The fumble rule is the fumble rule. What I didn’t see was enough evidence in any replay to overturn the call on the field. Replays aren’t “I think this is what really happened”. They are supposed to look for “incontrovertible visual evidence”. No replay showed that. The call on the field should have stood.
I have seen a still shot that shows quite clearly the ball not in his possession. What part did you think was not clear evidence there was a fumble?
This is my take as well. I have no real problem with the rule that if you fumble through the endzone then it’s a touchback. My problem is that there wasn’t enough video evidence to overrule the call on the field. Clearly the ball was knocked free of the runner’s grasp, but he regained control quickly and with the views we saw there’s no way to say he didn’t have control when he hit the pylon.
Still shots are useless. What happened before and after the shot? It’s only required that the ballcarrier possess the ball in bounds and at some point after it breaks the plane of the goal line. I can show you a still shot of Aaron Rodgers not being facemasked against the Lions a couple years ago, but anyone that’s not a Lions or Vikings fan is going to watch the video and say he got facemasked.
The replay official does not get the benefit of slow-mo. He has to watch the replays at full speed. I am not clear as to whether he has freeze option or not, but, as an official, he is going to be experienced at seeing what he needs to see.
In this case, the ball carrier lost control of the ball inches shy of the goal line. The ball and the player cross the line separately. The player clearly has control of the ball as he rolls across the white grass (OoB), but at no time between crossing the goal line and reaching the sideline is he undeniably in control of the ball.
TDs are worth 6 because they are hard to do. Refs (mostly) do not just hand them out like halloween candy.
They’re not as hard to get as they used to be. You used to have to actually step foot in the end zone. Now you just have to “break an imaginary plane.”
Cite?
From the NFL Rulebook:
There is clear evidence that he lost control of the ball before crossing the goal line. I don’t believe there was “clear and obvious visual evidence” that he didn’t regain control before crossing the goal line and as such the decision on the file should not have been reversed.
I’m glad the Pats won, but I don’t think the decision to reverse the call on the field was justified by the evidence.
Ok, I heard that somewhere, but I cannot find a cite, so, maybe I am mistaken.
Looks like they’ve had slow motion since the dawn of instant replay in 1986:
Is an incomplete pass reviewable? I know they can review if a catch was made, but does it go the other way?
Asking because on TV replay it looked like the 4th down pass to (I don’t remember) was caught in the end-zone and then knocked loose. On the replay, it seemed like Romo was about to suggest it was a catch, and the then the game moved on.
I was surprised Reid didn’t challenge, but either it wasn’t as clear as I thought, he didn’t want to risk losing a timeout, or it isn’t challengable.
Not that the Chiefs deserved to win that one, with the offense only showing up for one quarter.
Yes, it’s all covered in the NFL Rules online - https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2017-nfl-rulebook/#rule15
And for incomplete passes it’s specifically mentioned: