In a scrum, unless the referee for sure, 100%, observes the turnover, it should never be ruled a turnover. The offensive player has possession of the ball until proven otherwise through absolute clear evidence via instant replay. The onus of change of possession should fall on the defense. Why should any offense lose possession without verifiable proof? The less we rely on the failing eyesight of 60 year old men from 20 yards away, the better.
7 Likes
Crosby sold it.
4 Likes
And that’s the problem. It should never be bought by the refs. It should be awarded only after verifiable proof.
6 Likes
it was one of the worst calls I’ve ever seen
10 Likes
It was bad and would’ve been a huge topic had we lost that game.
5 Likes
Number 13s ass was clearly on the ground from the view I seen. Not a fumble.
5 Likes
Agree - but I think in this case it is a trend I have been seeing where if the refs aren’t sure if it’s a turnover, they go ahead and call it anyway knowing it will be reviewed. I don’t disagree in principle, but the issue is when there is a lack of proof either way in the video, the call on the field stands. I think they assumed the replay would show it one way or another, and do it so the coaches don’t need to through the red flag. Another unintended consequence of video replay - I honestly like the college system better. Just call it on the field how you see it, and have an official in the booth to call the BS flag. If you can’t see an issue in 10 - 20 seconds of review, then it’s not glaring.
3 Likes
I think a lot of it is also what they have been telling the refs to do. If you are not sure, then call the play and refute it with replay. Of course in dubious calls like a scrum, mistakenly calling the fumble makes it almost impossible to overturn.
3 Likes
That’s saying something coming from a Lions fan.
4 Likes
The review process is a joke! The guys in New York are worse than the refs.
Not a single one of them saw his ass “not on the ground”, cause it most definitely was! Not a ref, or the NYC mob.
3 Likes
The precedent is to call it a fumble so that replay will kick in automatically. The downside of relying on replay specifically to decide whether or not it was a real turnover is the precedent there is that it has to be clear, indisputable proof.
It was indisputable enough in my opinion the pile was stopped on the turf. The play was over. The ball came out after the play was over, but before the whistle, and there was no clear indisputable proof that he had a body part touching the turf. They need to be able to make the right call there. So, of course, there will be tweaks to the rule. We were the second team to be robbed in that fashion this week. One of the Sunday games had the exact same issue.
1 Like
It contributed (falsely) to the notion that the Lions were totally hapless in the redzone this game. Some of that was earned e.g. the 3 field goals to start the game, but the “fumble” never should have been a redzone failure, and the LaPorta wide open drop was also uncharacteristic.
3 Likes
It’s like TD’s—what is and what is not a TD—I SWEAR they need a robotic , perfect machine that can cast a beam across the line and makes extremely accurate calls !..not leaving it up to half blind old geezers with questionable eyesight and memory to call it.
1 Like
What frustrated me with the call is Crosby picked Netflix up twice by the ball/arms and on the second one is when Netflix lost possession. If Crosby can pick him up twice doesn’t that mean forward progress has stopped.
3 Likes
Naw pi vs dallas that was picked up.
2 Likes
Bingo. Not only was Reynolds clearly down on the ground … but his progress was stopped well before he was down.
That call was as bad as it gets. How in the hell do they miss that on the review?
I’ve heard Goodell has a boner for closely contested games … but at some point this shit has to stop.
4 Likes
The refs were just keeping the score closer. I truly believe that. All these refs manipulate games. They are paid well to do it.
That wasn’t even close to being a fumble.
Glad we won.
4 Likes
How about the “interception” in Dallas that wasn’t even reviewed. Spoiler alert: it wasn’t an interception.
3 Likes
The problem is with replay, not the calls made on the field. This idea that you need complete visual video evidence is ridiculous. It was as obvious as the sky is blue that Reynolds was laying on his back well before the ball came loose. But because you couldn’t see 
it with your eyes 100% clearly…the play stands. It is a beyond stupid stipulation to video replay. I know they are trying to take subjectiveness out of replay calls, but that notion alone is also stupid. Every decision is subjective regardless of how you want to break it down…
Replay calls should be made on most likely scenario. Not this 100% or play stands Bs. If you aren’t going to do the best possible job and make the best possible decisions under replay, don’t use replay at all. Because calls are regularly botched under video review due to stupid rules.
I honestly think the wording/stipulations are put in place intentionally. So they don’t have to answer for anything or any poor decisions they make. Because like it or not, there is an element of rigging sports for entertainment/money purposes. Replay is a great way to help aid decisions to benefit who you want it to benefit.
They showed a still that showed it was on the ground and he still had the ball.
I don’t know how that isn’t conclusive evidence.
But whoever said Crosby sold the fumble is 100% correct. He talked them in that call.
The refs should be fined for that alone.
2 Likes