Just to Clarify the Robinson non fumble

[kidhawk]

Once the officials call someone down by contact that's it. You can't go back. It sucks but its one of those things someone "thinks" happened.

That doesn't mean they got the rest of it right.

:les:

Just for clarity, the rule is that if they are ruled down by contact it is reviewable. To overturn it though, there must be evidence of a fumble and a recovery. Even if the recovering player had advanced the ball, since the player was called down by contact, the ball cannot be advanced, so the recovering team couldn't advance it so they'd get the ball at the spot of revovery. I'm not saying it would have been overturned, just clarifying the rule.

Now, if it was declared his forward progress was halted, then we couldn't review it. That is not reviewable

 

[Hawks46]

I only saw the play twice, in real time and then the broadcast replay. It didn't look to me that Bennett touched Robinson before Robinson's wrist contacted the ground, but I only saw the play twice.

My brother and dad watched the game independently, and both watched that play several times over in max slo-mo (1/15), and both said they were sure Bennett didn't contact. My dad even went so far as to say that one of the alternate angles on the broadcast clearly showed space between Bennett and Robinson.

All second hand stuff, but I'm pretty sure Bennett did not contact Robinson, and therefore it should have been ruled a fumble. Also, to address another comment in here, there was no immediate whistle to blow the play dead, just a signal at the end of the play that Robinson was down early. I do think that if Pete had challenged, I think he would have won it. Perhaps he wasn't allowed to challenge, but if so, that would be bullshit.

This is the thing that is bothering me. The refs didn't blow the whistle on the "initial contact" so if there was no fumble, he wouldn't have been down back where he slipped anyways. How can you have that both ways ? If the refs had blown the whistle, or signalled him down, they would've emphatically ran out there and stopped the play, or been close to it. They all stood there like they were watching continuation of play.

If this is another forward progress thing, then it's total bullshit. That would be twice this year that the "forward progress" being stopped would have taken clear fumbles from us. If Pete couldv'e challenged, I honestly don't know why he didn't. The Saints obviously thought they got away with one; that was the fastest they got to the line and got a snap off all night.

 

[kidhawk]

Just to add to this thread so people know. Pete addressed this today in his presser and said that even though we might not have won it, he wishes looking back on it that he'd challenged that play. He was asked point blank if it was a reviewable call and he said that it was

 

[scutterhawk]

I only saw the play twice, in real time and then the broadcast replay. It didn't look to me that Bennett touched Robinson before Robinson's wrist contacted the ground, but I only saw the play twice.

My brother and dad watched the game independently, and both watched that play several times over in max slo-mo (1/15), and both said they were sure Bennett didn't contact. My dad even went so far as to say that one of the alternate angles on the broadcast clearly showed space between Bennett and Robinson.

All second hand stuff, but I'm pretty sure Bennett did not contact Robinson, and therefore it should have been ruled a fumble. Also, to address another comment in here, there was no immediate whistle to blow the play dead, just a signal at the end of the play that Robinson was down early. I do think that if Pete had challenged, I think he would have won it. Perhaps he wasn't allowed to challenge, but if so, that would be bullshit.

1000% correct.
Robinsons wrist made contact with the ground, NOT the ball, and Robinson took off again because he KNEW that he was still good to go ,and it wasn't until he was nearly back up and moving forward, that the ball then popped out.
That was a bullshit call by the Referee...AGAIN, that screwed the Seahawks out of a fumble recovery.

 

[scutterhawk]

I only saw the play twice, in real time and then the broadcast replay. It didn't look to me that Bennett touched Robinson before Robinson's wrist contacted the ground, but I only saw the play twice.

My brother and dad watched the game independently, and both watched that play several times over in max slo-mo (1/15), and both said they were sure Bennett didn't contact. My dad even went so far as to say that one of the alternate angles on the broadcast clearly showed space between Bennett and Robinson.

All second hand stuff, but I'm pretty sure Bennett did not contact Robinson, and therefore it should have been ruled a fumble. Also, to address another comment in here, there was no immediate whistle to blow the play dead, just a signal at the end of the play that Robinson was down early. I do think that if Pete had challenged, I think he would have won it. Perhaps he wasn't allowed to challenge, but if so, that would be bullshit.

He was clearly down by contact. This is a non-issue.

No Sir, he was not.
Just because the Referee said it, it doesn't make it absolutely the truth.
It was a mistake that the Referee had assumed.
It being a moot point is true enough, but there have been 2 times in the last 5 games, where the Referees have botched it with faulty calls, and that is 2 too many.

 

[White Devil]

what does it matter if the ball hit the ground? It wasn't a pass it was a running play.

Anything other than feet or hands that touch the ground if there was contact that led to the player going down....is down.

Bennett's contact to his arm led to Robinsons wrist, forearm whatever you want to call it to touch the turf and he was down.

 

[kidhawk]

what does it matter if the ball hit the ground? It wasn't a pass it was a running play.

Anything other than feet or hands that touch the ground if there was contact that led to the player going down....is down.

Bennett's contact to his arm led to Robinsons wrist, forearm whatever you want to call it to touch the turf and he was down.

The argument isn't so much about down or not, but whether it could have been challenged. Too many people here think it couldn't have been challenged because they ruled him down by contact. It was within the rules to challenge (as many of us said at the time) and Pete himself said today he wishes he had challenged it. Sometimes even a failed challenge can be worth the risk.

 

[White Devil]

The argument isn't so much about down or not, but whether it could have been challenged.

I agree with that. I still think we lose the challenge.

It seemed almost (put on your tinfoil hats before continuing) that it was a setup to get Pete to challenge, and lose. They showed only the tail end of the play on every angle of replay except for the final view, just before the ball was snapped again. I'm sure if someone has access to the Coaches Film directly from the NFL Fieldpass site, it will show what happened. I'm also sure that FOX could and would have had the correct views under the hood for the ref to view.

 

[penihawk]

I have to wonder this, since they did not whistle the play dead when his forearm hit the ground would of they brought it back if he ran 65 yds for a TD? Would they have said he ran into his own lineman and that caused him to slip down? I don't think this play was nearly as clear and properly officiated as some think.