I don't uunderstand those so upset about no replay?

[cboom]

"This type of fan is hilarious, the ones that somehow think they are better than other fans because they don't want to discuss a controversial call that went against us."

I believe that fan is tired of hearing people whine about getting screwed when we didn't. There is no way the call would have been reversed yet people act like the game would have turned out differently had there been a review.

 

[scutterhawk]

Even if they did it wouldn't have changed a thing. There wasn't anything that could completely confirm Sherm had control. And they did come out of the pile with the ball. So replay or not it would have been the exact same result.

Ive heard 2 others who dont think it matters say this. And yet I have heard zero official statement or seen zero angles at who gave the ball to the ref.

On top of which, they made the call before they even got the ball from someone.

On top of which, you're right that the replay would most likely not had changed anything, but I believe they made the wrong call on the field to fast, and therefor didnt want to show their mistake, so they just continued to run with it sense the replay wouldnt have overturned it anyway.

Going on all the SHIT calls THEY had been making throughout the game, that "Too Fast" call was done on purpose, THEY decided who THEY wanted to win.

 

[seahawks08]

We needed a time out that we should have saved for situations like these. Clock management seems like an issue again but I am positive our offense is growing and learning. We will be ok soon.

 

[Hawkpower]

Even though there was not a official stop for a replay, I'm sure the replay official looked at it and figured there was no need for a replay.

Yes, because what happened was so abundantly clear. We still don't know 24 hours later, but we are supposed to believe a replay official thoroughly dissected the play frame by frame and had all of the angles in 17 seconds.

Go with that.

 

[Hawkpower]

"This type of fan is hilarious, the ones that somehow think they are better than other fans because they don't want to discuss a controversial call that went against us."

I believe that fan is tired of hearing people whine about getting screwed when we didn't. There is no way the call would have been reversed yet people act like the game would have turned out differently had there been a review.

And maybe this fan is tired of that fan pretending to be above being upset at incompetent officiating impacting the outcomes of games.

Bottom line, overturned or not, to not look at is a disgrace in that situation considering the ramifications. End of story. At least pretend to look. Show us some angles. Explain your call.

And if it was called correctly, break it down for us. What was the official ruling? How do you know this ruling was correct? What evidence do you have that lets you feel satisfied that the correct outcome was reached there?

Thanks in advance.

 

[scutterhawk]

don't know if the call was wrong but the fact that there was 0 discussion and no review whatsoever just seems weird in that moment.

wasn't it ruled that it wasn't even a fumble? They moved the ball way back to where he lost it. not where a ram recovered it.

fact of the matter is that SOMEONE had to have control of the ball moreso than anyone else, the no review is just weird.

I think the explanation came out that they moved it back because it was the final 2:00 and you cant fumble it forward.

Still think the absolute rush and lack of explanation reeeeeeeeks of not being sure about their call or what happened, so the rookie refs just took the ball, wound the clock and got outta there as fast as they could.

Well that only confuses the matter even more then.
If you can't fumble the ball forward inside the last two Min. then the ball is not even considered a fumble, then a player from another team, cannot claim it for a turnover??....this rule has a bad odor.

 

[Cartire]

don't know if the call was wrong but the fact that there was 0 discussion and no review whatsoever just seems weird in that moment.

wasn't it ruled that it wasn't even a fumble? They moved the ball way back to where he lost it. not where a ram recovered it.

fact of the matter is that SOMEONE had to have control of the ball moreso than anyone else, the no review is just weird.

I think the explanation came out that they moved it back because it was the final 2:00 and you cant fumble it forward.

Still think the absolute rush and lack of explanation reeeeeeeeks of not being sure about their call or what happened, so the rookie refs just took the ball, wound the clock and got outta there as fast as they could.

Well that only confuses the matter even more then.
If you can't fumble the ball forward inside the last two Min. then the ball is not even considered a fumble, then a player from another team, cannot claim it for a turnover??....this rule has a bad odor.

No, hes correct. And the rule makes perfect sense. But whats still wrong is that we really dont know what the final ruling really was. It was to jarbled.

You can fumble the ball forward. However, if you are the one that recovers it, it goes back to the spot of the fumble. If the other team gets it, they get it.

What that means is, there are two possibilities of what happened at the end.

They thought/assumed Harkey gained possession before the "2nd" fumble and he is the one that recovered it. (doubtful, because they made the call before they saw who had it)

They thought/assumed Harkey was down by contact BEFORE the second fumble.

Both are wrong regardless because there was no second fumble or possession. Harkey never got the ball the first time and there for there wasnt a "2nd" fumble to bring the ball back too. Nor was he down by contact.

This is what my issue has been all along. This is why I wanted the replay. Because regardless if the replay could tell us who came up with the ball, the only 2 calls that could be made from where they spotted the ball, WERE BOTH WRONG.

 

[Steve2222]

Ive heard 2 others who dont think it matters say this. And yet I have heard zero official statement or seen zero angles at who gave the ball to the ref.

If you watch the video linked in the other thread from NFL.com, it appears that it is Harkey who somehow managed to get his hands back on the ball and is who handed it to the ref. It's right around the 45 second mark, the ref takes the ball, and then from that exact spot someone helps Harkey up.

Yeah, you can clearly see in this red circle here, that a Rams guy, CLEARLY hands the ball to the ref... see, it's crystal clear, right there. Can we drop this now that we've seen 100% for sure that the ball was given to the official by a Rams player.

lol I'm in the camp who thinks the call wouldn't have been overturned and not blaming the refs...but that pictures shows nothing.

 

[scutterhawk]

If the replays showed it should have been our ball then they definitely should have reviewed the play. But as it turns out a review would have changed nothing. So saying there should have been a review seems crazy to me. Why should a play need to reviewed that the reff's got right?

That's the rub, they didn't "Got Right"
Because, -> It Was A Fumble <-, and thus required an explanation for WHO recovered it.
The Ref's sped up THEIR decision that the runners knees were down BEFORE the ball came out, but on further ->REVIEW<- SHOWING that the ball was out well before his knees ever touched (which the Ref's considered wasn't needed)
And because some jackass QUICKLY made a bad call in favor of the Rams, they probably wouldn't have reversed it, but at minimum? there should have been a fake call for a review.
By the way, Sherman had the ball when the whistle blew.

 

[Seanhawk]

If the replays showed it should have been our ball then they definitely should have reviewed the play. But as it turns out a review would have changed nothing. So saying there should have been a review seems crazy to me. Why should a play need to reviewed that the reff's got right?

That's the rub, they didn't "Got Right"
Because, -> It Was A Fumble <-, and thus required an explanation for WHO recovered it.
The Ref's sped up THEIR decision that the runners knees were down BEFORE the ball came out, but on further ->REVIEW<- SHOWING that the ball was out well before his knees ever touched (which the Ref's considered wasn't needed)
And because some jackass QUICKLY made a bad call in favor of the Rams, they probably wouldn't have reversed it, but at minimum? there should have been a fake call for a review.
By the way, Sherman had the ball when the whistle blew.

It was ruled a fumble on the field. They indicated the Rams recovered the fumble. Because it was fumbled forward with under two minutes left in the game, and because they ruled the Rams recovered it, by rule, the ball was placed at the spot of the fumble.

 

[Hawkpower]

If the replays showed it should have been our ball then they definitely should have reviewed the play. But as it turns out a review would have changed nothing. So saying there should have been a review seems crazy to me. Why should a play need to reviewed that the reff's got right?

That's the rub, they didn't "Got Right"
Because, -> It Was A Fumble <-, and thus required an explanation for WHO recovered it.
The Ref's sped up THEIR decision that the runners knees were down BEFORE the ball came out, but on further ->REVIEW<- SHOWING that the ball was out well before his knees ever touched (which the Ref's considered wasn't needed)
And because some jackass QUICKLY made a bad call in favor of the Rams, they probably wouldn't have reversed it, but at minimum? there should have been a fake call for a review.
By the way, Sherman had the ball when the whistle blew.

Watching it again, Malcom Smith is angry at the end, and waves his arms in disgust at the refs.

Thats probably because it was clear that the Rams had the ball. I mean, its not like he was right there or anything. :roll:

I also noticed that the ref signals Ram ball, and at no point is he near the pile, not only that he signals it when there is still 4 layers of bodies. How did anyone know who had it at that point?

 

[Seanhawk]

If the replays showed it should have been our ball then they definitely should have reviewed the play. But as it turns out a review would have changed nothing. So saying there should have been a review seems crazy to me. Why should a play need to reviewed that the reff's got right?

That's the rub, they didn't "Got Right"
Because, -> It Was A Fumble <-, and thus required an explanation for WHO recovered it.
The Ref's sped up THEIR decision that the runners knees were down BEFORE the ball came out, but on further ->REVIEW<- SHOWING that the ball was out well before his knees ever touched (which the Ref's considered wasn't needed)
And because some jackass QUICKLY made a bad call in favor of the Rams, they probably wouldn't have reversed it, but at minimum? there should have been a fake call for a review.
By the way, Sherman had the ball when the whistle blew.

Watching it again, Malcom Smith is angry at the end, and waves his arms in disgust at the refs.

Thats probably because it was clear that the Rams had the ball. I mean, its not like he was right there or anything. :roll:

I also noticed that the ref signals Ram ball, and at no point is he near the pile, not only that he signals it when there is still 4 layers of bodies. How did anyone know who had it at that point?

I don't know, maybe one of the five refs who were digging in the pile knew and told him?

 

[Hawkpower]

If the replays showed it should have been our ball then they definitely should have reviewed the play. But as it turns out a review would have changed nothing. So saying there should have been a review seems crazy to me. Why should a play need to reviewed that the reff's got right?

That's the rub, they didn't "Got Right"
Because, -> It Was A Fumble <-, and thus required an explanation for WHO recovered it.
The Ref's sped up THEIR decision that the runners knees were down BEFORE the ball came out, but on further ->REVIEW<- SHOWING that the ball was out well before his knees ever touched (which the Ref's considered wasn't needed)
And because some jackass QUICKLY made a bad call in favor of the Rams, they probably wouldn't have reversed it, but at minimum? there should have been a fake call for a review.
By the way, Sherman had the ball when the whistle blew.

Watching it again, Malcom Smith is angry at the end, and waves his arms in disgust at the refs.

Thats probably because it was clear that the Rams had the ball. I mean, its not like he was right there or anything. :roll:

I also noticed that the ref signals Ram ball, and at no point is he near the pile, not only that he signals it when there is still 4 layers of bodies. How did anyone know who had it at that point?

I don't know, maybe one of the five refs who were digging in the pile knew and told him?

highly doubt it. check out the state of the pile when he signals Rams ball. The ball is still four bodies deep at that point.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Yet, magically it's the Rams ball.
Yeah, seems legit.

 

[hawksincebirth]

I've looked hard at that picture. Where can you CLEARLY see a Rams player hand the ball to the ref?

the complete absence of any sort of positive reaction by a single Seahawk, I believe that the Rams somehow came out of that pile with the football.

I seem to recall that a a few Hawks players had pointed Seahawks had the ball. Care to explain why you didn't see that?

Irvin pointed at the very beginning before the pile really started, Kevin Williams pointed a few seconds later but he wasn't in the pile, he was way off to the side, Mebane pointed and again was way off to the side. All of these happened several seconds before the ball came out of the pile.

The ball is retrieved by the official, and not one single Seahawk makes any sort of movement to indicate it is their ball. Bennett wanders over to where the ball is being spotted, and the rest of the team looks completely dejected as they stand around or lie around where the pile was.

Would you care to explain why you seem to think the Seahawks recovered the ball based on the video available and any other evidence?

It sucks, because if they do recover it, with how Wilson was playing, this team gets into FG range and we're celebrating a game winning field goal, but it just didn't work out.

I don't know what your watching. #53 malcolm smith is clearly seen in the highlight I seen visibly upset with the call.

 

[olyryder]

On the 5th quarter show last night in swear Sherman said the ref took the ball from him. Bandino or whatever his name is said that coming out of the pile with the ball doesn't constitute a clear recovery. Those two pieces lead me to believe the Seahawks had possession, and with no clear evidence to the contrary how do you award the rams the ball? Replay or not, it would be nice to hear from the league what exactly led to the decision by the refs that it was rams ball. That is the real question and has never clearly explained as far as I ve heard. Everyone is caught up in the question of why no review.

 

[Hawkpower]

the complete absence of any sort of positive reaction by a single Seahawk, I believe that the Rams somehow came out of that pile with the football.[/quote]

I seem to recall that a a few Hawks players had pointed Seahawks had the ball. Care to explain why you didn't see that?[/quote]

Irvin pointed at the very beginning before the pile really started, Kevin Williams pointed a few seconds later but he wasn't in the pile, he was way off to the side, Mebane pointed and again was way off to the side. All of these happened several seconds before the ball came out of the pile.

The ball is retrieved by the official, and not one single Seahawk makes any sort of movement to indicate it is their ball. Bennett wanders over to where the ball is being spotted, and the rest of the team looks completely dejected as they stand around or lie around where the pile was.

Would you care to explain why you seem to think the Seahawks recovered the ball based on the video available and any other evidence?

It sucks, because if they do recover it, with how Wilson was playing, this team gets into FG range and we're celebrating a game winning field goal, but it just didn't work out.[/quote]
I don't know what your watching. #53 malcolm smith is clearly seen in the highlight I seen visibly upset with the call.[/quote]




And guess which Seahawk was right down next to Sherman?

I'll give you a hint, his initials are MS

Malcom Smith was down fighting for the ball under about 9 bodies while the refs were casually signaling Rams ball without looking, making dinner plans and finding another reason to go over and shake Fishers hand.