LGB Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 With less than 10 seconds left in the game, this looked like a pretty close call...and since the Cardinals had proved the on-field officials wrong before in the game, why not review what was ruled a Warner fumble when his arm was moving forward with the ball? If it was Tom Brady, that pass attempt would probably have been ruled incomplete from upstairs. If it was a fumble, fine, but the play call was certainly close enough to warrant an under-two-minutes booth review. It was almost like the network wanted to air the "Office" and rushed to end the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloWings Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Al Michaels said they confirmed it with a booth review, but I don't know if that was announced by the referee or how he got the word. It doesn't matter, anyway. It was a fumble. No need to throw conspiracy theories out there on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernMan Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 With less than 10 seconds left in the game, this looked like a pretty close call...and since the Cardinals had proved the on-field officials wrong before in the game, why not review what was ruled a Warner fumble when his arm was moving forward with the ball? If it was Tom Brady, that pass attempt would probably have been ruled incomplete from upstairs. If it was a fumble, fine, but the play call was certainly close enough to warrant an under-two-minutes booth review. It was almost like the network wanted to air the "Office" and rushed to end the game. Agreed. I've seen "incomplete pass" called numerous times on less obvious "passes" than the one (not) thrown by Warner. What the NFL calls a "pass" is ridiculous anyway, but at least be consistent. Warner's arm WAS going forward. It reminded of "no goal". As if the officials were thinking, "c'mon, it's almost over. Close enough." Or the famous, "just give it to 'em" , from the Bills/Patriots conspiracy. It was a long shot even if it was called as an incomplete pass, but at least it would have been a shot. We never got the chance to see Fitzgerald going up for the jump ball in the end zone. It would have been great to see an overtime Superbowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Al Michaels said they confirmed it with a booth review, but I don't know if that was announced by the referee or how he got the word. It doesn't matter, anyway. It was a fumble. No need to throw conspiracy theories out there on this one. When did "confirmation" become a substitute for replay? Inside two minutes, the booth either calls for a replay or doesn't; the booth doesn't conduct the replay itself and "confirm" it. This reminded me of our Pats game earlier this year, when the booth refused to review that onsides kick. The refs all just wanted to get out of there. I watched the replay of the fumble; I never saw the ball come loose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billnutinphoenix Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Bad call but they didn't want to give the Cards anothere shot... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 There was no booth review. That was a bunch of BS. Even when the booth initiates the review the on field referee is still involved. Sounds a lot like "No Goal". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 it was clearly a fumble...he had an open hand going forward, which is clearly a fumble...didn't even look close to me personally when I watched it, I thought it was a clear fumble... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 When did "confirmation" become a substitute for replay? Inside two minutes, the booth either calls for a replay or doesn't; the booth doesn't conduct the replay itself and "confirm" it. This reminded me of our Pats game earlier this year, when the booth refused to review that onsides kick. The refs all just wanted to get out of there. I watched the replay of the fumble; I never saw the ball come loose. The booth doesn't call for a review based on live action. They see a replay, and based on that, they decide to buzz down for an on-field review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 The booth doesn't call for a review based on live action. They see a replay, and based on that, they decide to buzz down for an on-field review. Right. But they don't conduct the final replay to "confirm" whether something is a fumble or not. The booth looks at the replay to see if it's close enough for the official to review via instant replay. What happened here, supposedly, was that the booth looked at the replay, and "confirmed" that it wasn't a fumble. The booth can't do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Right. But they don't conduct the final replay to "confirm" whether something is a fumble or not. The booth looks at the replay to see if it's close enough for the official to review via instant replay. What happened here, supposedly, was that the booth looked at the replay, and "confirmed" that it wasn't a fumble. The booth can't do that. I think confirm was just a poor word choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Agreed. I've seen "incomplete pass" called numerous times on less obvious "passes" than the one (not) thrown by Warner. What the NFL calls a "pass" is ridiculous anyway, but at least be consistent. Warner's arm WAS going forward. It reminded of "no goal". As if the officials were thinking, "c'mon, it's almost over. Close enough." Or the famous, "just give it to 'em" , from the Bills/Patriots conspiracy. It was a long shot even if it was called as an incomplete pass, but at least it would have been a shot. We never got the chance to see Fitzgerald going up for the jump ball in the end zone. It would have been great to see an overtime Superbowl. But he didn't have control of the ball, it had already been knocked loose. (empty hand) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayFinkle Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 it was clearly a fumble...he had an open hand going forward, which is clearly a fumble...didn't even look close to me personally when I watched it, I thought it was a clear fumble... I agree it was a fumble, however there is one exception. If that was Tom Brady, it would have been roughing the passer, 15 yard personal foul, and a forward pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 But he didn't have control of the ball, it had already been knocked loose. (empty hand) Take a closer look. It looked to me that Warner had the ball the whole time until he released it; it even came out as a sort of spiral. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRHvm52T_WE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 wow - that is a new angle for me. How does the ball come out as a spiral on a fumble? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Take a closer look. It looked to me that Warner had the ball the whole time until he released it; it even came out as a sort of spiral. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRHvm52T_WE Can't utube here at work, but I'll take a look again tonight (but I won't change my mind! ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Can't utube here at work, but I'll take a look again tonight (but I won't change my mind! ) Ha! At least I tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoveldog Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Take a closer look. It looked to me that Warner had the ball the whole time until he released it; it even came out as a sort of spiral. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRHvm52T_WE Ok, so you are either a Cards fan, a Steeler hater or you lost money on the game... Either way, you're on crack if you think that ball came out as a spiral. That ball was knocked loose by the contact and momentum of Warner trying in despiration to get it out pushed the ball forward. But, he NEVER had control of the ball as the arm started forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Ok, so you are either a Cards fan, a Steeler hater or you lost money on the game... Either way, you're on crack if you think that ball came out as a spiral. That ball was knocked loose by the contact and momentum of Warner trying in despiration to get it out pushed the ball forward. But, he NEVER had control of the ball as the arm started forward. I'm pretty objective--and I actually wanted the Steelers to win. Also, you might be right--it could have been a fumble. I'd like to see the front angle in slow-mo. My problem with this is just the procedure of it all. It should have been reviewed, but it wasn't. Then we were led to believe that someone in the booth "confirmed" the play, which could not have occurred pursuant to the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 With less than 10 seconds left in the game, this looked like a pretty close call...and since the Cardinals had proved the on-field officials wrong before in the game, why not review what was ruled a Warner fumble when his arm was moving forward with the ball? If it was Tom Brady, that pass attempt would probably have been ruled incomplete from upstairs. If it was a fumble, fine, but the play call was certainly close enough to warrant an under-two-minutes booth review. It was almost like the network wanted to air the "Office" and rushed to end the game. I found that very odd as well. Next thing you know The game was over...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I'm pretty objective--and I actually wanted the Steelers to win. Also, you might be right--it could have been a fumble. I'd like to see the front angle in slow-mo. My problem with this is just the procedure of it all. It should have been reviewed, but it wasn't. Then we were led to believe that someone in the booth "confirmed" the play, which could not have occurred pursuant to the rules. I saw the front angle in slow-mo. They showed it last night on some program called the Super Bowl. It was a fumble. No conspiracy here. I know it's not as exciting as conjuring up some grassy knoll type crap to justify how the Cards were "screwed" and how the Stillers are "junior Pats" or whatever. All that is garbage. Both teams were penalized @ bad times (Hartwig's penalty for a safety crushed what was a great bail out play by Roethlisberger). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluv Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 No matter what anyone thinks, the play SHOULD HAVE been reviewed at a BARE MINIMUM BY THE BOOTH! A call like this takes away (even though just a little!) from a Steelers win. Think about it: what if it was overturn; not many would complain either way as it wasn't an OBVIOUS fumble as we ALL have seen more OBVIOUS fumbles called incomplete forward passes (case inpoint Brady and Cutler!) The fact they were at midfield combined with an added FIFETEEN yards added for unsportsmanlike conduct for helmet removal would have gave the Cards a real shot; especially with the WR's they have. Then if the Steelers had defended successfully then all hats off to them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson from Gamehendge Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 they also did not give santonio holmes a 15 yard penalty for using the football as a prop in his TD celebration...and james harrison also took his helmet off on the field when warned "lost" the ball. so 15 on the kickoff, and 15 more right there...would have put warner, fitz and the cards down inside the 20 yard line. this game WOULD have had a different outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Agreed. I've seen "incomplete pass" called numerous times on less obvious "passes" than the one (not) thrown by Warner. What the NFL calls a "pass" is ridiculous anyway, but at least be consistent. Warner's arm WAS going forward. Yah this is what it boils down to. It was one of the few plays of its ilk I've seen where I didn't have a strong opinion. The defender did hit him before his arm moved forward, but otoh it he did not have an 'empty hand' when his arm was moving forward. I'm not convinced it was incomplete but anyone who says that's a slam-dunk either way is either lying or hasn't watched enough football to see much crazier things overturned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 they also did not give santonio holmes a 15 yard penalty for using the football as a prop in his TD celebration...and james harrison also took his helmet off on the field when warned "lost" the ball. so 15 on the kickoff, and 15 more right there...would have put warner, fitz and the cards down inside the 20 yard line. this game WOULD have had a different outcome. The personal foul for the helmet WAS called, and it (the non-call on Holmes' celebration) would've made a difference in field position, sure. But, how did that possession end for the Cards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 they also did not give santonio holmes a 15 yard penalty for using the football as a prop in his TD celebration...and james harrison also took his helmet off on the field when warned "lost" the ball. so 15 on the kickoff, and 15 more right there...would have put warner, fitz and the cards down inside the 20 yard line. this game WOULD have had a different outcome. and Warner took his helmet off earlier in the game, no call. course Jesus probably told him to take it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toddgurley Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Al Michaels said they confirmed it with a booth review, but I don't know if that was announced by the referee or how he got the word. It doesn't matter, anyway. It was a fumble. No need to throw conspiracy theories out there on this one. I disagree. It looked just like the play the happened earlier in the game. Which was ruled an incomplete pass. Either way, you gotta take a minute and review it. If it was Tom Brady, or even Big Ben, they would have reviewed it. Just be FAIR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toddgurley Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Can't utube here at work, but I'll take a look again tonight (but I won't change my mind! ) But thats the point. There is doubt wether is was a fumble or not. So take the time to review it and get it right. If they did that-they would have seen that fumbles dont come out as spirals! LOL- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 But thats the point. There is doubt wether is was a fumble or not. So take the time to review it and get it right. If they did that-they would have seen that fumbles dont come out as spirals! LOL- There isn't any doubt in my mind. I was just being nice. His hand was empty when he brought it forward. It looked that way to me the first time I saw it and apparently it looked that way to the booth. (that was the strangest spiral I've ever seen, course I do watch Bills QBs most of the time) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wraith Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 There isn't any doubt in my mind. I was just being nice. His hand was empty when he brought it forward. It looked that way to me the first time I saw it and apparently it looked that way to the booth. (that was the strangest spiral I've ever seen, course I do watch Bills QBs most of the time) How you can you watch that replay and say his hand was empty when it started forward? The ball is clearly in his hand through most of his throwing motion. Obviously, it's close enough to warrant a replay. I could not have cared less who won and I was astonished it wasn't reviewed. The worst part was Al Michaels turning into NFL corporate shill. What is this "the replay booth confirmed it was a fumble" crap? Really? The last 30 seconds of the Super Bowl is a good time to start making up new rules? Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 How you can you watch that replay and say his hand was empty when it started forward? Because that's the way it was. The ball is clearly in his hand through most of his throwing motion. No, it was not. The worst part was Al Michaels turning into NFL corporate shill. What is this "the replay booth confirmed it was a fumble" crap? Really? The last 30 seconds of the Super Bowl is a good time to start making up new rules? Seriously? The replay booth must watch all plays within the final two minutes of a half. Do we agree on this? The replay booth determines during their watching of all plays within the final two minutes of a half whether the play should be reviewed by the on field team. Do we agree on this? So, the only thing wrong here is Michaels' use of the word review. They (the booth) 'review' each and every play in the final two minutes of a half, and they (the booth) determine whether a 'formal review' is needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmr60 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I believe that the last play was very similar to the play in the first half which was ruled an incomplete pass. If comparisons are to be made it should be with that play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Chipper Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 it would have been nice if someone sccoped up that fumble and ran it back for a td. Yes I had Pitt -6.5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 How you can you watch that replay and say his hand was empty when it started forward? The ball is clearly in his hand through most of his throwing motion. Obviously, it's close enough to warrant a replay. I could not have cared less who won and I was astonished it wasn't reviewed. The worst part was Al Michaels turning into NFL corporate shill. What is this "the replay booth confirmed it was a fumble" crap? Really? The last 30 seconds of the Super Bowl is a good time to start making up new rules? Seriously? They showed the replay on TV & anyone with a DVR could look at it again & again. The ball was CLEARLY out of Warners hand BEFORE his arm went forward. It was a CLEAR FUMBLE & no need for a review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 They showed the replay on TV & anyone with a DVR could look at it again & again. The ball was CLEARLY out of Warners hand BEFORE his arm went forward. It was a CLEAR FUMBLE & no need for a review. If both of you think it was CLEARLY the other way, I think that counsels in favor of reviewing the play. What's the harm in conducting the review? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 If both of you think it was CLEARLY the other way, I think that counsels in favor of reviewing the play. What's the harm in conducting the review? The booth did that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 If both of you think it was CLEARLY the other way, I think that counsels in favor of reviewing the play. What's the harm in conducting the review? The officials upstairs determined it did not need to be reviewed on the field because it was VERY OBVIOUSLY a fumble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 What's the harm in conducting the review? Exactly. There is no way within a period of less than a minute or so that the booth review guy could have looked at all the angles and determined that it was a clear cut fumble. It should have been reviewed by the on field ref. That play ended Arizona's chances and an extra couple of minutes to take a look would have been the correct thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Exactly. There is no way within a period of less than a minute or so that the booth review guy could have looked at all the angles and determined that it was a clear cut fumble. It should have been reviewed by the on field ref. That play ended Arizona's chances and an extra couple of minutes to take a look would have been the correct thing to do. Sounds like sour grapes to me. There is NO POINT to further review something that WAS REVIEWED upstairs & found to be so obvious as to NOT NEED further review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Sounds like sour grapes to me. There is NO POINT to further review something that WAS REVIEWED upstairs & found to be so obvious as to NOT NEED further review. No sour grapes. I had no rooting interest in the game, but in the biggest game of the year, you don't want to utilitize the replay system to the fullest on a play that basically ended the Super Bowl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 No sour grapes. I had no rooting interest in the game, but in the biggest game of the year, you don't want to utilitize the replay system to the fullest on a play that basically ended the Super Bowl? No I don't, not when there is NO NEED to. If it was close that would have been one thing, however the fumble was SO OBVIOUS, what is the point of wasting time for NOTHING? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts