NFL: No video evidence of clear fumble recovery by either team in Rams-Seahawks game

[Prime Time]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ecovery-by-either-team-in-rams-seahawks-game/

NFL: No video evidence of clear fumble recovery by either team in Rams-Seahawks game
Posted by Josh Alper on October 19, 2014

Getty Images

Near the end of the Rams’ 28-26 victory over the Seahawks on Sunday, there was a play that looked like it might give the Seahawks one last chance at winning the game.

Rams running back Tre Mason fumbled the ball after running for a first down that would effectively end the game and a massive scrum of players went after the ball for quite a while before officials ruled that the Rams would retain possession of the ball.

Some have questioned why the play wasn’t reviewed as it looked like the Seahawks may have recovered and NFL spokesman Michael Signora explained in an email to PFT that there was no need to stop the game based on the video evidence of the play.

“The play was reviewed by NFL Vice President of Officiating Dean Blandino in NFL GameDay Central in New York. Because there was no video evidence of a clear recovery by either St. Louis or Seattle, the call on the field of a St. Louis recovery would stand. As a result, there was no need to stop the game. By rule, a fumble that occurs after the two-minute warning may only be advanced by the player who fumbled, so the ball was returned to the spot of the St. Louis fumble.”

The Rams took a knee from there to cap their victory.
--------
Wait — you mean the Rams actually got a favorable call???
Betcha Pete Carroll will stew about this for years. “Unfair! Unfair!”

 

[Mojo Ram]

^ Tough shit
http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-ra...-play-jared-cook-called-for-pass-interference

 

[RamBill]

Inside Slant: Seahawks-Rams review wouldn't have mattered, but ...
By Kevin Seifert

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/p...eahawks-rams-review-wouldnt-have-mattered-but

Our weekly attempt to expose and explore the gray area involved in officiating NFL games. Sunday suggestions welcome via Twitter (@SeifertESPN). For all Inside Slant posts, including the weekly Officiating Review, follow this link.

Play: No official review after the St. Louis Rams were ruled to have recovered their own fumble on the penultimate play of their 28-26 victory against the Seattle Seahawks.

Referee: Brad Allen
Analysis: Rams running back Tre Mason fumbled after converting a game-clinching first down. Teammate and tight end Cory Harkey fell first on the ball, but a large pileup soon formed. Allen's crew ruled a recovery by the Rams, who then quickly lined up for a final kneel-down before replay official Jim Lapetina -- who has complete control over instant replay in the final two minutes -- could initiate a review.

This type of play became eligible for review this season under the so-called "NaVorro Bowman" example. (Bowman's apparent fumble recovery against the Seahawks in the NFC Championship Game was not reviewable at the time.) The NFL's official play-by-play credits Harkey for the recovery, but a replay broadcast before the Rams' final kneel-down made clear he lost control of the ball prior to the pileup. The ball was last seen underneath Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman, who told reporters he maintained possession under the pile and assumed he would be credited with a recovery that would have given the Seahawks' offense one final chance to win the game.

In the end, none of the angles shown on the Fox broadcast provided indisputable evidence of the recovery. NFL vice president of officiating Dean Blandino tweeted that he reviewed the call in New York and that there was "no evidence of who recovered the ball."

It doesn't appear that the outcome would have changed had Lapetina initiated a review, but watching the sequence of events live suggested the NFL was more fortunate in this case than it was efficient. Did Lapetina know in real time that there was no angle to support a credible review? I suppose it's possible. Still, I don't think many of us would have argued against a 60-second stoppage of play to evaluate a game-changing call at the end of a two-point game just to make sure.

 

[RamFan503]

Wait a minute. Dick said he secured the ball? Well that's enough for me.

Last I saw the ball it disappeared between his legs with Harkey reaching for it. You know that means Harkey had a clear shot at the ball because there ain't nothing getting in the way there.

 

[Thordaddy]

Wait a minute. Dick said he secured the ball? Well that's enough for me.

Last I saw the ball it disappeared between his legs with Harkey reaching for it. You know that means Harkey had a clear shot at the ball because there ain't nothing getting in the way there.

And maybe a shot at the balls too,shit happens at the bottom of those piles

 

[iced]

Kevin Seifert - that's not a biased source at all

This type of play became eligible for review this season under the so-called "NaVorro Bowman" example. (Bowman's apparent fumble recovery against the Seahawks in the NFC Championship Game was not reviewable at the time.) The NFL's official play-by-play credits Harkey for the recovery, but a replay broadcast before the Rams' final kneel-down made clear he lost control of the ball prior to the pileup. The ball was last seen underneath Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman, who told reporters he maintained possession under the pile and assumed he would be credited with a recovery that would have given the Seahawks' offense one final chance to win the game.

And Corey harkey claims he and Mike Person were fighting over it.

truth is no one will truly know except for those officials and the guys in the pile.

Atleast its not a blatantly obvious, game changing screw up type of call - like the Jared Cook OPI last week that the NFL said was wrong...

 

[jrry32]

Richard Sherman is full of shit. He dove on the ball, Cook grabbed him and pinned his arms down so he couldn't get the ball, the ball was possessed by no one in the video and Cory Harkey came out of the pile with it. Personally, I don't see Sherman being able to break free of Cook's bearhug with all the bodies around him. Nor did he come up with the football.

 

[thirteen28]

As I wrote on another thread:

I know I'm a homer, but there is no conclusive replay. The closest that Sherman ever got was to have the ball rattling around between his knees. If that counts as possession, then Harkey's initial falling on the ball is possession just as well. At the end, he came out of the pile with it, and that's the only conclusive thing about the whole ordeal.
And Sherman? About the ball being between your knees ... well, you should keep company with the waitress in this iconic Jack Nicholson scene from Five Easy Pieces:

 

[RamFan503]

Richard Sherman is full of crap. .

Nuthin' more to say.

 

[Rams Until I Die]

Posted a couple of articles saying the same thing on my Facebook and Hawks fans are losing their minds. Love it!!

 

[Leuzer]

After looking at the replay of the fumble many times, I do actually believe Harkey came up the ball.
Take a look at the video on NFL.com of that play. At the 1:13 mark in the video, Dick Sherman is being swarmed by Rams and Cook has Sherman's arm collapsed against body. The ball is still between Dick's legs and he can only use his right arm to grab it. At that point he rolls over and the scrap begins. Then, take a look at the very end where the ref grabs the football from the pile to place it back where the fumble occurred. Notice where he is when he grabs the ball at the 45 second mark of the video. He is right beside Harkey. And finally at the 49 seconds in we see Harkey on his back where the official grabbed the ball and on top of him was Person protecting Harkey from getting the ball taken away.

Also, the NFL rule states that once a fumble enters a pile of players, there cannot be a review, because the continuous observation of the ball is lost.

AND THAT IS WHY THE RAMS LEGITIMATELY BEAT THE SEAHAWKS.

 

[thirteen28]

Posted a couple of articles saying the same thing on my Facebook and Hawks fans are losing their minds. Love it!!

Keep letting 'em have it!

 

[apatl187]

Hey Seahawks fans

 

[Rams Until I Die]

Keep letting 'em have it!

Oh I am!

 

[kurtfaulk]

The ball was last seen underneath Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman, who told reporters he maintained possession under the pile and assumed he would be credited with a recovery that would have given the Seahawks' offense one final chance to win the game.

why would he lie to the world when it would be so obvious on video that he never even touched the ball?

.

 

[thirteen28]

The ball was last seen underneath Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman, who told reporters he maintained possession under the pile and assumed he would be credited with a recovery that would have given the Seahawks' offense one final chance to win the game.

why would he lie to the world when it would be so obvious on video that he never even touched the ball?

.

Because he's Richard Sherman.

 

[RamBall]

The ball was last seen underneath Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman, who told reporters he maintained possession under the pile and assumed he would be credited with a recovery that would have given the Seahawks' offense one final chance to win the game.

why would he lie to the world when it would be so obvious on video that he never even touched the ball?

.

Why would he not be excited about the recovery had he really recovered it? No shecocks players acted as if they had recovered the fumble, they actually appeared dejected at the missed opportunity.

 

[Prime Time]

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/10/21/nfl-week-7-mailbag-seahawks-rams-fumble-call/

Dilip Vishwanat/Getty Images

The Week 7 Mailbag
Revisiting the controversial fumble late in the Seahawks-Rams game. Plus, answering your questions about the rugby star's NFL dream, Peyton Manning's inflated numbers and the sunshine problem at the Cowboys' AT&T Stadium
By Peter King

Many of you wrote in Monday to ask about the fumble at the end of Rams-Seahawks, the miscue that infuriated Seattle and had a huge effect on the outcome of the game, a 28-26 St. Louis victory. I spoke to the NFL officiating czar, Dean Blandino, on Monday for clarification, so let’s delve into that atop the mailbag.

The situation: Rams up 28-26, 1:14 left in the fourth quarter, third-and-one for St. Louis at the Rams 45. Seattle had no timeouts left. The Seahawks needed a stop here or the game would be over. On the play, Rams running back Tre Mason burst through the line for nine yards, then had the ball punched out of his grasp. The ball bounced forward, and there was a wild chase and attempt to recover the ball.

I watched the replay several times Monday, from different angles. At first, it appeared the Rams would recover it easily, but it bounced away from a Ram and there was a pigpile for it. Richard Sherman had the ball between his legs at one point, as he was down on all fours, but there was never evidence that Sherman possessed the ball–in other words, he didn’t have possession with his hands or arms. And then a blizzard of bodies surrounded Sherman and rooted around for the ball. When the officials went in to try to find out who recovered it, they ruled that St. Louis tight end Cory Harkey had it and awarded the Rams the ball.

Now, inside two minutes of each half, all questionable plays are handled by the replay booth—and, this year, the centralized replay system in the NFL’s New York office contributes a fresh set of eyes. So after the ref, Brad Allen, made his call on the field, the replay official, Jim Lapetina, and the New York crew led by Blandino and his second set of eyes there, Alberto Riveron, began to look at the call.

If, before the next play begins, either the replay official or the New York officiating center believes more time is needed to determine whether the ruling on the field is correct, they call for a stoppage of play, and a replay review is initiated. But in this case, Blandino said he looked at two replays of the play and never could see a clear recovery.

“If there’s no video of a clear recovery before it goes into the pile,” Blandino said, “then there’s nothing that replay can do. There’s no angle that would show you what’s happening at the bottom of the pile. You need to see clear possession of a fumble before the ball goes into the pile, and you never had that here. In the pile, two Rams players had possession of the ball, and the officials rule blue ball. [The Rams were wearing blue.]”

To clarify: Yes, it’s a reviewable play. But if the replay official or centralized replay in New York had seen any evidence of a recovery, the game would have been stopped and a full replay review initiated. They just never saw that evidence. Said Blandino: “It’s reviewable as to who recovered the ball. If there was evidence Sherman possessed the ball, there would have been a review, but we saw no evidence of that. We reviewed the play, and both Al and I were watching it, running it back and forth, and we didn’t see any evidence of a clear recovery.”

Blandino and Lapetina would have saved some face and done a good PR thing if they’d just stopped play and started an official review. But they had no way of knowing if would become a cause célèbre. Either way, there’s little to no chance the play would have been changed and the ball handed to Seattle.

 

[LumberTubs]

"The ball was last seen underneath Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman."

Yeah and it was under about three or four other players at the same time, none of whom had possession. If the roles had been reversed here and it was a Shewhores player who'd fumbled while trying to close out a two point lead over the Rams, you can bet your big fat hairy ass that the media wouldn't be banging on about this two days later because their beloved Super Bowl champs wouldn't have lost.

 

[DaveFan'51]

Atleast its not a blatantly obvious, game changing screw up type of call - like the Jared Cook OPI last week that the NFL said was wrong...

I just wonder if this had anything to do with the fact we only had 2 penalties called on us the entire game!?!