Fumble

[jakedog56]

The Seahawks lost the game fair and square (don't suck so bad in the first half and on ST and then maybe there could be a complaint) but I have to question what I consider to be a bad call at the end of the game.

It was clearly a fumble. The replay showed that it was a fumble. The guy's body was still completely in the air (no part of him touching the ground) when the ball came out. How come there was no recourse to overturn this horribly blown call by the refs?

What happened after that could still be in question. It appeared to me that the ball squirted out again before the next StL player had posession and it appears that the Seahawks ended up with the ball but all of that is far more debatable than the actual non-call on the fumble itself.

 

[BHF]

Jake, it was called a fumble, with the Rams recovering.

 

[jakedog56]

Jake, it was called a fumble, with the Rams recovering.

I see now. They respotted the ball at the 36 yard line because they state that the ball was batted forward from that point. That is where I was confused.

I disagree with that also because the ball was not intentionally batted forward. It was only a mad scramble to the ball.

Either way, it should have been reveiwed. Regardless of the outcome of the play the correct action would have been for someone to take a look at it from the different camera angle.

 

[zeke2829]

I see now. They respotted the ball at the 36 yard line because they state that the ball was batted forward from that point. That is where I was confused.

I disagree with that also because the ball was not intentionally batted forward. It was only a mad scramble to the ball.

Either way, it should have been reveiwed. Regardless of the outcome of the play the correct action would have been for someone to take a look at it from the different camera angle.

How do you review a 25 man wrestling match? The deciding point was Corey Harkey ending up with the ball! If the Seahawks come up with it, then you would have had posseeion. Pretty simple.

 

[jakedog56]

How do you review a 25 man wrestling match? The deciding point was Corey Harkey ending up with the ball! If the Seahawks come up with it, then you would have had posseeion. Pretty simple.

I don't disagree with the outcome so much. My point is that it should have been reviewed regardless of the outcome.

There were camera shots that provided much more information than the refs on the field were able to see. To proceed with out properly evaluating it, particularly considering the situation, is just sloppy ref work.

 

[dkmightyhammer]

How do you review a 25 man wrestling match? The deciding point was Corey Harkey ending up with the ball! If the Seahawks come up with it, then you would have had posseeion. Pretty simple.

Easy. You go under the hood, take 30 seconds, and have a peek at the play. Probably nothing changes because, as you say, it was a mob of people and you probably couldn't make a 100% determination of anything. But if they had even just looked at it I would have been satisfied. It was the fact that they wouldn't bother to look at it that pissed me (and apparently Pete Carroll) off. Even if the refs just did it for themselves so they could say "well we checked and the play stands" it would have looked better for them. By not looking they've opened a window for the exact kind of debate about the call that we are having now.

 

[STBR 27]

I see now. They respotted the ball at the 36 yard line because they state that the ball was batted forward from that point. That is where I was confused.

I disagree with that also because the ball was not intentionally batted forward. It was only a mad scramble to the ball.

Either way, it should have been reveiwed. Regardless of the outcome of the play the correct action would have been for someone to take a look at it from the different camera angle.

Jake, in the fourth quarter, the only person who can "advance" a fumble from the fumbling team is the player who actually fumbled the ball. Since Mason did not recover the fumble, it is returned to the spot where the ball was fumbled. I think the rule only applies to the 4th quarter so a player cannot "accidently" fumble the ball forward, but not sure on that?

The one thing I found strange was that I think that was the first "scrum" I have ever seen where the ref came out with the ball, not the player who recovered it, but that had nothing to do with who really recovered the ball.

 

[SeattleCoug]

I don't think reviewing it would have changed the call on the field. Nothing was conclusive enough to overturn. However I think when a play like that could decide a game, it should be reviewed. Even the most obvious touchdowns and turnovers get automatically reviewed so something like this should have at least been given a 2nd look. But like I said I don't think a review would have changed it.

 

[zeke2829]

Easy. You go under the hood, take 30 seconds, and have a peek at the play. Probably nothing changes because, as you say, it was a mob of people and you probably couldn't make a 100% determination of anything. But if they had even just looked at it I would have been satisfied. It was the fact that they wouldn't bother to look at it that pissed me (and apparently Pete Carroll) off. Even if the refs just did it for themselves so they could say "well we checked and the play stands" it would have looked better for them. By not looking they've opened a window for the exact kind of debate about the call that we are having now.

Heck as far as I know the ball could have changed posession several times in that pile. I get your point, fans wants a fair explaination. They probably saw that the ball just couldnt be seen with that many guys in a pile. Assumed that a review wouldnt show anything. Not sure exactlyThey just waited until the pile dispersed and saw that a RAM player had possesion.

 

[Podunkparte]

Heck as far as I know the ball could have changed posession several times in that pile. I get your point, fans wants a fair explaination. They probably saw that the ball just couldnt be seen with that many guys in a pile. Assumed that a review wouldnt show anything. Not sure exactlyThey just waited until the pile dispersed and saw that a RAM player had possesion.

Because making assumptions always works out so well.

It's unacceptable for the NFL, with all of it's emphasis on getting calls right and replay technology, to ever assume anything.

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

The ball was last seen underneath Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman, who told reporters he maintained possession under the pile and assumed he would be credited with a recovery that would have given the Seahawks' offense one final chance to win the game.


So there you go... Richard said he had possession of the ball under the pile the entire time..

 

[STBR 27]

The ball was last seen underneath Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman, who told reporters he maintained possession under the pile and assumed he would be credited with a recovery that would have given the Seahawks' offense one final chance to win the game.


So there you go... Richard said he had possession of the ball under the pile the entire time..

I sure wondered how it was possible that Sherman could NOT have kept that ball under the pile, it was right in his belly as he turned over!

 

[jerseyhawksfan79]

That's a play 10 out of 10 times gets reviewed reguardless of the outcome especially at the most critical time of the game. We'll never really know why the play wasn't reviewed, but these officals should be held accountable for not following the proper procedure.

 

[cdumler7]

That's a play 10 out of 10 times gets reviewed reguardless of the outcome especially at the most critical time of the game. We'll never really know why the play wasn't reviewed, but these officals should be held accountable for not following the proper procedure.

With the play clock under 2 minutes it would have to be a booth review that buzzes down to the refs on the field. That means that every play under 2 minutes is reviewed no matter what. So the play was reviewed just not by the official on the field. The booth made a decision that it would have been inconclusive of who actually had possession. There would have to be video evidence that shows without a shadow of doubt that a Seattle player had the ball when the whistle was blown. With such a pile on top of the ball I don't think there is any camera angle that could have shown conclusively (important word) that Seattle had possession. So again it was reviewed just not by the official on the field.

 

[jerseyhawksfan79]

With the play clock under 2 minutes it would have to be a booth review that buzzes down to the refs on the field. That means that every play under 2 minutes is reviewed no matter what. So the play was reviewed just not by the official on the field. The booth made a decision that it would have been inconclusive of who actually had possession. There would have to be video evidence that shows without a shadow of doubt that a Seattle player had the ball when the whistle was blown. With such a pile on top of the ball I don't think there is any camera angle that could have shown conclusively (important word) that Seattle had possession. So again it was reviewed just not by the official on the field.

I should have said the officals in the booth, my bad on that. Normally on a bang bang play like that under 2 mins the booth stills buzzes the officals on the field to take a look reguardless if it had conclusive evidence or not to over turn the original ruling. I just find it being a bit out of the ordinary that the review didn't happen.

 

[cdumler7]

I should have said the officals in the booth, my bad on that. Normally on a bang bang play like that under 2 mins the booth stills buzzes the officals on the field to take a look reguardless if it had conclusive evidence or not to over turn the original ruling. I just find it being a bit out of the ordinary that the review didn't happen.

I was surprised too but having watched it now about 20 times I think they do come to the conclusion that there just is nothing available that shows that Seattle conclusively had control. I don't doubt that Sherman is actually telling the truth that at one point he did have full control of the football. Players have talked plenty in the past though that the football changes hands many times at the bottom of those piles and it just comes down to who is the strongest and maybe dirtiest at the bottom of that pile.