[Jim S]

The play was NOT recversed in this case. The only thing about the play that I didn't like was the explanation after ther review.
The replays could have gone either way, especially the way some of the reviews have gone this year.
It really wasn't clear.
But here we have a Referee that clearly states that "the ball came loose and hit the ground after the player had it in his grasp", something that no one else saw.
That includes the side guy who originally called the play. Some one on the field who shall remain nameless told me that the side said it hit the ground before the player gained possession.
Part of the fans' problems with reviews are some of the "explanations" coming from some of the Rs. I think they would be a lot better off just stated that the review did not show enough to reverse the on-field call.
This was such a case. It looked like the Seattle player MAY have had his hands under the ball, but there wasn't enough evidence to change the call.