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!

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.

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."

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.

I agree with most of this. I'm a fan of replay in general, but to think it has to make everything perfect is not a good goal.

I think the primary reason so many fans get so passionate about these calls - gambling. It has been one of the key contributors to the success of the league, and I think it has fueled the screams for perfection. This includes fantasy leagues to an extent. It's one thing if your favorite team loses a game or a chance at a championship. It's another if a team loses a game which results in a lost bet. Or a call reverses a score that would have resulted in your player not earning points that would have helped you win a championship.

On the PF shove OOB, I noted that the player struck the box man and or box. Not hard but it's a safety thing, IMO.

The box should have been dropped when he got near them. The safety as related to the chains is the responsibility of the crew, not the players. The players shouldn't be expected to pullup if they tackle or take other action near the chains.

(Full disclosure: I'm a Seahawks fan.)

I wondered about this call as well. All I can think is that the official thought the push unnecessary, since it was clear the catch was not made. But regardless, I wonder why this was called a dead ball PF. The ball was not yet dead at the time of the contact. If I recall correctly, it was popped up and still in flight.

And I too thought the running into the kicker was a bad call. We I saw it full speed, I thought perhaps it was running into the kicker. But when I saw the replay, I shook my head (as a Seahawks fan) thinking "Crap, SF gets to keep the ball." I was shocked that they didn't call roughing.

I used to be a great fan of Arizona (the Wildcats, not Cardinals), despite my alma mater. Tomey was a class act, and when I worked in the athletic department in college, had a run in with him in the pre-game.

But when Baby Stoops came to AZ, his sideline antics instantly turned me off. I went from a fan to an absolute hater. And the fact that the P12 crews let him run onto the field screaming, sometimes down near the goalline, without a flag irked me. I was thrilled when he got canned. And I've since watched a few OU games, and he still rants and raves there.

I get they are passionate. But when it explodes into jackass behavior, the league(s) and owners/administrators should reign them in.

Allowing the officials to flag that garbage would be a necessary starting point.

That's funny, Denver radio was talking about how classy Harbaugh was after the game. Of course, the way coaches act on the sideline never seems to affect public perception of class.

This was probably why the discussion during the dead ball was so long after the flag was thrown.

They aren't allowed?

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'm guessing they'd throw the flag if they'd be supported.

Lack of support is tantamount to not being "allowed" IMO.

They should if the opponent is already OOB.

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.

But in this play, the Seattle player was still inbounds when he was shoved.

I truly think, despite looking through the prism of a Niner fan, that this was a flag I'd rather not throw. There wasn't enough there in that situation to justify a flag IMO.

Agreed.

And, despite being a Seahawks fan, this is a flag I'd rather not throw. I don't think the official was worried about safety regarding the down box (and I think the down box guy should have been pulling back and dropping at that point). The only thing I can think he was considering was that the pass was obviously not going to be caught. And that was dubious, IMO.

Fair enough. The P12 officials have, IMO, become the lower tier of DI officiating. And it is allowing behavior like this that has been a part of it. Whether that is an "upper management" issue, such as not supporting officials, poor training, or poor recruiting, or just a string of bad luck or aging officials, I'm not sure.

Definitely still in bounds but out of the play. There was no need for him to contact his opponent, but he decides to get a shove in by extending his arm and knocking him into the sideline. This was completely unnecessary. Maybe it was too technical but don't do something stupid if you don't want to risk getting flagged. My initial reaction when I saw it was "I can see that." I'm sure opinions are mixed through. This is not a black and white play.

These were my thoughts as well at the time of the play.

I am not a football official, but do officiate other sports.

"Completely unnecessary" sounds right. How close is too close, how "completely unnecessary" does it take to lead to retaliation, which leads to loss of control?

It was dumb, excessive and RIGHT IN FRONT OF AN OFFICIAL, who apparently chose not to be dragged down a different, endless "what if" road.

It's a judgement call and that's why he gets paid the big bucks. His supervisor will let him know if he likes his judgement on this play and they will move on.

Very true, but very often when an NFL officials, sticks his finger in the water during a championship game, the ripples find their way to an eromous number of football fields downstream, and this ripple seems to be whispering, "Stupid, unnecessary behavior can cause unanticipated consequences" which is never a bad ripple to send downstream.