Sherman to reporters " I had the ball "

SuperFreak · Oct 19, 2014

Sherman told reporters after the game that he had the ball and was unsure why the play wasn’t reviewed.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/football/2014 ... -recovery/

therealjohncarlson · Oct 19, 2014

If it was reviewed it wouldnt have been overturned. Not clear indication. The refs screwed up in the first place making the call so quick and not even seeing who had the ball. Im still in shock how they made that call so damn quick

HawkFan72 · Oct 19, 2014

therealjohncarlson":24aoorax said:
If it was reviewed it wouldnt have been overturned. Not clear indication. The refs screwed up in the first place making the call so quick and not even seeing who had the ball. Im still in shock how they made that call so damn quick

False.

The replay clearly showed Sherman fall on the ball. If he came out of the pile with the ball, how does the video not prove that he recovered it?

The refs took the ball away when everyone was still in the pile, so we never saw who came out with it. That's where the problem comes in.

If Sherman had it, handed if off to a ref, and they awarded it to the Rams...then the replay could have proven that the Seahawks recovered it. But we were never given that chance to see it.

Exittium · Oct 19, 2014

HawkFan72":213rw9ed said:
therealjohncarlson":213rw9ed said:

If it was reviewed it wouldnt have been overturned. Not clear indication. The refs screwed up in the first place making the call so quick and not even seeing who had the ball. Im still in shock how they made that call so damn quick

Click to expand...

False.

The replay clearly showed Sherman fall on the ball. If he came out of the pile with the ball, how does the video not prove that he recovered it?

The refs took the ball away when everyone was still in the pile, so we never saw who came out with it. That's where the problem comes in.

If Sherman had it, handed if off to a ref, and they awarded it to the Rams...then the replay could have proven that the Seahawks recovered it. But we were never given that chance to see it.

And never will be

dontbelikethat · Oct 19, 2014

HawkFan72":14v1nyu5 said:
therealjohncarlson":14v1nyu5 said:

If it was reviewed it wouldnt have been overturned. Not clear indication. The refs screwed up in the first place making the call so quick and not even seeing who had the ball. Im still in shock how they made that call so damn quick

Click to expand...

False.

The replay clearly showed Sherman fall on the ball. If he came out of the pile with the ball, how does the video not prove that he recovered it?

As much as I want you to be right, I don't agree. He was ON TOP of the ball, but wasn't physically on it in the camera shot and when it started to look like he got on it, the ball is out of sight and hard to conclude whether it got pried away or if he was on it. Now I definitely think he got the ball and he was on it, but it has to be 100% inconclusive, no argument can possibly be made at all for it to be reversed.

sam1313 · Oct 19, 2014

dontbelikethat":1m56gsm7 said:
HawkFan72":1m56gsm7 said:

therealjohncarlson":1m56gsm7 said:

If it was reviewed it wouldnt have been overturned. Not clear indication. The refs screwed up in the first place making the call so quick and not even seeing who had the ball. Im still in shock how they made that call so damn quick

Click to expand...

False.

The replay clearly showed Sherman fall on the ball. If he came out of the pile with the ball, how does the video not prove that he recovered it?

Click to expand...

As much as I want you to be right, I don't agree. He was ON TOP of the ball, but wasn't physically on it in the camera shot and when it started to look like he got on it, the ball is out of sight and hard to conclude whether it got pried away or if he was on it. Now I definitely think he got the ball and he was on it, but it has to be 100% inconclusive, no argument can possibly be made at all for it to be reversed.

Well, I disagree with you. video clearly shows Sherman on top of the ball. If he then came out of the pile with it, it should have been the end of the story. This was bullshit of extra large proportions (and I won't even go into a lot of the other calls in the game).

SuperFreak · Oct 19, 2014

Watching AZ and OAK right now, end of the first half AZ punts it might have been muffed but it's not going to be reviewed that is until Arians calls a time out and yells at a ref now they are reviewing it.

The refs in Seahawks Rams game straight up ignored Pete and ended the game as quickly as possible after making the call.

Hawkpower · Oct 19, 2014

dontbelikethat":23wj13kp said:
HawkFan72":23wj13kp said:

therealjohncarlson":23wj13kp said:

If it was reviewed it wouldnt have been overturned. Not clear indication. The refs screwed up in the first place making the call so quick and not even seeing who had the ball. Im still in shock how they made that call so damn quick

Click to expand...

False.

The replay clearly showed Sherman fall on the ball. If he came out of the pile with the ball, how does the video not prove that he recovered it?

Click to expand...

As much as I want you to be right, I don't agree. He was ON TOP of the ball, but wasn't physically on it in the camera shot and when it started to look like he got on it, the ball is out of sight and hard to conclude whether it got pried away or if he was on it. Now I definitely think he got the ball and he was on it, but it has to be 100% inconclusive, no argument can possibly be made at all for it to be reversed.

He came out of the pile with the ball.

If that wasnt important, why did the refs stand there unpiling the pile to see who got it??

Hawkpower · Oct 19, 2014

therealjohncarlson":mw2ajfbg said:
If it was reviewed it wouldnt have been overturned. Not clear indication. The refs screwed up in the first place making the call so quick and not even seeing who had the ball. Im still in shock how they made that call so damn quick

It was clear when the ref took it out of Shermans hands.

How much clearer does it have to be??

mikeak · Oct 19, 2014

The call was the runner was down. If that was overturned then the refs should rule that Seahawks recovered as Sherman came out of the pile with the ball. The review would not have been in regards to ball recovery

Hawkpower · Oct 19, 2014

mikeak":107hn5d5 said:
The call was the runner was down. If that was overturned then the refs should rule that Seahawks recovered as Sherman came out of the pile with the ball. The review would not have been in regards to ball recovery

They didnt call the runner down, they called the second Rams player who pounced on it down, even though the ball squirted out of his control when he jumped on it.

dontbelikethat · Oct 19, 2014

sam1313":1iccrdx0 said:
dontbelikethat":1iccrdx0 said:

HawkFan72":1iccrdx0 said:

therealjohncarlson":1iccrdx0 said:

If it was reviewed it wouldnt have been overturned. Not clear indication. The refs screwed up in the first place making the call so quick and not even seeing who had the ball. Im still in shock how they made that call so damn quick

Click to expand...

False.

The replay clearly showed Sherman fall on the ball. If he came out of the pile with the ball, how does the video not prove that he recovered it?

Click to expand...

As much as I want you to be right, I don't agree. He was ON TOP of the ball, but wasn't physically on it in the camera shot and when it started to look like he got on it, the ball is out of sight and hard to conclude whether it got pried away or if he was on it. Now I definitely think he got the ball and he was on it, but it has to be 100% inconclusive, no argument can possibly be made at all for it to be reversed.

Click to expand...

Well, I disagree with you. video clearly shows Sherman on top of the ball. If he then came out of the pile with it, it should have been the end of the story. This was bullshit of extra large proportions (and I won't even go into a lot of the other calls in the game).

Well the replay will surface again and we can all have a second look then. He was hovering over the ball, yes, but it's very to hard to say inconclusively with video evidence that he got the ball with out a doubt without relatively thinking he got it. I personally think he got it, but you need the video evidence to confirm it without a doubt that no one can even challenge which is the thing. Who ended coming out with the ball anyways? Only saw the refs take it out of the pile.

jlwaters1 · Oct 19, 2014

I think we"re missing the point the in this thread the refs blew the call.what they should have done was sorted out who had the ball in the pile, they most likely would have ruled Seattle ball, if that happened they would have automatically reviewed the play and then could have determined if the ram player had possession or not.. This course of action would have guaranteed that they got things right.. Instead they botched it by calling the ram player down, basically they eliminated the option of granting sea the ball by there actions, which in the end turn out to be wrong... Refs should side on letting things play out when uncertain,.. The worst thing that can happen is a premature judgment or whistle.

dontbelikethat · Oct 19, 2014

Hawkpower":f6cz2eky said:
dontbelikethat":f6cz2eky said:

HawkFan72":f6cz2eky said:

therealjohncarlson":f6cz2eky said:

If it was reviewed it wouldnt have been overturned. Not clear indication. The refs screwed up in the first place making the call so quick and not even seeing who had the ball. Im still in shock how they made that call so damn quick

Click to expand...

False.

The replay clearly showed Sherman fall on the ball. If he came out of the pile with the ball, how does the video not prove that he recovered it?

Click to expand...

As much as I want you to be right, I don't agree. He was ON TOP of the ball, but wasn't physically on it in the camera shot and when it started to look like he got on it, the ball is out of sight and hard to conclude whether it got pried away or if he was on it. Now I definitely think he got the ball and he was on it, but it has to be 100% inconclusive, no argument can possibly be made at all for it to be reversed.

Click to expand...

He came out of the pile with the ball.

If that wasnt important, why did the refs stand there unpiling the pile to see who got it??

Didn't see who came out with it, only saw refs take it from the pile. If that's the case, it's even more ridiculous that they didn't review it.

dontbelikethat · Oct 19, 2014

jlwaters1":2kqzux7c said:
I think we"re missing the point the in this thread the refs blew the call.what they should have done was sorted out who had the ball in the pile, they most likely would have ruled Seattle ball, if that happened they would have automatically reviewed the play and then could have determined if the ram player had possession or not.. This course of action would have guaranteed that they got things right.. Instead they botched it by calling the ram player down, basically they eliminated the option of granting sea the ball by there actions, which in the end turn out to be wrong... Refs should side on letting things play out when uncertain,.. The worst thing that can happen is a premature judgment or whistle.

They could've reviewed the recovery, any fumble,turn over, touchdown,etc. can get reviewed under 2mins.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/MikePereira/status/523927269782208512[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/MikePereira/status/523933341997727746[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/MikePereira/status/523927477056335873[/tweet]

Seanhawk · Oct 19, 2014

jlwaters1":2rusayj3 said:
You guys are missing the point the refs blew the call.what they should have done was sorted out who had the ball in the pile, they most likely would have ruled Seattle ball, if that happened they would have automatically reviewed the play and then could have determined if the ram player had possession or not.. This course of action would have guaranteed that they got things right.. Instead they botched it by calling the ram down, basically they eliminated the option of granting sea the ball by there actions, which in the end turn out to be wrong... Refs should side on letting things play out when uncertain,.. The worst thing that can happen is a premature judgment or whistle.

Jesus Christ. It amazes me how some people are complaining about the officials, but they don't actually know what they are complaining about. They did not call the ball carrier down. They called it a fumble, but because it was under two minutes and the ball carrier fumbled the ball forward, the ball got placed at the spot of the fumble. They did sort out who had it in the pile and they said the Rams recovered. Rewinding the DVR, it looks like either #73 or #46 handed the official the ball. If it had been one of the Hawks, you don't think they would have been livid and demonstrative about it? They all looked dejected.

pmedic920 · Oct 19, 2014

sam1313":1kpmp3dg said:
dontbelikethat":1kpmp3dg said:

HawkFan72":1kpmp3dg said:

therealjohncarlson":1kpmp3dg said:

If it was reviewed it wouldnt have been overturned. Not clear indication. The refs screwed up in the first place making the call so quick and not even seeing who had the ball. Im still in shock how they made that call so damn quick

Click to expand...

False.

The replay clearly showed Sherman fall on the ball. If he came out of the pile with the ball, how does the video not prove that he recovered it?

Click to expand...

As much as I want you to be right, I don't agree. He was ON TOP of the ball, but wasn't physically on it in the camera shot and when it started to look like he got on it, the ball is out of sight and hard to conclude whether it got pried away or if he was on it. Now I definitely think he got the ball and he was on it, but it has to be 100% inconclusive, no argument can possibly be made at all for it to be reversed.

Click to expand...

Well, I disagree with you. video clearly shows Sherman on top of the ball. If he then came out of the pile with it, it should have been the end of the story. This was bullshit of extra large proportions (and I won't even go into a lot of the other calls in the game).

In all fairness, being on top of the ball does not = possession of the ball.
I think we should have been giving the recovery but what we saw was not enough to overturn the on field call.
My opinion only.

dontbelikethat · Oct 19, 2014

pmedic920":10tvu6ma said:
sam1313":10tvu6ma said:

dontbelikethat":10tvu6ma said:

HawkFan72":10tvu6ma said:

False.

The replay clearly showed Sherman fall on the ball. If he came out of the pile with the ball, how does the video not prove that he recovered it?

Click to expand...

As much as I want you to be right, I don't agree. He was ON TOP of the ball, but wasn't physically on it in the camera shot and when it started to look like he got on it, the ball is out of sight and hard to conclude whether it got pried away or if he was on it. Now I definitely think he got the ball and he was on it, but it has to be 100% inconclusive, no argument can possibly be made at all for it to be reversed.

Click to expand...

Well, I disagree with you. video clearly shows Sherman on top of the ball. If he then came out of the pile with it, it should have been the end of the story. This was bullshit of extra large proportions (and I won't even go into a lot of the other calls in the game).

Click to expand...

In all fairness, being on top of the ball does not = possession of the ball.
I think we should have been giving the recovery but what we saw was not enough to overturn the on field call.
My opinion only.

That's exactly my opinion as well. I think we should've got it, but I understand why we didn't even though it sucks.

And if Seanhawk is right in that "Rewinding the DVR, it looks like either #73 or #46 handed the official the ball" and not Sherman, then I have a better understanding of their decision, but ultimately, it still should've been reviewed.

HawkFan72 · Oct 19, 2014

In any other game, if the video shows a player falling on top of the ball, and they are the same person who comes out of the pile with it, the refs would award possession to that player.

Only in this game is it all screwed up.

cajunhawk · Oct 19, 2014

Seanhawk":20qxo048 said:
jlwaters1":20qxo048 said:

You guys are missing the point the refs blew the call.what they should have done was sorted out who had the ball in the pile, they most likely would have ruled Seattle ball, if that happened they would have automatically reviewed the play and then could have determined if the ram player had possession or not.. This course of action would have guaranteed that they got things right.. Instead they botched it by calling the ram down, basically they eliminated the option of granting sea the ball by there actions, which in the end turn out to be wrong... Refs should side on letting things play out when uncertain,.. The worst thing that can happen is a premature judgment or whistle.

Click to expand...

Jesus Christ. It amazes me how some people are complaining about the officials, but they don't actually know what they are complaining about. They did not call the ball carrier down. They called it a fumble, but because it was under two minutes and the ball carrier fumbled the ball forward, the ball got placed at the spot of the fumble. They did sort out who had it in the pile and they said the Rams recovered. Rewinding the DVR, it looks like either #73 or #46 handed the official the ball. If it had been one of the Hawks, you don't think they would have been livid and demonstrative about it? They all looked dejected.

Pal...Harkey...#46...was outside of the pile. So...

Sherman to reporters " I had the ball "

Member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

New member

New member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

Moderator

New member

Active member

New member

Similar threads