo. Nothing showed definitively that he regained control. Cases and effect. All we saw was losing control and not definitively regaining control, ergo fumble.

 

[Alohawg1]

He fumbled and lost it on the way down. No way in heck he regained control and lost it twice in that sequence. The overturn was based on wishful thinking at best, not evidence.

 

[Streifenkarl]

Nah, the roughing the passer call was legit. You can't forearm a QB to the head/neck area. Here is a zoomed in video.

Agreed. Actually one of the more obvious calls. Just a dumb decision to go for his head.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

He never regained possession, but, nothing you can do about it. Whoever reversed it needs to be fined.

 

[Starstruck22]

I believe they get more angles, either from other networks or NFL cameras.

That is a very big assumption that there are more angles from another source. There was no definitive proof from every angle shown on network. So why aren’t the networks, who control the cameras and what is shown, showing us definitive evidence. A conspiracy? No. There was no definitive angle. It was bull crap as usuall like bogus spotting by female officials.

 

[Starstruck22]

He never regained possession, but, nothing you can do about it. Whoever reversed it needs to be fined.

Indeed big time. $20k at least.

 

[Runwildboys]

I am not one to complain about officials, but that was a bizarre reversal. That one end zone shot isn't conclusive that he had the ball back firmly in his possession. And the point is that unless it's conclusive, you can't change the call on the field.

Exactly. I can't say for certain that he didn't regain possession, but I didn't see any angle from which you could determine that he did.

 

[Alohawg1]

He never regained possession, but, nothing you can do about it. Whoever reversed it needs to be fined.

Can Roger be fined?

 

[Starstruck22]

Here is that sideline angle. There appears to be an assumption by the refs that he regained possession. Clearly possible, but if you cant see if the ball was sliding the whole trip down to the ground I don't think you can overturn the call on the field.

You cant. It is against all nfl rules. Just like bogus spotting ball 2 yards back for dallas everyt time.

 

[Starstruck22]

1 Angle he looks like he might be down with the ball lose Another angle shows he is down with the ball in control. You go with the best angle He did not fumble If he did he recovered it

Down with the ball in control is not indisputable evidence that he had control to the ground. Let’s get it right.

 

[Starstruck22]

He fumbled and lost it on the way down. No way in heck he regained control and lost it twice in that sequence. The overturn was based on wishful thinking at best, not evidence.

Bingo. All bull crap. Just like bull crap spotting on critical first downs.

 

[Chuck 54]

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.

The question is since the ball still ended up on the ground from another angle in a split second, how do they know that he actually had it secured? If he hadn’t fumbled against the butt of his own man, then I would say the replay showed he was down prior to the final fumble, but since he fumbled without our contact first and the ball was being held against his thigh for a bit and eventually ends up on the ground again, I find it easier to believe that the ball wasn’t fully secured when his knee went down than that the RB actually fumbled twice on the same play within 2 seconds because it definitely wasn’t a guy on the ground with defenders ripping it out. The second time it was behind him.

 

[Runwildboys]

Here is that sideline angle. There appears to be an assumption by the refs that he regained possession. Clearly possible, but if you cant see if the ball was sliding the whole trip down to the ground I don't think you can overturn the call on the field.

From this angle, they should be more prone to conclude that he never regained possession, since the ball squirted out from below his arms.

 

[Starstruck22]

Yep, I agree with many here. There was no way that the replay was conclusive proof that the runner had control of the ball prior to his knee touching the ground. Nothing even close to "indisputable proof"

Bingo

 

[Scotman]

I thought it was a terrible overturned call. Had it been called on the field down-by-contact, it shouldn't have been overturned that way either. The replays showed nothing that was irrefutable. The call on the field should have stood. Otherwise, you've just got some guy out there guessing. Replay was only meant to overturn calls that were completely obvious on review.

This wasn't completely obvious and should not have been overturned.

 

[Chuck 54]

Here is that sideline angle. There appears to be an assumption by the refs that he regained possession. Clearly possible, but if you cant see if the ball was sliding the whole trip down to the ground I don't think you can overturn the call on the field.

As I’ve said, it’s easier to believe the ball wasn’t really secured than to believe he fumbled twice.

 

[Starstruck22]

I thought it was a terrible overturned call. Had it been called on the field down-by-contact, it shouldn't have been overturned that way either. The replays showed nothing that was irrefutable. The call on the field should have stood. Otherwise, you've just got some guy out there guessing. Replay was only meant to overturn calls that were completely obvious on review.

This wasn't completely obvious and should not have been overturned.

Bingo…,another specious and bogus call…….there is a bias here it is obvious…..all these close calls almost always translate to SCREW DALLAS!!!!!