49ers/Seahawks

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by zm1283

What I can't figure out is how one out of seven guys wasn't watching the ball while it was being ripped out of the receiver's hands.

And yes the replay rules are stupid too.

There shouldn't be more than 2 or 3 guys looking toward the ball at this point and it's very possible all 3 were shielded. The wings are definitely looking in here but both have players between them. The U is looking in this area, but not always looking at the runner. His focus is usually on blocking at this point. Anyone else looking at the runner is watching the wrong thing. It would be nice if this specific play could be reviewed because it's obvious he got the ball and was then down. If you see this on the field and then there's a pile you still reward the ball to B even if A comes out with it.

[APG]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

There shouldn't be more than 2 or 3 guys looking toward the ball at this point and it's very possible all 3 were shielded. The wings are definitely looking in here but both have players between them. The U is looking in this area, but not always looking at the runner. His focus is usually on blocking at this point. Anyone else looking at the runner is watching the wrong thing. It would be nice if this specific play could be reviewed because it's obvious he got the ball and was then down. If you see this on the field and then there's a pile you still reward the ball to B even if A comes out with it.

Did the play start inside of the five yard line? If not, the U is going to be in the backfield with the referee and may not have had a look on the play.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by APG

Did the play start inside of the five yard line? If not, the U is going to be in the backfield with the referee and may not have had a look on the play.

It started outside the 5 yard line.

I understand recoveries can't be reviewed, but as a coach I would have asked for some other type of review: incomplete pass b/c receiver never had possession. Then all elements of the play would be reviewable, and it would be clear Bowman had the ball and was down by contact.

Separate play:

Has the NFL put out an explanation yet as to why Seattle didn't get charged with roughing the kicker when Seattle #42 contacted Andy Lee's plant leg?

[Dakota]

What's wrong with allowing an official, located in either the press box or in a central location, to recognize when something needs to be reviewed regardless of what the "replay" rule provides for with all of the coach's challenges and such. IOW, treat it just like another pair of eyes in the officiating crew on the field of play.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Dakota

What's wrong with allowing an official, located in either the press box or in a central location, to recognize when something needs to be reviewed regardless of what the "replay" rule provides for with all of the coach's challenges and such. IOW, treat it just like another pair of eyes in the officiating crew on the field of play.

You mean like the college replay system? I just heard the crew did rule a fumble on the field and ultimate recovery by Seattle. The pile-up recoveries are not reviewable and never will be, but what the officials didn't know is it was a clear recovery before the pile. That's why I wonder if it could have been reviewed had the referee known how clear it appeared on video.

[APG]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

You mean like the college replay system? I just heard the crew did rule a fumble on the field and ultimate recovery by Seattle. The pile-up recoveries are not reviewable and never will be, but what the officials didn't know is it was a clear recovery before the pile. That's why I wonder if it could have been reviewed had the referee known how clear it appeared on video.

I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL added this type of play (recovery of any fumble) to the list of reviewable plays next year (as was mentioned by Mike Pereira on the broadcast last night). What'll end up happening is you're going to hear a lot of "the ruling on the field stands."

[APG]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It started outside the 5 yard line.

I understand recoveries can't be reviewed, but as a coach I would have asked for some other type of review: incomplete pass b/c receiver never had possession. Then all elements of the play would be reviewable, and it would be clear Bowman had the ball and was down by contact.

Separate play:

Has the NFL put out an explanation yet as to why Seattle didn't get charged with roughing the kicker when Seattle #42 contacted Andy Lee's plant leg?

All reviewable aspects of the play would be reviewable...since the Bowman aspect of the play dealt with a fumble recovery in the field, it wouldn't be reviewable...even with the roundabout challenge.

As to the running into the kickers versus roughing the kicker, I don't think there's any explanation that will come from the NFL except for the fact it should have been roughing. We'll see on Friday as that is when the NFL releases it's officiating video for the media.

Originally Posted by Dakota

What's wrong with allowing an official, located in either the press box or in a central location, to recognize when something needs to be reviewed regardless of what the "replay" rule provides for with all of the coach's challenges and such. IOW, treat it just like another pair of eyes in the officiating crew on the field of play.

Wouldn't this just negate the any of the replay rules then?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by APG

All reviewable aspects of the play would be reviewable...since the Bowman aspect of the play dealt with a fumble recovery in the field, it wouldn't be reviewable...even with the roundabout challenge.

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.

[Mad Mike]

Gene's crew was terrible last night. They missed the roughing the kicker. They called an unsportsmanlike PF on SF for a shove out of bounds. On the same play, they missed an ineligible downfield with a double tight end set. At :20 left in the second quarter, both guys on the right end of the line went down field on a pass play when one of them was "covered up". No flag for that, but the same LJ who should have nailed that called a bogus PF foul. The take away at the goal line was atrocious. The FJ and SJ who are focused on the goaline were in position to rule on this and they blew it. The BJ looking in a the play would have had a clear shot to see the SF defender with the ball in his position at the end of the play. I did not see them talking to each other on this one and instead, they were digging in the pile!

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Mad Mike

Gene's crew was terrible last night. They missed the roughing the kicker. They called an unsportsmanlike PF on SF for a shove out of bounds. On the same play, they missed an ineligible downfield with a double tight end set. At :20 left in the second quarter, both guys on the right end of the line went down field on a pass play when one of them was "covered up". No flag for that, but the same LJ who should have nailed that called a bogus PF foul. The take away at the goal line was atrocious. The FJ and SJ who are focused on the goaline were in position to rule on this and they blew it. The BJ looking in a the play would have had a clear shot to see the SF defender with the ball in his position at the end of the play. I did not see them talking to each other on this one and instead, they were digging in the pile!

If the BJ is looking at the runner at this point he's looking at the wrong this. That is not his responsibility. Based on this post I assume you aren't an official. You only site 4 plays, 2 of which are tough judgement calls. There are approximately 160 plays in a game with multiple things happening on many plays. If they only made 4 errors that is not a "terrible" game.

[APG]

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by APG

All reviewable aspects of the play would be reviewable...since the Bowman aspect of the play dealt with a fumble recovery in the field, it wouldn't be reviewable...even with the roundabout challenge...

I have yet to see clear evidence that Kearse ever had possession, as in "caught the pass". Harbaugh should have challenged the ruling that is was a completion in the first place. That review would reveal that Bowman intercepted the ball and was subsequently down by contact, and that there never was a fumble.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I have yet to see clear evidence that Kearse ever had possession, as in "caught the pass". Harbaugh should have challenged the ruling that is was a completion in the first place. That review would reveal that Bowman intercepted the ball and was subsequently down by contact, and that there never was a fumble.

I thought Harbaugh should do this too, but the guys at FootballZebras said what APG said: Bowman's recovery of the ball and being down by contact is not a reviewable aspect of the play, no matter how you challenge it.