Anyone else surprised (not) that both turnovers were overturned?

[dreamcastrocks]

I didn't see clear evidence on either one that would overturn the call on the field, yet both happened...

 

[GoldGloveschmidt]

I dont have much of a problem with the Zaven overturn.

I have never seen a fumble recovery overturned. That one still doesn't make sense to me. Players take away the ball in the pile all the time, the Chargers player was the first one to get his hands on the ball but I didn't think he clearly had full control and recovery before Mullens grabbed it from him. I don't understand how they overturned the call on the field there.

 

[BurqueCardFan]

I didn't see clear evidence on either one that would overturn the call on the field, yet both happened...

Totally agree. Both were borderline but 9 times out of 10, the call on the field stands. Even the Collins Int wasn't clear cut. It was hard to tell if the ball actually hit or if it was just the shadow.
As usual, the Cardinals rarely get the calls to go their way (even at home).

 

[Dback Jon]

I didn't see clear evidence on either one that would overturn the call on the field, yet both happened...

Agreed. Especially the first one. The call should have stood either way they called it on the field.

 

[BigRedRage]

Zaven was not a catch. The other one I didnt see.

 

[juza76]

The interception was a correct call
But the fumble recovery is something i haven't seen before
Normally the play stands after the referee calls it an Arizona possession

 

[unseenaz]

The fumble recovery one was a first for me. They overturned because the offensive player touched it first... what? You know how many NFL games outcome would change if that was the way they reviewed it? Bizarre.

 

[Russ Smith]

I didn't see clear evidence on either one that would overturn the call on the field, yet both happened...

I thought they got both right. Zaven the ball touched the ground before he had control.

On the fumble I called that live, you could see their player got on it first and then our guy jumped on top of him and eventually we pulled it out. The key being that the ball was out a clean fumble, he got on it, and then was touched while in possession of the ball by us.

THey never gave a clear explanation the announcers were saying tie goes to the offense but I don't think it was a tie at all I think they just ruled there was a clear recovery and then he was touched down so yanking it out after didn't matter.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I thought they got both right. Zaven the ball touched the ground before he had control.

On the fumble I called that live, you could see their player got on it first and then our guy jumped on top of him and eventually we pulled it out. The key being that the ball was out a clean fumble, he got on it, and then was touched while in possession of the ball by us.

THey never gave a clear explanation the announcers were saying tie goes to the offense but I don't think it was a tie at all I think they just ruled there was a clear recovery and then he was touched down so yanking it out after didn't matter.

Except that isn't how reviews work. Tie doesn't go to the offense, tie goes with the call on the field.

 

[PJ1]

Except that isn't how reviews work. Tie doesn't go to the offense, tie goes with the call on the field.

Yup. It’s not a runner at first base.

 

[Russ Smith]

Except that isn't how reviews work. Tie doesn't go to the offense, tie goes with the call on the field.

again the refs didn't say tie goes to the offense, the announcers did. What I THINK happened was the other WR got the ball first, clear recovery, and then we jumped on him and for whatever reason the refs on the field said our ball. But when they saw the replay they saw that their WR had a clear recovery and then our guy jumping on him constituted touching him while down so the play was over. At that point it didn't matter if we pulled the ball out later.

Watching it live it was really obvious to me they got the ball first so I was really surprised when they said our ball. I assumed the replay would show their guy didn't actually have a clean recovery but the replay showed he did.

 

[PJ1]

again the refs didn't say tie goes to the offense, the announcers did. What I THINK happened was the other WR got the ball first, clear recovery, and then we jumped on him and for whatever reason the refs on the field said our ball. But when they saw the replay they saw that their WR had a clear recovery and then our guy jumping on him constituted touching him while down so the play was over. At that point it didn't matter if we pulled the ball out later.

Watching it live it was really obvious to me they got the ball first so I was really surprised when they said our ball. I assumed the replay would show their guy didn't actually have a clean recovery but the replay showed he did.

I have seen a player fall on a ball and appear to have it many times and then lose it in the scrum. Never saw it overturned when rewarded to a team. Only time I see it overturned is if they rule a fumble didn’t occur at all. May have happened but I never saw it.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

again the refs didn't say tie goes to the offense, the announcers did. What I THINK happened was the other WR got the ball first, clear recovery, and then we jumped on him and for whatever reason the refs on the field said our ball. But when they saw the replay they saw that their WR had a clear recovery and then our guy jumping on him constituted touching him while down so the play was over. At that point it didn't matter if we pulled the ball out later.

Watching it live it was really obvious to me they got the ball first so I was really surprised when they said our ball. I assumed the replay would show their guy didn't actually have a clean recovery but the replay showed he did.

I think it was obvious that he got one hand to the ball. It happened so quick that it was hard to say that it was a clear recovery.

 

[daves]

again the refs didn't say tie goes to the offense, the announcers did. What I THINK happened was the other WR got the ball first, clear recovery, and then we jumped on him and for whatever reason the refs on the field said our ball. But when they saw the replay they saw that their WR had a clear recovery and then our guy jumping on him constituted touching him while down so the play was over. At that point it didn't matter if we pulled the ball out later.

I agree that this is what happened, and it was a proper ruling.

But in all my years of watching football, I've seen similar scenarios literally hundreds of times, and always wondered why the refs virtually NEVER rule the play that way. The ball almost ALWAYS goes to whoever comes out of the pile with it at the end of the "scrum", even if a player from the other team clearly had possession for a moment at the bottom of the pile.

...dave

 

[PJ1]

I agree that this is what happened, and it was a proper ruling.

But in all my years of watching football, I've seen similar scenarios literally hundreds of times, and always wondered why the refs virtually NEVER rule the play that way. The ball almost ALWAYS goes to whoever comes out of the pile with it at the end of the "scrum", even if a player from the other team clearly had possession for a moment at the bottom of the pile.

...dave

Yup. You know the ball got pulled away in the scrum but too bad.

 

[Dback Jon]

I agree that this is what happened, and it was a proper ruling.

But in all my years of watching football, I've seen similar scenarios literally hundreds of times, and always wondered why the refs virtually NEVER rule the play that way. The ball almost ALWAYS goes to whoever comes out of the pile with it at the end of the "scrum", even if a player from the other team clearly had possession for a moment at the bottom of the pile.

...dave

100% this

 

[Russ Smith]

I have seen a player fall on a ball and appear to have it many times and then lose it in the scrum. Never saw it overturned when rewarded to a team. Only time I see it overturned is if they rule a fumble didn’t occur at all. May have happened but I never saw it.

Oh I agree but from what I saw this guy didn't appear to lose it. He had it, we jumped on him and then at the end we had it. My suspicion is when they saw the replay they saw their guy got it and we touched him when we jumped on him so everything after that was irrelevant. Fumble, clear recovery, player touched down, everything after that is post play

 

[Russ Smith]

I agree that this is what happened, and it was a proper ruling.

But in all my years of watching football, I've seen similar scenarios literally hundreds of times, and always wondered why the refs virtually NEVER rule the play that way. The ball almost ALWAYS goes to whoever comes out of the pile with it at the end of the "scrum", even if a player from the other team clearly had possession for a moment at the bottom of the pile.

...dave

Yeah it's one of those things I've always been puzzled with. In basketball among my biggest pet peeves is the loose ball one guy jumps on the ball, the other team jumps on top of him and instead of calling the foul for jumping on the guy, they call a jump ball. often the guy who jumps on him isn't even touching the ball let alone in joint possession. EVery few years the NBA or the NCAA says that's a point of emphasis this year but to this day they default to just calling jump ball. In the NCAA it's even worse because it's not a jump ball it's the whim of the held ball arrow.

In this case I am assuming they decided on replay it was a clear recovery and he was touched so play over

 

[BurqueCardFan]

I agree that this is what happened, and it was a proper ruling.

But in all my years of watching football, I've seen similar scenarios literally hundreds of times, and always wondered why the refs virtually NEVER rule the play that way. The ball almost ALWAYS goes to whoever comes out of the pile with it at the end of the "scrum", even if a player from the other team clearly had possession for a moment at the bottom of the pile.

...dave

Which is why it wasn't a proper ruling all things being equal. If precedent says 99 times out of 100 the person who comes out of the pile gets the ball, then why is it different now. Same with the ruling on the field. If there was even a reasonable doubt, then it usually stays as called on the field. Refs basically went against conventional wisdom on both overruled scenarios

 

[BullheadCardFan]

Oh I agree but from what I saw this guy didn't appear to lose it. He had it, we jumped on him and then at the end we had it. My suspicion is when they saw the replay they saw their guy got it and we touched him when we jumped on him so everything after that was irrelevant. Fumble, clear recovery, player touched down, everything after that is post play

This is the way I saw it also

Just because we pried the ball from his arms doesn't mean it's our ball

Especially when they showed he had possession on the ground

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I thought they got both right. Zaven the ball touched the ground before he had control.

On the fumble I called that live, you could see their player got on it first and then our guy jumped on top of him and eventually we pulled it out. The key being that the ball was out a clean fumble, he got on it, and then was touched while in possession of the ball by us.

THey never gave a clear explanation the announcers were saying tie goes to the offense but I don't think it was a tie at all I think they just ruled there was a clear recovery and then he was touched down so yanking it out after didn't matter.

I agree with Russ. It was pretty clear to me the charger had possession and was in the ground and touched which makes the play immediately dead.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I agree that this is what happened, and it was a proper ruling.

But in all my years of watching football, I've seen similar scenarios literally hundreds of times, and always wondered why the refs virtually NEVER rule the play that way. The ball almost ALWAYS goes to whoever comes out of the pile with it at the end of the "scrum", even if a player from the other team clearly had possession for a moment at the bottom of the pile.

...dave

I don’t think many of those plays got reviewed, that’s why. On review it was pretty clear.