Om Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 it seemed like the ball was moving out of his hands, BUT then he gained possesion of it again and then his knee hit. THEN once his knee hit the ground the ball came out again and we ended up with it. SO.. if thats what happened and I think that is...then its not a fumble. For real? You looked at that play (specifically from the angle they only showed once) and determined it showed him regaining control in the fraction of a second between the hit and when his knee touched the ground. That explains hung juries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 To be fair, it's a lot clearer to TV viewers watching from a sideline camera with the assistance of the blue line to indicate the line of scrimmage.Though I do agree that he was a good yard and a half or so over the LOS when he passed. I agree common sense indicates it's a hard call to make ... but honestly, in almost 40 years of watching football I don't think I've ever seen that call missed that badly before. Usually the zebras are so dialed in to the LOS on a scramble like that they'll catch it if the guy's toenail is over the line, much less his whole body at least a yard over. I've been amazed in the past at how accurate the refs have been in making that call. This is the first time I've been amazed at how badly they seemed to have missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 It looked like he still had possesion when his knee hit to me... The ball definitely moved, but it looked like he trapped it momentarily. When his knee hit, he could no longer hold on. I dont know, I think it was a tough call. I probably would have overturned it too, to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 It looked like he still had possesion when his knee hit to me... The ball definitely moved, but it looked like he trapped it momentarily. When his knee hit, he could no longer hold on.I dont know, I think it was a tough call. I probably would have overturned it too, to be honest. Well, that's the thing. To overturn it, you're supposed to have "indisputable visual evidence." Here it clearly was not. If it's "a tough call" even for those who think he DIDN'T fumble, ignoring the stated criteria for reversal and saying you'd reverse it anyway shows a disregard for the rule. Which is what it almost seems the replay official did. The call on the field was fumble. Absent the "indisputable visual evidence" that anyone has yet to make a serious case existed, the call should have stood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Apparently you don't remember several seasons back where the NFL sent us notes confirming that improper calls by the refs could have cost us 2 or 3 (I forget) games during that season. Also, complaining about bad calls only after losses is evidence that your just a whiner. I'm also POed because a bad ref call in game 1 made the game go into OT. Another bad call might have made the game a lot closer than it should've been. The 17-9 lead we probably would've had going into q4 that would've soon been a 24-9 lead makes the 4th much more enjoyable for me (and this isn't considering any emotional lift we might have had). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budski Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Sorry to me it was not a fumble, I think you guys are reaching a little bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 anybody got video? i'd like to see it once more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Sorry to me it was not a fumble, I think you guys are reaching a little bit. the ball did appear to move just before his knee hit- almost like he was moving it from one arm to the other to cradle it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raub Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Whether or not it was a fumble isn't really the problem here. The lack of "indisputable visual evidence" is the problem. The call on the field was a fumble, the replays didn't show anything that was indisputable. It was funny, as soon as it went to replay, I looked at my wife and said "you know we're getting ****ed on this call, right?" She didn't even miss a beat, just said "yep" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMK9973 Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 I don't think it was a fumble. He caught it, bobled it, got possisesion, knee hit, bobbled it again, and then lost it. But when his knee hit, he had it. By the letter of the law, it was not indisputable, however - watch other games besides Redskins. 99% of the time they don't use the indisputable measure. They use a "more then likely" rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomgraham Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 I thought it was a bad call on the field but good for us. But they shouldnt have overturned it b/c like you said the didnt have 100% clear evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[[ghost]] Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 The ball was wiggling around before his knee hit the ground. The worst was when the commentators just said "oh no way, thats not a fumble. Anyways, Charles, tell me about your $1 houes." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walking Deadman Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 There was an angle that showed the ball clearly moving before the knee was down, but in their rush to get back to Barkley they only showed it once (though they did find time, curiously, to show the other, poorer, angle that showed squat, several times). Assuming the NFL replay officials actually looked at the other angle, how they determined it was indisputable is questionable. I'm not a conspiracy guy, but I don't kid myself that there isn't such a thing as a home-field call. That was one. Yep a "home-field" call especially in Philly. I think the refs were scared the Eagle fans would kill them if they didn't overturn the call :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budski Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 The ball wiggled? The ball moved a little bit? come on guys, we aren't that desperate are we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinFaninOKC Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 I thought it was a fumble too, BUT, we won and that is really all that matters. There is no need rehash THAT particular part of the game. Sure the call didn't go our way but we will get one that does....and when we do the other team will feel hosed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Ball was knocked loose before his knee hit the ground. Was a clear fumble to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeattleSkinsFan Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 There was an angle that showed the ball clearly moving before the knee was down, but in their rush to get back to Barkley they only showed it once (though they did find time, curiously, to show the other, poorer, angle that showed squat, several times). Assuming the NFL replay officials actually looked at the other angle, how they determined it was indisputable is questionable. I'm not a conspiracy guy, but I don't kid myself that there isn't such a thing as a home-field call. That was one. Yep. After I saw that reverse angle where the ball is clearly shifting (sliding out of his grip, against his jersey), I thought there was no way that the official would overturn the call on the field. How wrong I was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveMason Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 The ball wiggled? The ball moved a little bit? come on guys, we aren't that desperate are we? "Desperate"? Are you kidding? If the ball is moving, that means the receiver doesn't have control of it. If he doesn't have control of it, then that means its a fumble. I don't see any stretching, here. Do you agree or disagree that the ball was moving before he touched the ground? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rdskn4Lyf21 Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 I completely forgot about this - I was pissed when it happened. It has to been conclusive, clear cut evidence to overturn that call. Even guesswork had the ball coming out before the knee touched. Im just glad we won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinny21 Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 The ball wiggled? The ball moved a little bit? come on guys, we aren't that desperate are we? Regardless of whether people on here feel the ball wiggled, was fumbled, secured or was bobbled the entire time (and therefore incomplete), the point is the evidence was inconclusive... so no, we aren't desperate at all. We're right. Apparantly we know the replay rules better than the head ref did. I am almost positive, based on the one angle everyone has referred to, that it was a fumble. However, "almost" means the evidence was inconclusive and therefore "The ruling on the field stands, first down Redskins." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzSkinsFan63 Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 The second hit caused the fumble...obvisouly and yes there was not even evidence to overturn the call. Hell it was funny because the Ref was trying to give them a first down also.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedzoneHunter Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 There was an angle that showed the ball clearly moving before the knee was down, but in their rush to get back to Barkley they only showed it once (though they did find time, curiously, to show the other, poorer, angle that showed squat, several times). I thought the play was close enough that it might be overturned, but hoped it wouldn't be. So I wasn't really that upset. However, I thought the monday night crew gave Barkley way too much air time. And I found it to be very distracting. I am soooo glad that we won't have to watch the skins on MNF anymore this season. What a lousy crew they have assembled. I hate having to stay up that late, and Kornheiser totally sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieselfan44 Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 It was an incompletion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngloSackSon Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 The officials explanation upon overturning was that "the receiver caught the ball, and maintained possession with a knee down" therefore was down by contact. This is totally inconsistent with the only scenario adequate for reversing the call on the field. In order for the call to be reversed the official must have determined that the receiver caught the ball, fumbled it and regained possession before his knee hit the ground. This was clearly not the conclusion the official explained. The Redskins won the game therefore, in some regard, it is useless to review this. Still, I am troubled that some members still feel that the correct call was made, when it's clear the guidelines for proper review were subverted. It's one thing for an official to say they cannot overturn a successful 2 point conversion because there is no indisputable evidence that Alstott did not breach the goaline. It is an entirely different scenario when an official reverses a call based on the indisputable rule, where there clearly was no evidence to do so, and then fails to give an adequate explanation.:2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff_K Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 While I want to think it was a fumble, it looks like he has it while his knee is down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.