Overturning a Call with Replay

[Harry]

The rule is very simple. The replay must show “incontrovertible visual evidence.” To avoid confusion, The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines incontrovertible as “not open to question : indisputable.” So I’m watching the SF game and there’s an apparent fumble near the end of the first half. The call on the field is a fumble. Announcer Charles Davis watches the replay and says fumble. He was a four year starter at Tennessee. He was a college coach. He’s been an NFL analyst for 6 years. So how can someone else view that replay and say a forearm touch is “indisputable.” Davis mentioned that body part and said it didn’t touch. Clearly it’s not obvious.

Replay officials now substitute their judgment for that of the game officials. They don’t look for mistakes. Instead they just state an opinion. They supplant the field official’s call with their own impression. That’s not how the rule was written. The process should be changed. The official who makes the calls should view all the replays. The appeal official can simultaneously view them. If the official who made the call changes his opinion, the call is reversed. The appeal official can clarify the rules, but the game official makes calls. If in this case the forearm appears to the appeal official to touch, he can only tell the game official “a forearm touch means he’s down.” He can’t say he sees a touch. That’s not his job. He can’t overrule the call.

This process is out of control and the league needs to step in and support game officials. By the way this process is handled even more poorly in college.

 

[Arz101]

Harry , announcers said it was a good reversal as it showed clearly that defender touched the receiver. I agree and saw that in one of the final replays. This is not controversial to me today

 

[Dback Jon]

Harry , announcers said it was a good reversal as it showed clearly that defender touched the receiver. I agree and saw that in one of the final replays. This is not controversial to me today

I think it is controversial because I don’t think his forearm touched. It was the back of his wrist.

But even more important, I don’t think you can say incontrovertibly that it wasn’t the back of his wrist and the call should’ve stood on the field

 

[Dback Jon]

Dortch wide open and not even close

I don’t think that’s a reviewable play

 

[oaken1]

I think it is controversial because I don’t think his forearm touched. It was the back of his wrist.

But even more important, I don’t think you can say incontrovertibly that it wasn’t the back of his wrist and the call should’ve stood on the field

You just gotta ask yourself... had he not fumbled, but instead righted himself and ran ten more yards,...would the officials have called him down by contact back at this point??
No.
A couple times every week we see more blatant arm contact than this that is allowed to continue advancing the ball...such as when a RB army crawls/body surfs over defenders to get into the endzone.

Also...there was not a clear enough viewpoint to definitively state the ball was not already coming loose before the wrist hit the ground.
Certainly not definitive enough to reverse a score called on the field

 

[kerouac9]

You just gotta ask yourself... had he not fumbled, but instead righted himself and ran ten more yards,...would the officials have called him down by contact back at this point??
No.
A couple times every week we see more blatant arm contact than this that is allowed to continue advancing the ball...such as when a RB army crawls/body surfs over defenders to get into the endzone.

Also...there was not a clear enough viewpoint to definitively state the ball was not already coming loose before the wrist hit the ground.
Certainly not definitive enough to reverse a score called on the field

If the Cards had challenged it then maybe. Turnovers are reviewed. This was down by contact. His elbow and forearm were down before the ball came out.

 

[nashman]

If the Cards had challenged it then maybe. Turnovers are reviewed. This was down by contact. His elbow and forearm were down before the ball came out.

You can say that all you want but it wasn’t conclusive 100% on replay and call should have stood! It would have had it been the other way around 100% if the Niners had scored the TD call on the field would have stood!

 

[gimpy]

If the Cards had challenged it then maybe. Turnovers are reviewed. This was down by contact. His elbow and forearm were down before the ball came out.

Well, I may be half blind, but I still didn't see it that way.

 

[oaken1]

If the Cards had challenged it then maybe. Turnovers are reviewed. This was down by contact. His elbow and forearm were down before the ball came out.

During the replay the direct shot of the ball in the arm was too dark and obstructed to make any type of definitive call. Whichever call made during life play should have stood.
It is the specific reason for the verbiage in the rule.

 

[kerouac9]

Seemed pretty obvious to me. Sorry about the sour grapes.

 

[slanidrac16]

We have the luxury of seeing a play 8 times from 8 different angles.
I still think if a play is going to be challenged it should be done so without seeing the replay.

 

[Dback Jon]

Seemed pretty obvious to me. Sorry about the sour grapes.

But it’s not pretty obvious. Sorry that you can’t see that.

 

[imaCafan]

Bottom line we knew it would get overturned. Cardinal luck.

 

[kerouac9]

But it’s not pretty obvious. Sorry that you can’t see that.

It sure seemed to be to everyone on the broadcast after the video with his forearm down before the ball came out rolled.

But okay.

 

[ajcardfan]

I really wish it would've been upheld. But when they showed that last replay I thought it was the right call. I never doubted that his forearm was down. I thought he was never contacted until that last replay but that was clearly not the case. Doesn't matter who is right now. I am actually more angry that the Niners never got even one personal foul.

But I am all in on the conspiracy theory that if you flip the jersies the call gets upheld.

 

[Dback Jon]

It sure seemed to be to everyone on the broadcast after the video with his forearm down before the ball came out rolled.

But okay.

You mean the announcing team cheering for the 49ers?

The announcing team that called a clear hit to Kyler’s head AND nuts a clean hit?

Okay

 

[Harry]

I think it is controversial because I don’t think his forearm touched. It was the back of his wrist.

But even more important, I don’t think you can say incontrovertibly that it wasn’t the back of his wrist and the call should’ve stood on the field

The issue of touch was only half the answer. For it not to be a fumble the ballcarrier had to be touched and his forearm had to touch the ground. If both didn’t happen it was a live ball.

 

[Harry]

It sure seemed to be to everyone on the broadcast after the video with his forearm down before the ball came out rolled.

But okay.

Not accurate. I ran the replay. Charles Davis flat out said you couldn’t see if his forearm touched, so it was a fumble.

 

[kerouac9]

Not accurate. I ran the replay. Charles Davis flat out said you couldn’t see if his forearm touched, so it was a fumble.

Okay. Well, enjoy your pity party I suppose.

 

[BritCard]

I think it was a borderline call. I don't think it was clear on the replay that the forearm touched before the ball was knocked loose, it may have done, but it's not clear as the part that touches is around the wrist area.

I don't think it was clear enough to overturn the on field call.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

Unlike college, the NFL is usually right on their replays and isn't afraid to overturn calls. No chance college overturns that call. I do think the NFL got it right though. I didn't until they showed the last replay with him being touched.

 

[imaCafan]

OK I'm confused. He was touched, but if his forearm wasn't on the ground before the ball comes out, he's considered down anyway? Or is it the combo of touched (happened) AND forearm down (unclear on replay) that makes him down?.

 

[football karma]

there was a replay angle where it looked like the back of his wrist came down and started the ball out fractions of seconds before the forearm came out.

but lets face reality: while the written standard might say one thing, the NFL now lets things that might be turnovers be treated as turnovers until replay cleans things up.

that and the Kittle play were both super close and just didnt work out for the Cards

 

[oaken1]

OK I'm confused. He was touched, but if his forearm wasn't on the ground before the ball comes out, he's considered down anyway? Or is it the combo of touched (happened) AND forearm down (unclear on replay) that makes him down?.

there is also the added caveat in this case that the contact caused him to go down. which I disagree with. his arm was grabbed, he pulled loose, then tried to spin by rolling off his own guys back...his guys movement caused him to lose balance and fall over causing him to use the arm with the ball to catch himself.

but regardless of any of that there was not conclusive video proof that the ball was not coming loose before the arm hit the ground. The video was too obstructed by body parts and shadows to be conclusive. The rule clearly states the proof must be "conclusive" in order to overturn the call on the field... however the nfl refs have started reverting to "Pretty sure"

 

[Cheesebeef]

But it’s not pretty obvious. Sorry that you can’t see that.

Literally most Cardinals fans and everyone who wasn’t a Cardinals fan on the broadcast team thought it was.