PDA

View Full Version : The fumble/incompletion...


steelax04
02-02-2009, 02:54 PM
Did the decision on what to call the fumble/incompletion at the end of the game really matter? Even if they overturn it and say incomplete pass, it hits a lineman. With that, it's an offensive penalty and consequently leads to a 10-second runoff of the clock, which ends the game... at least that's what I think.

Anyone else understand the rules to be something different than that?

PolamaluPower
02-02-2009, 02:56 PM
No matter what happened, someone would come up with something for a reason as to why the other team lost. Personally, I don't think it mattered. It was the correct call.

Dino 6 Rings
02-02-2009, 02:57 PM
Did the decision on what to call the fumble/incompletion at the end of the game really matter? Even if they overturn it and say incomplete pass, it hits a lineman. With that, it's an offensive penalty and consequently leads to a 10-second runoff of the clock, which ends the game... at least that's what I think.

Anyone else understand the rules to be something different than that?

Hadn't thought about that. However, there was a 15 yard penalty on that play against us, which I think negates the run off. SO the Cards could have (if it was inc and not a fumble) had the ball 15 yards closer to our endzone for one last heave for a hall mary jump ball with Larry Fitz and Boulden going up for it.

JEFF4i
02-02-2009, 02:57 PM
NFL Stated that it was, in fact, reviewed. However, since it was upstairs, no one really mentioned it.

How do people not notice that it took a while for the next play to begin?

Just trying to find the link for it, was on school comp when I saw it.

Pi Kapp Steeler
02-02-2009, 02:59 PM
I believe the penalty was on us. Which would have moved them closer to the endzone. But it was a fumble.

The tuck rule is the grayest area of the NFL playbook. It really is hard to determine when the QB is truly throwing, or acting like he is so he can get the incomplete pass.

JEFF4i
02-02-2009, 03:08 PM
Its my understanding that it wasn't the tuck rule that this applied to, its that a Steeler hand was pulling out the ball before Warner's arm started moving forward.

jjpro11
02-02-2009, 03:14 PM
warner essentially batted the ball forward because he lost complete control of it as soon as woodley hit the ball. since woodley knocked it loose before warner's arm went forward, it was a fumble.

people keep bitching about a review, but nobody is actually willing to admit the call on the field was correct.. people just like stirring up controversy and whining about the officiating. if it would have been overturned those same people would have been saying the call on the field was right and it shouldnt have been overturned. there are people out there that have bizarre agendas with nfl refs.

jcdavey08
02-02-2009, 03:15 PM
Its my understanding that it wasn't the tuck rule that this applied to, its that a Steeler hand was pulling out the ball before Warner's arm started moving forward.
yeah , it was clearly a fumble because the qb didn't have control when his arm motion begun going forward, you gotta have control.....

i think the seahaws sb was pretty corrupt, but that game last night was called extremely cleanly

it was a damn fine reffed game


(i'm not a steelers fan, just being unbiased)

if the refs would have been favoring pitt, they wouldn't have called the safety or allowed zona to take the lead, or set up pitt in the hole at 1st and 20 on the final drive

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
02-02-2009, 03:15 PM
The Brady rule is bullshit. I said this in another thread, but... You could run back 50 yards and as long as you flip your arm forward when you get hit it is an incomplete pass. It should have to either a) cross the line of scrimmage, or b) be within arms reach of an receiver. Both of them should have been fumbles.

lamberts-lost-tooth
02-02-2009, 03:16 PM
****Update: NFL VP of Officiating Mike Pereira commented on the play to NBC:****

"We confirmed it was a fumble. The replay assistant in the replay booth saw it was clearly a fumble. The ball got knocked loose and was rolling in his hand before it started forward. He has to have total control."
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/28971640/



Looks like they did review it upstairs but decided it wasnt close enough to have the field judge take a look.

Officially a non-issue

jcdavey08
02-02-2009, 03:17 PM
warner essentially batted the ball forward because he lost complete control of it as soon as woodley hit the ball. since woodley knocked it loose before warner's arm went forward, it was a fumble.

people keep bitching about a review, but nobody is actually willing to admit the call on the field was correct.. people just like stirring up controversy and whining about the officiating. if it would have been overturned those same people would have been saying the call on the field was right and it shouldnt have been overturned. there are people out there that have bizarre agendas with nfl refs.after the hochuli affair and the last pitt sb, most people wouldn't care to try and be objective and unbiased


you've gotta take each situation on a case by case basis

hochuli = corrupt, seattle pitt sb = corrupt, last night's sb = totally clean

Stover4Prez
02-02-2009, 03:21 PM
I personally think that it still warrants at least a look by the guys on the field. It is the Superbowl and one of the last plays. Another 2 minutes and the whole thing would have been put to rest. They reviewed the Harrison TD, which I don't think was even close, and the Cards had to challenge TWICE to get the correct call. I don't think the officials did a really great job and with all the other controversies this season it would have been in the best interest of the game to be conservative and let the Umpire take a look at it.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
02-02-2009, 03:24 PM
I personally think that it still warrants at least a look by the guys on the field. It is the Superbowl and one of the last plays. Another 2 minutes and the whole thing would have been put to rest. They reviewed the Harrison TD, which I don't think was even close, and the Cards had to challenge TWICE to get the correct call. I don't think the officials did a really great job and with all the other controversies this season it would have been in the best interest of the game to be conservative and let the Umpire take a look at it.

Are you blind? How is the Harrison TD not even close? The first thing to hit the ground was his face/elbow in the endzone!

lamberts-lost-tooth
02-02-2009, 03:27 PM
I personally think that it still warrants at least a look by the guys on the field. It is the Superbowl and one of the last plays. Another 2 minutes and the whole thing would have been put to rest. They reviewed the Harrison TD, which I don't think was even close, and the Cards had to challenge TWICE to get the correct call. I don't think the officials did a really great job and with all the other controversies this season it would have been in the best interest of the game to be conservative and let the Umpire take a look at it.

The booth does NOT ask the field judge to review every play in the last two minutes...only those that they think need to be reviewed.

The booth looked at the call...said that it was CLEARLY a fumble..and did not feel the need to have the field judge review....let it go.

Stover4Prez
02-02-2009, 03:29 PM
Are you blind? How is the Harrison TD not even close? The first thing to hit the ground was his face/elbow in the endzone!


That's what I meant. It WAS NOT even close to NOT being a touchdown. They reviewed it on the field BY THE UMPIRE, but I thought that play was much more conclusive on the field than the fumble.

Pi Kapp Steeler
02-02-2009, 03:31 PM
Can somebody please call the....


http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i131/aeccard1/wambulance.jpg

We got some whiners!

Stover4Prez
02-02-2009, 03:31 PM
The booth does NOT ask the field judge to review every play in the last two minutes...only those that they think need to be reviewed.

The booth looked at the call...said that it was CLEARLY a fumble..and did not feel the need to have the field judge review....let it go.

I'm not really disputing the call. It is what it is and now that the game is over, it doesn't matter either way. I am just suprised the Ump didn't look at it seeing as how it was close (which I don't think anyone can dispute) and it was a pretty decisive play.

Stover4Prez
02-02-2009, 03:33 PM
If you construe a legitimate opinion of how I think the refs should have handled the call as whining, then I don't think you understand my post. I'm not questioning the call. I'm questioning why they didn't want to look closer at it since it was such a decisive call. This is nothing against the Steelers. It is more a question of the officials.

lamberts-lost-tooth
02-02-2009, 03:34 PM
That's what I meant. It WAS NOT even close to NOT being a touchdown. They reviewed it on the field BY THE UMPIRE, but I thought that play was much more conclusive on the field than the fumble.

The question was whether harrison's knee touched the ground before the ball broke the plane...

since a usually very bright Fitz, made the mistake of trying to strip the ball instead of tackling Harrison...Harrison's knee came down on top of the defender and he rolled into the endzone.

The booth thought that perhaps a different camera angle might change the call on the field.....However...in the case of the fumble, they saw conclusively that Warner lost possession of the ball and no other camera angle or review was needed.

There is your answer as to why it wasnt reviewed on the field

Stover4Prez
02-02-2009, 03:40 PM
Fair enough. I still personally believe it warranted a second set of eyes, but I can respect your argument. It is obviously a close call with the amount of media and fan board publicity it is getting. IMO this all could be avoided with the ump going under the hood. Plus it draws out the suspense! Everyone wins!!!

Pi Kapp Steeler
02-02-2009, 03:45 PM
Fair enough. I still personally believe it warranted a second set of eyes, but I can respect your argument. It is obviously a close call with the amount of media and fan board publicity it is getting. IMO this all could be avoided with the ump going under the hood. Plus it draws out the suspense! Everyone wins!!!

I agree that they should have looked at it again. Just to confirm that check it out , and fix all this BS that we have to face from the media.