The overturned fumble

[Nova]

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.

my gripe is that this is even a debate at all.

The NFL gets so bogged down in the minutia of rules that they throw out all logic.

The guy clearly lost control of the ball and then the ball ultimately ended up on the ground.

We’re expected to believe that he regained control in that quarter of a second when he lost control and ultimately lost it altogether?

How does that make sense?

I get that there are times when a runner can reposess the ball, but this ain’t it.

 

[DandyDon52]

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?

the nfl likes it like that, so they can go with any call they want in certain games , and everyone just blames the refs.
meanwhile NY decides on most of these or all of the reviews.

 

[dueyhemlock]

Ya have to know the refs are calling a play like that 99/100 times. That’s just how the refs officiate those plays all across the league now.

I watched Dak get tackled by his head late in the game, yellow laundry ?
I watched Parson get tackled, thrown to the ground on the end of the line (very easy to see) on their TD pass. Parsons would have creamed their QB if more for this blatant tackle...yellow laundry ?

It is not hard to see that they help control the flow of these games.

Don't want blowouts....

dad might cut the grass.
make a store run
or even spend time w/ the fam :- o

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

I watched Dak get tackled by his head late in the game, yellow laundry ?
I watched Parson get tackled, thrown to the grown on the end of the line (very easy to see) on their TD pass. Parsons would have creamed their QB if more for this blatant tackle...yellow laundry ?

It is not hard to see that they help control the flow of these games.

Don't won't blowouts....

dad might cut the grass.
make a store run
or even spend time w/ the fam :- o

I bet I know who you voted for.

 

[HungryLion]

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.

I think most evidence points to him not repossessing the ball.


The ball came loose as soon as he hit the ground.


Are we to believe that he lost control of the ball, then regained possession of the ball and then coincidentally, 1/4 of a second later, the ball popped loose once he hit the ground? That’s a big coincidence.

what makes more sense?

he lose control of the ball, never truly regained possession of the ball and then the ball fully came loose once hitting the ground.

or

he loses control of the ball, regains possession of the ball in a 1/4 second and then just as a matter of coincidence, the ball pops out again?


I know which one sounds way more plausible….

 

[Sydla]

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?

That's the rule. You can't hit a QB in the neck/head area.

How is it you guys don't get this? It happens in every single game. If you make contact with a QBs neck or head area, it's likely gonna get called. Both replays show his forearm up near his head when he makes contact.

 

[HungryLion]

I watched Dak get tackled by his head late in the game, yellow laundry ?
I watched Parson get tackled, thrown to the grown on the end of the line (very easy to see) on their TD pass. Parsons would have creamed their QB if more for this blatant tackle...yellow laundry ?

It is not hard to see that they help control the flow of these games.

Don't want blowouts....

dad might cut the grass.
make a store run
or even spend time w/ the fam :- o

Dude all I’m saying is. That exact thing that the defender did gets called roughing the passer all the time in the NFL


I didn’t even celebrate when DIGGS caught the ball because I saw it happen live and expected the flag to be thrown.

didn’t shock me at all they made that call.

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

I thought about that Dak play too because I remember saying that I believe Dak "probably" scored but I could see why they didn't call it a score because there was nothing you could see to say he definitely crossed the goal line with the ball before his knee touched and he kept driving forward. So if the standard is "we have to definitely see it" then you can't reverse this play today either. Same for fans. You can't say, "just estimate it" for Dak and then say you can't estimate it here.

 

[lukin2006]

It was not obvious that he he recovered the ball with control. That’s the rule. The call on the field should have stood. But those refs were just awful. They get an f….

let’s not forget the bogus call that wiped out a Diggs interception.

 

[Runwildboys]

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.

Looking at the replay, I would go so far as to say it seems unlikely that he regained possession. The last time we see the ball before his knee hits, it's below his hands, which is just where it squirts out of once his knee hits.

 

[HungryLion]

I thought about that Dak play too because I remember saying that I believe Dak "probably" scored but I could see why they didn't call it a score because there was nothing you could see to say he definitely crossed the goal line with the ball before his knee touched and he kept driving forward. So if the standard is "we have to definitely see it" then you can't reverse this play today either. Same for fans. You can't say, "just estimate it" for Dak and then say you can't estimate it here.

Thus my largest issue with NFL refereeing. Consistency.

 

[Runwildboys]

I thought about that Dak play too because I remember saying that I believe Dak "probably" scored but I could see why they didn't call it a score because there was nothing you could see to say he definitely crossed the goal line with the ball before his knee touched and he kept driving forward. So if the standard is "we have to definitely see it" then you can't reverse this play today either. Same for fans. You can't say, "just estimate it" for Dak and then say you can't estimate it here.

Though you could make an argument that the original judgement call on the Dak play should have been TD...but since it wasn't, you can't overturn it based on the video.

 

[Starstruck22]

my gripe is that this is even a debate at all.

The NFL gets so bogged down in the minutia of rules that they throw out all logic.

The guy clearly lost control of the ball and then the ball ultimately ended up on the ground.

We’re expected to believe that he regained control in that quarter of a second when he lost control and ultimately lost it altogether?

How does that make sense?

I get that there are times when a runner can reposess the ball, but this ain’t it.

It does not. The rule is F dallas whenever possible whether spotting the ball or close calls. Always goes against Dallas. It’s a screw job.

 

[Runwildboys]

Thus my largest issue with NFL refereeing. Consistency.

But they consistently screw us, does that count? (J/K)

 

[Starstruck22]

Thus my largest issue with NFL refereeing. Consistency.

No they are consistent….consistently screwing dallas…..

 

[Sydla]

Looking at the replay, I would go so far as to say it seems unlikely that he regained possession. The last time we see the ball before his knee hits, it's below his hands, which is just where it squirts out of once his knee hits.

Again, if they called it a fumble on the field, there wasn't enough evidence to prove he got it back. Sure, there is a split second from one angle that shows he may have gotten it back but that's not enough to overturn. It was a bad job by the NFL replay booth. If they are following the rule of it has to irrefutable evidence, I'd love for the replay guy who made that call to explain how it was irrefutable.

 

[Starstruck22]

Looking at the replay, I would go so far as to say it seems unlikely that he regained possession. The last time we see the ball before his knee hits, it's below his hands, which is just where it squirts out of once his knee hits.

But they dont follow the rule. Everyone on here to a T, says they never saw indisputable evidence, including me. The announcers never reported indisputable evidence. Ergo…..fumble

 

[MarcusRock]

Thus my largest issue with NFL refereeing. Consistency.

Yup. It almost has to be when so many calls are judgment calls. No two people will see things exactly the same. I mean look at the broadcasters today. They were pretty convinced. So for the refs, good luck getting it right exactly the same ways across 16 games a week.

 

[Starstruck22]

I think most evidence points to him not repossessing the ball.


The ball came loose as soon as he hit the ground.


Are we to believe that he lost control of the ball, then regained possession of the ball and then coincidentally, 1/4 of a second later, the ball popped loose once he hit the ground? That’s a big coincidence.

what makes more sense?

he lose control of the ball, never truly regained possession of the ball and then the ball fully came loose once hitting the ground.

or

he loses control of the ball, regains possession of the ball in a 1/4 second and then just as a matter of coincidence, the ball pops out again?


I know which one sounds way more plausible….

It is not what makes more sense….it is what is indisputable…..there is no indisputable evidence for recovering the bobbled ball….NONE!!!!! All assumed and that is why they should be fined and fired. And after games if refs have indisputable evidence not presented to viewers, there should be an independent objective panel to review that one video to make sure we are not getting robbed.

 

[Runwildboys]

But they dont follow the rule. Everyone on here to a T, says they never saw indisputable evidence, including me. The announcers never reported indisputable evidence. Ergo…..fumble

I agree, it should've been ruled "inconclusive", at best. I'm just saying that, if I hadn't seen the play at all, and the only thing I had from which to extrapolate an opinion was the vide, I'd say it was probably a fumble.