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. Â Â so 15 on the kickoff, and 15 more right there...would have put warner, fitz and the cards down inside the 20 yard line. Â Â Â 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. Â It doesn't matter, anyway. It was a fumble. No need to throw conspiracy theories out there on this one. Â Â 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! ) Â Â 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. Â 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. Â (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. Â The ball is clearly in his hand through most of his throwing motion. No, it was not. Â 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? Â 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? Â 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. Â 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. Â 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. Â 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