Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump
I'm not sure why it's necessarily like this. Why wouldn't it be a review of whether Bowman fumbled or was down. By that I mean we have two possible mistakes on this play.
Mistake 1, ruling that Seattle fumbled and recovered their own fumble in the ensuing melee. (What you assume the mistake was).
Mistake 2, ruling that Seattle fumbled San Francisco recovered and then fumbled.
I suppose since they didn't award Seattle a first down they made mistake one, but it's an awfully weird result that because the error was worse it's not reviewable.
|
Mistake 1 is not reviewable in the field of play. If it involved a boundary line (meaning whether a player recovering the ball was inbounds or OOB or if the ball went OOB or stayed inbounds, etc) or if this play occurred in the endzone, then you could review this.
Mistake 2...the ruling on the field wasn't that there were two fumbles. The only way they could review Bowman's "recovery" is if in the field of play, they ruled he completed the process of the recovery and was a runner and that the next fumble wasn't part of the process of recovering the ball from the initial fumble.
__________________
Chaos isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some, given a chance to climb, they refuse. They cling to the realm, or the gods, or love. Illusions.
Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is.
|