Just to Clarify the Robinson non fumble

Couple of things before I get to the non fumble. I have been a daily reader of .Net for many years and think it is one of the best websites on the internet, and am very thankful for all of the people that put in the hours to make it a fantastic site to get my Seahawk fix.

I started to post awhile back when it looked like we might be getting the Sonics back and had to clarify to an OKC poster that what he had posted was incorrect. He pulled up some weather info that showed that Washington State actually was hit by more tornadoes than the state of Oklahoma, what he failed to comprehend was that the info he posted actually showed the time frame of one month for Oklahoma and the past 60 years for the State of Washington. After a couple of snide posts in the smack shack I felt pretty good until a tornado ripped through OKC that week and I felt a little guilty and stopped posting.

After seeing many posts about the poor refereeing on the Khiry Robinson non fumble I thought I would post my opinion on the play. Michael Bennet shoots the B gap, reaches out as Robinson is moving off left takle and grabs him by the arm. In doing so Robinson takes another step and the then slips. At this point he has been turned back towards the center of the field and places his forearm on the turf, this is the point I believe the side judge rules him down by contact. He then continues upfield, fumbles and all the anquish starts. From watching the replays it is hard to see Bennett grab him as he goes by because the fullback blocks part of the play on the tv, but it seems to me this is how the play developed. You actually see the side judge come in and grab his forearm when he talks to the referee. If there are other angles that come available maybe we can get clarification, otherwise I thought this play was called correctly.

I'm a diehard Hawks fan and I can't wait for next Sunday. I'll be up at Whistler skiing before the game and the last time I was up their for a Hawks game was 2010 for BeastQuake. Here's to positive Hawk thoughts and good game planning for next week, and hopefully Percy can go!!

You're actually correct about the forearm. He was down by contact then and there.

I believe most people have realized this by now, well except for the stubborn ones. These facts were laid out in several game day forum threads and in this forum's threads. Some though either didn't read them, or refused to believe them and wanted to rail about it.

You should probably add Khiry to the thread title because the first thing I thought was Michael Robinson That and most people don't know who the Saint player was on on the non-fumble play.

And keep on posting.

Y

We never got a second look at the play in the stadium and were LIVID when they marched off the penalty that occurred after what we saw as
a fumble. It wasn't until I rewatched it on TV, that I saw why we didn't challenge the call.

Didn't they give him the forward progress that he earned after getting back up? By doing that they acknowledge that he wasn't down by contact. If you look back at it, I believe they spotted the ball where the Seahawks had recovered it.

Here's the problem though, you say that no replay really shows the contact so it's hard to say he was down. If there is no good angle to show he was touched, then they couldn't rule him down via replay. Would they have overturned it? Maybe not, but at that point in the game, it would have been well worth the risk of losing a timeout.

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:

"He pulled up some weather info that showed that Washington State actually was hit by more tornadoes than the state of Oklahoma"

ummmm what? That might be the most nonsensical thing Ive heard this year

therealjohncarlson":21lfqxol said:

"He pulled up some weather info that showed that Washington State actually was hit by more tornadoes than the state of Oklahoma"

ummmm what? That might be the most nonsensical thing Ive heard this year

Click to expand...

Well, the year is young.

Maybe a lot of the disputing comes from the fact that we teevee viewers never got a good look at the "contact". I think folks had to dig it out later via DVR.

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.

kearly":229n6xpi said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

kearly":9pkvvniq said:

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.

Click to expand...

When I saw the replay of that, it looked fairly clear to me that it was a fumble. They replayed that a couple of times during the broadcast and there was absolutely zero question in my mind that it was a fumble. I kept waiting for Pete to pull out the challenge flag (I was actually saying, "Come on Pete, challenge. Challenge flag Pete" -- and it never happened. It was so blatantly obvious to me that I couldn't for the life of me figure out why. Then a thought occurred to me -- here is what I think could have been going on in Carroll's mind ...

Bobby Wagner (who came up with the ball and was on the bottom of the pile) was also called for a 15 yard unsportsman like penalty on the play. Given that, a couple of different factors could have been in play ...

1) The play occurred midway through the 3rd Quarter. Timeouts are valuable and if he loses the challenge, he loses a time out that he may need later on in the 4th Quarter.

2) If he actually WINS the challenge, that's kind of like a slap in the face of that official who flagged Bobby Wagner. It says that he was right and the official was wrong -- and that he was especially wrong for tagging him with an unsportsmanlike penalty. There's a part of me that wonders if Carroll was thinking about all of this and saying to himself, "The officiating has gone relatively well for us all game long. If we challenge here and win, this official may potentially get egg on his face in front of a national audience and those breaks he's been giving us all day long may start to go against us. Don't tick this guy off because if I do, he may get a little more flag happy. If we just keep playing good, physical defense like we've been playing all game long, we should be fine and get the ball back."

Carroll had to have seen the same replays we did, so the more I think about it, I'd say that those things had to factor in to his decision not to challenge there.

zifnab32":2h5sn90q said:

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

Click to expand...

Actually, there was no contact by the defender. The player ran into his own offensive lineman. What I am questioning is how the player could have been down by contact when I do not recall seeing the runningbacks knee touch.

I'm sorry there was absolutely zero question in your mind that it was a fumble...because it wasn't.

The first couple of replays they showed on TV started too late in the play. The very last time they showed a different angle, and started earlier in the play. Bennett tripped Robinson up. He took a half step trying to regain his balance and twisted his body and slipped, going down to his forearm. The contact by Bennett led to his forearm touching the ground and being down.

The whistle didn't blow, which is why the play continued but the correct call was made and the Linesman made an immediate indication that he was down.

Stop beating this horse. It was a good call. Also, Wagner deserved the flag. You can't do that stuff.

Hawkscanner":qgc57bak said:

2) If he actually WINS the challenge, that's kind of like a slap in the face of that official who flagged Bobby Wagner. It says that he was right and the official was wrong -- and that he was especially wrong for tagging him with an unsportsmanlike penalty. There's a part of me that wonders if Carroll was thinking about all of this and saying to himself, "The officiating has gone relatively well for us all game long. If we challenge here and win, this official may potentially get egg on his face in front of a national audience and those breaks he's been giving us all day long may start to go against us. Don't tick this guy off because if I do, he may get a little more flag happy. If we just keep playing good, physical defense like we've been playing all game long, we should be fine and get the ball back."

Click to expand...

Somebody has a healthy supply of tinfoil in their residence.

I'm not a GIF master, so this is the best I can give right now. Bennett reaches out and grabs Robinson at the bicep, and as his man sized body is falling down he pulls on Robinson's arm just enough to swing him down. As he pulls his arm, Robinson hops, loses his footing and goes down to his forearm. This is the only angle during the broadcast that showed the full play. I'm sure if they actually went under the hood and reviewed it, the play would have become obvious. I believe it was the correct call. I have the video and watched it about 20 times now. Also Wagner was not flagged for arguing the call, he was flagged for jumping in another players face, 3 inches from the ref. Not smart at all.

Maybe these screenshots show it better

CurryStopstheRuns":1482i2lr said:

Hawkscanner":1482i2lr said:

2) If he actually WINS the challenge, that's kind of like a slap in the face of that official who flagged Bobby Wagner. It says that he was right and the official was wrong -- and that he was especially wrong for tagging him with an unsportsmanlike penalty. There's a part of me that wonders if Carroll was thinking about all of this and saying to himself, "The officiating has gone relatively well for us all game long. If we challenge here and win, this official may potentially get egg on his face in front of a national audience and those breaks he's been giving us all day long may start to go against us. Don't tick this guy off because if I do, he may get a little more flag happy. If we just keep playing good, physical defense like we've been playing all game long, we should be fine and get the ball back."

Click to expand...

Somebody has a healthy supply of tinfoil in their residence.

Click to expand...

Just using a little thing I like to call "reason". Perhaps you've heard of it?

Hawkscanner":qsfe98bn said:

CurryStopstheRuns":qsfe98bn said:

Hawkscanner":qsfe98bn said:

2) If he actually WINS the challenge, that's kind of like a slap in the face of that official who flagged Bobby Wagner. It says that he was right and the official was wrong -- and that he was especially wrong for tagging him with an unsportsmanlike penalty. There's a part of me that wonders if Carroll was thinking about all of this and saying to himself, "The officiating has gone relatively well for us all game long. If we challenge here and win, this official may potentially get egg on his face in front of a national audience and those breaks he's been giving us all day long may start to go against us. Don't tick this guy off because if I do, he may get a little more flag happy. If we just keep playing good, physical defense like we've been playing all game long, we should be fine and get the ball back."

Click to expand...

Somebody has a healthy supply of tinfoil in their residence.

Click to expand...

Just using a little thing I like to call "reason". Perhaps you've heard of it?

Click to expand...

Reason requires logic. I would wager that is why you put the word between quotation marks since you were well aware of the lack of logic in your post.