Two major ref mistakes? One plus one negative?

I am confused by two decisions in this game. One was reviewed one was not (should have been)

1) The fumble. I ran it back. It is clearly without a doubt whistled dead prior to recovery by Seattle. I thought rules are recovery has to happen PRIOR to whistle for other team to keep it

Am I wrong? Clearly helped Seattle

2) Final drive, 2nd and goal. Ball is caught, secured clearly, player inbound and past the goal line. Player gets hit which causes the ball to come lose and fall to the ground

Being in the end zone with current rules I thought secured would do it and final tackle can't jar it lose as player is already in the end zone

Is this wrong? Mostly surprised on number 1

And by the way 5-0 - Go Hawks. Only sad because of thinking about how crazy it would have been there tonight. I would be getting absolutely hammered in a bar outside the stadium now ....

1) you can’t review this. If the refs deemed no recovery took place before the whistle on the field the ball would have stayed with Minnesota. I see your point but from how the play unfolded Seattle players were in the act of having their hands on the ball and trying to secure it when blown dead so I think it was a fair call to let the recovery stand.

2) this was bang bang to me. He gets a 2nd foot down, ball past the goal one but “a football move” is required for the catch to be completed and I think the defender gets there exactly when that’s occurring. You stay with the on field call there, wouldn’t have expected an overturn on review either way.

1) this was reviewed. Seattle challenged, it was deemed a fumble. I understand the rules as not only does fumble need to be shown, but clear recovery as well

2) yeah will read some rules tomorrow. Do not believe the football move is required in the end zone. Two feet should be it

Thanks for the reply. Mainly questioning because one play was reviewed and one could have been (last 2 mins)

From 2020 NFL Rulebook:

SECTION 2 - REPLAY REVIEWS

ARTICLE 4. AWARDING POSSESSION

When the on-field ruling results in a dead ball (e.g., score, down by contact, incomplete pass, etc.), and following replay review, it is determined that possession was lost before the ball should have been ruled dead, possession may be awarded to a player who clearly recovers a loose ball in the immediate continuing action. A loose ball that touches out of bounds is deemed a clear recovery by the player who last possessed the ball.

mikeak":3s0l2bnz said:

1) this was reviewed. Seattle challenged, it was deemed a fumble. I understand the rules as not only does fumble need to be shown, but clear recovery as well

2) yeah will read some rules tomorrow. Do not believe the football move is required in the end zone. Two feet should be it

Thanks for the reply. Mainly questioning because one play was reviewed and one could have been (last 2 mins)

Click to expand...

1) yes the fumble was reviewed but you can’t review if the whistle was blown before recovery. You can check to see who recovered the ball as far as I’m aware.

2) it’s the same rule as the field, except you can’t cause a fumble as the play is dead (once you have 2 feet and control / a football move it’s a TD). Happy to be corrected if I’m wrong ...

renofox":3kpqzieu said:

From 2020 NFL Rulebook:

SECTION 2 - REPLAY REVIEWS

ARTICLE 4. AWARDING POSSESSION

When the on-field ruling results in a dead ball (e.g., score, down by contact, incomplete pass, etc.), and following replay review, it is determined that possession was lost before the ball should have been ruled dead, possession may be awarded to a player who clearly recovers a loose ball in the immediate continuing action. A loose ball that touches out of bounds is deemed a clear recovery by the player who last possessed the ball.

Click to expand...

Fascinating. Thanks - had no idea this language was changed. I know there was a lot of controversy after Chargers were screwed out of a win due to whistle years ago, but didn't realize it was changed to this effect

Thanks!!

1) I didn't hear a clear whistle until after the recovery but as stated already posession can change on a clear recovery which there was.

2) We've gone through this for years & it's just a stupid rule. If he was a running back on a running play it's a TD but for some reason a receiver needs to never lose control even if he has clear control & has broken the plane.

Hockey Guy":jiu0k1f7 said:

1) I didn't hear a clear whistle until after the recovery but as stated already posession can change on a clear recovery which there was.

2) We've gone through this for years & it's just a stupid rule. If he was a running back on a running play it's a TD but for some reason a receiver needs to never lose control even if he has clear control & has broken the plane.

Click to expand...

With 2) this is the thing. A runner needs to break the plane as they already have control of the ball. A receiver does not until they get both feet down and demonstrate some form of move to show they have control. That’s how I’ve always thought it’s interpreted. Rule seems right the way it’s applied now (after the amendment to avoid the Calvin Johnson type calls we used to get and ‘surviving the ground’. I thought the DK one tonight was incomplete, but it was v tight

No there just has to be evidence of clear recovery which there was.

jlwaters1":15iatu9p said:

No there just has to be evidence of clear recovery which there was.

Click to expand...

and this has been the rule for a while.

On the first one, Moore hit the ball before Cousins started his throwing motion, thus the fumble ruling on the challenge. The fact that they blew the whistle means the Seahawk defenders couldn't advance the ball though they did get possession.

On the second one, it was a bit different. The defender hit Cousins' arm, not the ball, thus the forward pass incomplete ruling. Pete couldn't challenge because it was after the 2 min warning.

sutz":qy5zu512 said:

On the first one, Moore hit the ball before Cousins started his throwing motion, thus the fumble ruling on the challenge. The fact that they blew the whistle means the Seahawk defenders couldn't advance the ball though they did get possession.

On the second one, it was a bit different. The defender hit Cousins' arm, not the ball, thus the forward pass incomplete ruling. Pete couldn't challenge because it was after the 2 min warning.

Click to expand...

True on the first one.

The second one was ruled fumble. Which refs should always do imo. Don't blow a play dead. Let replay sort it out. The ball was not firm in Cousins hand so the play stands. If they called incomplete they probably stay with it incomplete too. But I thought it was definitely loose in the hand coming forward.

Smellyman":1cteddts said:

jlwaters1":1cteddts said:

No there just has to be evidence of clear recovery which there was.

Click to expand...

and this has been the rule for a while.

Click to expand...

Yes I was aware.of that, but I thought it was clear recovery BEFORE whistle. When the rule first changed the refs were instructed to wait to whistle because of this. Then they whistled it dead and even if they stopped a team from advancing they wouldn't cost a turnover.

This must have changed after that

Smellyman":ad7f90k0 said:

jlwaters1":ad7f90k0 said:

No there just has to be evidence of clear recovery which there was.

Click to expand...

and this has been the rule for a while.

Click to expand...

Yes. The rule was changed to the current rule in 2006.

Followthelegion":ncgc3mqv said:

Hockey Guy":ncgc3mqv said:

1) I didn't hear a clear whistle until after the recovery but as stated already posession can change on a clear recovery which there was.

2) We've gone through this for years & it's just a stupid rule. If he was a running back on a running play it's a TD but for some reason a receiver needs to never lose control even if he has clear control & has broken the plane.

Click to expand...

With 2) this is the thing. A runner needs to break the plane as they already have control of the ball. A receiver does not until they get both feet down and demonstrate some form of move to show they have control. That’s how I’ve always thought it’s interpreted. Rule seems right the way it’s applied now (after the amendment to avoid the Calvin Johnson type calls we used to get and ‘surviving the ground’. I thought the DK one tonight was incomplete, but it was v tight

Click to expand...

They've changed the "what is a catch" definition so many times I cant seem to keep up.

In the endzone, it seemingly gets even more contrived.

It certainly was close. Had he held it another 1/2 second it probably would have been good.