The overturned fumble

[CalPolyTechnique]

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

100%

On the broadcast angle from the sideline view you can clearly see what it was. I’m knew he was flagged while the ball was still in the air. The replay angle they kept showing from behind didn’t show the full extent.

 

[xwalker]

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?

At least that one is a close call.

Many bad calls are unquestionably wrong and the lack of holding calls on OL that strangle and tackle defenders is obsurd.

 

[Cowpolk]

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

I was correct in my assessment

 

[cityochamps]

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.

 

[cityochamps]

Can Roger be fined?

Its not Roger or the NFL that doesn't want full time refs, apparently these part timers got themselves a Union and the NFL has a contract with that union. It's just a matter of time though, it is too much out in the open now how incompetent these part timers are along with the NFL being the only professional sport with out full time referees.

 

[Tommy]

At least that one is a close call.

Many bad calls are unquestionably wrong and the lack of holding calls on OL that strangle and tackle defenders is obsurd.

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?

 

[Kingofholland]

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.

Anything is possible but the ball could have been moving around while Kearse's arm temporarily held up the ball. I don't think there was clear evidence either way so call on the field in a lot of cases is what would stand. I think back to the Dak QB sneaks he had last few years where half his body was over the goal line. Logic would say it was a td, but because the ball couldn't be clearly seen it was called not a TD. That's the biggest issue with the NFL, rule applications are so arbitrary.

Luckily it didn't influence the outcome and you can't put yourself in position where a single bad call by a ref influences the outcome.

 

[Bagman]

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. The decision should be made based on evidence thats available. There was no visual evidence of a recovery. Only the opinion of the replay guys that he "probably" recovered. Definitely not enough evidence to overturn the call on the field.

 

[ryanbabs]

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

I honestly don’t think he had time to regain control. Just my opinion…

 

[DanA]

I have a problem with the rule more than the call. It should be the same as the catch rule (football move etc).

 

[lukemartin79]

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?

This is where the NFL has been for awhile and even worse now after the TUA incident this year. Everyone knows that, all the players know that. Thats getting called every time in every game. Time for some of these players to get a little smarter

 

[Kevinicus]

I was correct in my assessment

You cannot find a frame showing him with the ball with his knee being down (or after this).

 

[Carson]

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?

That’s my argument. If it wasn’t a fumble and it wasn’t overturned I would understand.

But to say that there was 100% clear cut evidence he regained possession is absolutely insane

 

[DanA]

Exactly. The decision should be made based on evidence thats available. There was no visual evidence of a recovery. Only the opinion of the replay guys that he "probably" recovered. Definitely not enough evidence to overturn the call on the field.

How that’s determined but Dak breaking the plane for a TD cannot is mind boggling. But refs are inconsistent…waddayoudo?

 

[Cowpolk]

You cannot find a frame showing him with the ball with his knee being down (or after this).

Fortunately I do not have to The Ball was in his hand he fell on it

 

[Bagman]

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 you're wrong. Clearly.

 

[Kevinicus]

Fortunately I do not have to The Ball was in his hand he fell on it

For irrefutable evidence you do. How do you know he had the ball in his possession? Blind assumption.

 

[32BellyOption]

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

He may have but there was no camera angle that showed the ball in control with knee up. To me what they had was inconclusive.

 

[Floatyworm]

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?

Replay is crap...and has ruined the game. When you have dopes like Dean Blandino with axes to grind...your going to get horrible calls like this. The NFL is fixed...controlled by the betting mafia...and it's never going to be cleaned up as long as that Goodell is running this schlutzshow.

 

[CT Dal Fan]

The whole gist here is "irrefutable".

Did he regain control of the ball? If you wanted to hook me up to a lie detector I would have to say probably. But making calls in an NFL game isn't about "probably" and "I think so". There was NO evidence to prove Herbert regained control.

And since the original call was fumble, then it should have stayed a fumble.