Fezmid Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 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? It wasn't SO OBVIOUS to me. I thought it was a mirror of the play in the first half, which was reviewed and called incomplete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 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? Obvious to you when? After watching dozens of replay that were shown after the game was over? Did your trained eye also see that Rothlisberger was down inside the one instead of being in for the TD before all the replays were shown? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fewell733 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 not obvious at all. Still not sure if it was the right call - I feel like the majority of time that play is called an incomplete pass. His hand wasn't "empty" but he didn't have full control. I'm not sure what even the rulebook says about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Obvious to you when? After watching dozens of replay that were shown after the game was over? Did your trained eye also see that Rothlisberger was down inside the one instead of being in for the TD before all the replays were shown? I looked at the replays that were shown right after the play & looked at it again with my DVR, which I'm sure the officials upstairs did as well. The Rothlisberger play was a MUCH CLOSER CALL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da Big Man 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. I think you had to many beers! That as an incomplete forward pass all day. Combine that with the 15 yard penalty and the Cards were 30 yards from the endzone. Call the the Tampa PD...robbery in progress. As Bills and Sabres fans I know we can recognize a good fudge packing when we see one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Because that's the way it was. Yeah the hand was empty - except for the ball that was in it! Sorry, but we watched the DVR of that several times, and the hand was not empty. There could be some debate as to whether Warner had control of the ball, but it was not an empty hand. By rule, the booth should have called for the play to be reviewed. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I thought it was close but could possibly be over turned. I would have ruled it an incomplete pass as I thought his elbow was clearly moving forwad prior to the fumble... Of course thats just my opinnion...however, regardless of what side of the fence you are on this topic, it clearly states that there was enough to question meaning it CLEARLY should have been reviewed in greater detail by the officials. It was criminal that they didnt... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 The overturn on the first field call of a fumble was correct. I also think that the second time, his hand was not cocked back in an attempt to pass and even though his hand was forward it was not after an attempt to pass. Hence the fumble was the right call. From the replays I did not see the field call to be ambiguous enough to warrant a booth review. I realize it was a big game, critical drive but the play should be questionable enough for the booth officials to intervene. Just because the Cards were trailing should not be automatically be a reason to review the play 'just to be sure'. There is a balance between ensuring good officiating and allowing the flow of a game - the officials made the right call on the field and the decision to let it stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I looked at the replays that were shown right after the play & looked at it again with my DVR, which I'm sure the officials upstairs did as well. The Rothlisberger play was a MUCH CLOSER CALL. Actually, last I knew it is a penalty to have a teammate assist you in getting into the endzone. So, on that play, when Hartwig bear hugged Ben and pulled him into the endzone, it should have been a penalty, so no score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Actually, last I knew it is a penalty to have a teammate assist you in getting into the endzone. So, on that play, when Hartwig bear hugged Ben and pulled him into the endzone, it should have been a penalty, so no score. I said the exact same thing to my wife --- but you never see that penalty actually called, so I'm willing to give them a pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Real Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Looks like an incomplete pass to me and I couldn't give a rats ass about either team. In fact, I'm still angry at Wilson for his cheap shot on Edwards so I'd say I was probabily more on the side of Pittsburgh even though I hate them too. I thought the officiating all night was garbage. The no call on Holmes in the end zone and the play where Harrison is punching a player who's down were just retarded. The game was fun but it could have been better. No sour grapes here, like I said, I don't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I said the exact same thing to my wife --- but you never see that penalty actually called, so I'm willing to give them a pass. Rarely. I did see it called a couple years ago, but yeah... Overall, there were a lot of very close plays and the officials were having a rough night and getting too much face time, IMO. Some of that was that the two teams played pretty ragged far too often. While the game was exciting, the skill of the game has really gotten watered down when this is the "best of the best". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali 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. im not so sure about that--he seemed to regain the football and shove it forward.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 im not so sure about that--he seemed to regain the football and shove it forward.. What about the tuck and untuck rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toddgurley Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 The booth did that. Hey buddy, I understand what your saying, but watch PTI today. The cant look at the play in regular speed and determine it was a fumble. It should have went right to the booth, and be reviewed. A process which takes usually 2 minutes. AND AGAIN-it looked very similiar to the 1st fumble/incomplete pass that happened. Bottom line, review the DAMN play. I did'nt care who won-but I thought his arm is coming forward and the Cards get one more play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGB Posted February 3, 2009 Author Share Posted February 3, 2009 Just watched the replay again and from the time the incomplete/fumbled pass play whistle to the time the next play ran (knee down), it was roughly 75 seconds. Doesn't seem like enough time to look at the replays and send the findings down to the field (if they even did)? The last time the Stealers won was not without controversy - right? Back in 2006, there were some questionable Superbowl calls: 1) the offensive pass interference call that wiped out an early touchdown pass from Matt Hasselbeck to Darrell Jackson, forcing Seattle to settle for three instead of seven. 2) Roethlisberger ran for the goal line near the end of the first half, but replays appeared to show a stop by the Seahawks. 3) Then, with the Seahawks trailing 14-10, a phantom holding call negated a completion that would have given Seattle first and goal at the one yard line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 wow - that is a new angle for me. How does the ball come out as a spiral on a fumble? wind currents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 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. There was no good reason to not review it, IMO (and I think the call on the field was correct). I'm not big on conspiracy, and have a hard time believing that the refs gave a s#it about The Office...but, the fact that they didn't review makes it look as though they were in a hurry to get off the field. Maybe they thought they were making too many calls, and reviews, and were making up for it. Well, "poor timing", I'd say. And, yes, Al Michaels said it was reviewed, but that sounds like BS to me. The NHL also said they reviewed the "No Goal" shot, but had that carpet on the ice in about 10 seconds after the shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 The overturn on the first field call of a fumble was correct. Yes, it was. I thought is was grounding, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Yes, it was. I thought is was grounding, though. probbly--but the grounding was moot... the fumble call extinguished the grounding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts