LGB Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 With less than 10 seconds left in the game, this looked like a pretty close call...and since the Cardinals had proved the on-field officials wrong before in the game, why not review what was ruled a Warner fumble when his arm was moving forward with the ball? If it was Tom Brady, that pass attempt would probably have been ruled incomplete from upstairs. If it was a fumble, fine, but the play call was certainly close enough to warrant an under-two-minutes booth review. It was almost like the network wanted to air the "Office" and rushed to end the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloWings Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Al Michaels said they confirmed it with a booth review, but I don't know if that was announced by the referee or how he got the word. It doesn't matter, anyway. It was a fumble. No need to throw conspiracy theories out there on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernMan Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 With less than 10 seconds left in the game, this looked like a pretty close call...and since the Cardinals had proved the on-field officials wrong before in the game, why not review what was ruled a Warner fumble when his arm was moving forward with the ball? If it was Tom Brady, that pass attempt would probably have been ruled incomplete from upstairs. If it was a fumble, fine, but the play call was certainly close enough to warrant an under-two-minutes booth review. It was almost like the network wanted to air the "Office" and rushed to end the game. Agreed. I've seen "incomplete pass" called numerous times on less obvious "passes" than the one (not) thrown by Warner. What the NFL calls a "pass" is ridiculous anyway, but at least be consistent. Warner's arm WAS going forward. It reminded of "no goal". As if the officials were thinking, "c'mon, it's almost over. Close enough." Or the famous, "just give it to 'em" , from the Bills/Patriots conspiracy. It was a long shot even if it was called as an incomplete pass, but at least it would have been a shot. We never got the chance to see Fitzgerald going up for the jump ball in the end zone. It would have been great to see an overtime Superbowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Al Michaels said they confirmed it with a booth review, but I don't know if that was announced by the referee or how he got the word. It doesn't matter, anyway. It was a fumble. No need to throw conspiracy theories out there on this one. When did "confirmation" become a substitute for replay? Inside two minutes, the booth either calls for a replay or doesn't; the booth doesn't conduct the replay itself and "confirm" it. This reminded me of our Pats game earlier this year, when the booth refused to review that onsides kick. The refs all just wanted to get out of there. I watched the replay of the fumble; I never saw the ball come loose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billnutinphoenix Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Bad call but they didn't want to give the Cards anothere shot... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 There was no booth review. That was a bunch of BS. Even when the booth initiates the review the on field referee is still involved. Sounds a lot like "No Goal". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 it was clearly a fumble...he had an open hand going forward, which is clearly a fumble...didn't even look close to me personally when I watched it, I thought it was a clear fumble... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 When did "confirmation" become a substitute for replay? Inside two minutes, the booth either calls for a replay or doesn't; the booth doesn't conduct the replay itself and "confirm" it. This reminded me of our Pats game earlier this year, when the booth refused to review that onsides kick. The refs all just wanted to get out of there. I watched the replay of the fumble; I never saw the ball come loose. The booth doesn't call for a review based on live action. They see a replay, and based on that, they decide to buzz down for an on-field review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 The booth doesn't call for a review based on live action. They see a replay, and based on that, they decide to buzz down for an on-field review. Right. But they don't conduct the final replay to "confirm" whether something is a fumble or not. The booth looks at the replay to see if it's close enough for the official to review via instant replay. What happened here, supposedly, was that the booth looked at the replay, and "confirmed" that it wasn't a fumble. The booth can't do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Right. But they don't conduct the final replay to "confirm" whether something is a fumble or not. The booth looks at the replay to see if it's close enough for the official to review via instant replay. What happened here, supposedly, was that the booth looked at the replay, and "confirmed" that it wasn't a fumble. The booth can't do that. I think confirm was just a poor word choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Agreed. I've seen "incomplete pass" called numerous times on less obvious "passes" than the one (not) thrown by Warner. What the NFL calls a "pass" is ridiculous anyway, but at least be consistent. Warner's arm WAS going forward. It reminded of "no goal". As if the officials were thinking, "c'mon, it's almost over. Close enough." Or the famous, "just give it to 'em" , from the Bills/Patriots conspiracy. It was a long shot even if it was called as an incomplete pass, but at least it would have been a shot. We never got the chance to see Fitzgerald going up for the jump ball in the end zone. It would have been great to see an overtime Superbowl. But he didn't have control of the ball, it had already been knocked loose. (empty hand) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayFinkle Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 it was clearly a fumble...he had an open hand going forward, which is clearly a fumble...didn't even look close to me personally when I watched it, I thought it was a clear fumble... I agree it was a fumble, however there is one exception. If that was Tom Brady, it would have been roughing the passer, 15 yard personal foul, and a forward pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 But he didn't have control of the ball, it had already been knocked loose. (empty hand) Take a closer look. It looked to me that Warner had the ball the whole time until he released it; it even came out as a sort of spiral. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRHvm52T_WE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 wow - that is a new angle for me. How does the ball come out as a spiral on a fumble? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Take a closer look. It looked to me that Warner had the ball the whole time until he released it; it even came out as a sort of spiral. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRHvm52T_WE Can't utube here at work, but I'll take a look again tonight (but I won't change my mind! ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Can't utube here at work, but I'll take a look again tonight (but I won't change my mind! ) Ha! At least I tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoveldog Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Take a closer look. It looked to me that Warner had the ball the whole time until he released it; it even came out as a sort of spiral. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRHvm52T_WE Ok, so you are either a Cards fan, a Steeler hater or you lost money on the game... Either way, you're on crack if you think that ball came out as a spiral. That ball was knocked loose by the contact and momentum of Warner trying in despiration to get it out pushed the ball forward. But, he NEVER had control of the ball as the arm started forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Ok, so you are either a Cards fan, a Steeler hater or you lost money on the game... Either way, you're on crack if you think that ball came out as a spiral. That ball was knocked loose by the contact and momentum of Warner trying in despiration to get it out pushed the ball forward. But, he NEVER had control of the ball as the arm started forward. I'm pretty objective--and I actually wanted the Steelers to win. Also, you might be right--it could have been a fumble. I'd like to see the front angle in slow-mo. My problem with this is just the procedure of it all. It should have been reviewed, but it wasn't. Then we were led to believe that someone in the booth "confirmed" the play, which could not have occurred pursuant to the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 With less than 10 seconds left in the game, this looked like a pretty close call...and since the Cardinals had proved the on-field officials wrong before in the game, why not review what was ruled a Warner fumble when his arm was moving forward with the ball? If it was Tom Brady, that pass attempt would probably have been ruled incomplete from upstairs. If it was a fumble, fine, but the play call was certainly close enough to warrant an under-two-minutes booth review. It was almost like the network wanted to air the "Office" and rushed to end the game. I found that very odd as well. Next thing you know The game was over...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I'm pretty objective--and I actually wanted the Steelers to win. Also, you might be right--it could have been a fumble. I'd like to see the front angle in slow-mo. My problem with this is just the procedure of it all. It should have been reviewed, but it wasn't. Then we were led to believe that someone in the booth "confirmed" the play, which could not have occurred pursuant to the rules. I saw the front angle in slow-mo. They showed it last night on some program called the Super Bowl. It was a fumble. No conspiracy here. I know it's not as exciting as conjuring up some grassy knoll type crap to justify how the Cards were "screwed" and how the Stillers are "junior Pats" or whatever. All that is garbage. Both teams were penalized @ bad times (Hartwig's penalty for a safety crushed what was a great bail out play by Roethlisberger). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts