49ers/Seahawks
 

Video request: 8:50 in the 4th quarter.

Really nothing to review, Bowman clearly had possession and was down by contact. It's the replay rule (and in-play awareness of the officials) that needs to be reviewed. A player has possession of a ball, the official don't recognize it, and then the play can't be reviewed because fumble recoveries are not reviewable.

I think a stipulation needs to be put in place to allow a play to be review to see if the play should have been blown dead at some point before final possession was awarded. It would have fixed this play, and it would have fixed the play in the Steeler/Packer game in the regular season.

According to the Fox broadcast the NFL has said they will be changing that review rule during the off-season.

Too little, too late. The NFL has been one step behind for several years now. Starting with the penalty for challenging an automatically reviewed play. That cost the Lions a game a few years ago. Now this.

The NFL needs to decide which things are non-reviewable and allow reviews on everything else. Problem solved.

This is what they are doing. Like all rules it's evolutionary. Get over it. Most rules that exist were written because something happened that helped a rules committee to re-structure a rule.

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's a football mentality of getting in and digging the pile and seeing who came up with the ball.

Unfortunately, in this situation the ball was clearly possessed by SF and the play was over.

That's OK. Watching Harbaugh's antics during the game, I found myself rooting for the Seahawks harder than any game that doesn't involve the Eagles (love them) or Cowboys (despise them).

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.

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?

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.

"Problem solved" and "Game Improved" are not always the same thing.

As technology continues to improve the potential for precision, not all the potential enhancements will benefit the game. Over the past 125+ years Football (at all it's levels) has become, far and away, the most popular sport in America, and is growing elsewhere. A considerable part of that success is derived from the dynamic excitement and drama of teams dealing with and responding to the periodic element of human mistakes, by players, coaches and at times officials.

Ultimately, various technologies will likely be able to reduce, if not eliminate, a majority of these unpredictable risks. That does not automatically translate to the game being "better", more "exciting", more "popular" or more "successful".

If absolute precision is your objective, go buy yourself an XBox, or whatever new technology will give YOU absolute control over all factors of the game, but leave the game, which includes all sorts of potential human failings, to struggle along for the next 125+ years of growing success.

When something clearly isn't broken, excessive "tinkering" can cause a lot more unexpected consequences than perceived improvements.

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.

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

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.

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!